# MarcUK rewrites inflationary theory!

Posts: 286member
My problem with your theory is a rather simple one, I'm afraid. If I've understood your graphic correctly, big bang happened 8B years ago. To explain stars being 15B you are proposing a negative time, right?

But by definition at Big Bang all matter was a single point, so there were no stars around. So in the forward time (ie now) any negative time a star accumulated would have been 'lost' in a sense (as the star ceased to exist at big bang).

So there is still the problem of stars appearing to be 15B, and the Universe 8B.

David
Posts: 4,442member
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMac David

My problem with your theory is a rather simple one, I'm afraid. If I've understood your graphic correctly, big bang happened 8B years ago. To explain stars being 15B you are proposing a negative time, right?

But by definition at Big Bang all matter was a single point, so there were no stars around. So in the forward time (ie now) any negative time a star accumulated would have been 'lost' in a sense (as the star ceased to exist at big bang).

So there is still the problem of stars appearing to be 15B, and the Universe 8B.

David

no! what you aren't understanding is that just because the inflation of the big bang happens in 'reverse' time, then when gravity flips and thus time runs forwards, doesn't mean that everything is lost as it retraces itself back to the same point of singularity it came from.

I knew making the analogy 'forwards' and 'backwards' time would bit me on the ass!. If you know Hawkins, then his model is that everything from the singularity is forward time, whatever the direction - like everywhere is South, when standing at the north pole. I am proposing that when gravity originally was repellant, then time ran on a different axis, not forward or backwards, just opposite to what is is now - like if you stood on the North pole, but travelled South through the Americas - Its still South, but a far different route than travelling South through Europe and Africa. Therefore the amount of time after the singularity is correct if we measure through the centre of the Earch between the poles - its the shortest distance - and this tells us the minimum age the universe can be - But Im proposing that the real (absolute age of the universe) is longer, because time didn't take the shortest route between the poles, but travelled along a differnt path - analogous to travelling North to South over the surface of the Earth.
Posts: 4,442member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Hey Marc...

Fuck Billco.

(I wonder what that guy looks like, btw?)

what a sad git! If he's the pinnacle of Scientific exploratory thought, God help us.

I managed 4 posts before I got a likely ban
Posts: 1,109member
LOL...a rude old fart he is. I've seen more personality in a betta fish.

At least you stayed true to your AI roots and gave a quick personal attack. I was actually hoping you'd throw in a Cunt Jesus reference in there. That would have gotten the 'ol bones going...
Posts: 4,442member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

LOL...a rude old fart he is. I've seen more personality in a betta fish.

At least you stayed true to your AI roots and gave a quick personal attack. I was actually hoping you'd throw in a Cunt Jesus reference in there. That would have gotten the 'ol bones going...

yes, exporting the culture of AI everywhere.

Indeed they do have a religion section, I wonder how well Cunt Jesus would go down in there
Posts: 8,395member
Interesting hypothesis Marc but where's the evidence? Where are the independent predictions based on your model? Don't get me wrong...it was a fun read and it is definitely intriguing but it can't go beyond that without evidence. We don't want to stumble into the realm of belief without evidence. I think we know how you feel about that.
Posts: 1,490member
Quote:

At least you stayed true to your AI roots and gave a quick personal attack.

Posts: 4,442member
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR

Interesting hypothesis Marc but where's the evidence? Where are the independent predictions based on your model? Don't get me wrong...it was a fun read and it is definitely intriguing but it can't go beyond that without evidence. We don't want to stumble into the realm of belief without evidence. I think we know how you feel about that.

BR, if I had my time again, I would have gone to Cosmology school and learned how to write scholorly papers and how to do the math, and then I would be able to provide the evidence.

Unfortunately all I can do is what I have done, which is to read as much as possible, understand the problems in the current model, learn how the laws of nature work, and suggest how these problems might be resolved whilst trying to be consistant to scientific methodology within my capabilities.

It was just a bit of fun. If I stumbled across something, then hopefully by showing the world, then someone who has the ability to take it further would come across it and do so, and if it is the mindless drivel of an idiot - It doesn't matter and I dont care, life goes on and tomorrow I start again and try to make a better idea.

I think it does predict something though. It predicts that gravity and time are explictly related like electricity and magnetism is. We know that gravity and time are related - Im saying that time is a 'directly proportional byproduct of the polarity of gravity', and you cant have one without the other. This is testable.

If Science would tomorrow prove that wrong. Great. If it proves that right, you can come to the ceremony with Hassan.
Posts: 4,442member
for those of us crazy enough to follow this thread it seems like I have p3wnD the lot of them over at the science forum . See my post in this thread

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...?p=35767#35767

Morans. Let me know if anyone knows where there's a serious Scientific forum, where them menbers have functioning brains. I could do with some stimulating conversation.
Posts: 1,109member
Billco = director of NASA (1969)
Posts: 8,123member
So MarcUK Bilco is not a serious scientist ?
Posts: 599member
Heya Mark,

I couldn't be bothered making an account over at scienceforum but perhaps you could run this by them...

If the hammer and feather are diametrically opposed (as you suggested) wouldn't the gravity of the hammer also be affecting the feather, causing it to accelerate faster towards the moon?

Woudn't that negate the advantage the hammer had gained by moving the moon closer to it?

It seems to me that the feather might actually strike first as the hammer's pull on the feather would be stronger than it's pull on the moon with a net gain in favor of the feather.
Posts: 4,442member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^

Heya Mark,

I couldn't be bothered making an account over at scienceforum but perhaps you could run this by them...

If the hammer and feather are diametrically opposed (as you suggested) wouldn't the gravity of the hammer also be affecting the feather, causing it to accelerate faster towards the moon?

Woudn't that negate the advantage the hammer had gained by moving the moon closer to it?

It seems to me that the feather might actually strike first as the hammer's pull on the feather would be stronger than it's pull on the moon with a net gain in favor of the feather.

That is a really 'class' argument. Brilliant thinking! Im at work now, I'll run it by them when I get home tonight - and it gives me a few hours to think about it.
Posts: 8,395member
The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. You can't just add the effects as if they were the same distance apart. If the hammer is the same distance away from the moon as the feather is to the moon, the feather is twice as far away from the hammer than the moon and thus the force of gravity is four times weaker.

So to answer Aslan's question: no.

I actually ran some calculations really quickly to see the acceleration due to gravity from the various objects involved:

If we were to place the hammer, moon, and feather all in a line like so:

hammer------------MOON------------feather

The moon is 1770km in radius approximately so I used 2000km from the center of the moon for the placement of both objects to make the numbers nicer. I also said a hammer weighed 1kg (2.2lbs) and the feather weighed 0.01kg.

The hammer feels an acceleration to the right from the Moon and the feather. The formula is:

Accel due to Gravity = Gravitational Constant * mass of source / radius^2.

So the Accel from the Moon on the hammer 2000km away is 1.23 m/s^2 and the accel from the from the feather on the hammer 4000km away is 4.17 * 10^-26 m/s^2.

The Accel from the Moon on the feather to the left is the same 1.23 m/s^2 and the accel from the hammer on the feather 4000km away is 4.17 * 10^-24 m/s^2.

Now, the moon is being pulled in opposite directions from the feather and hammer so the accel to the left from the hammer's gravity field is 1.67 * 10^-23 m/s^2 and to the right from the feather is 1.67 * 10^-25 m/s^2 for a net accel 1.65 * 10^-23 m/s^2 to the left. The moon accelerating to the left is just like the hammer approaching at that acceleration and the feather receding at that acceleration. So, let's add that to the totals thus allowing us to pretend the moon is sitting still.

Net effective accel of hammer to the right: 1.227 + 1.65417 * 10^-23 m/s^2

Net effective accel of feather to the left: 1.227 - 1.233 * 10^-23 m/s^2

See how the square of the distance affects things?

Of course, since the Gravitational constant is TINY as well as the mass of the moon being quite large, you saw how freaking small the effects of the hammer and feather compared to the moon itself were. For all intents and purposes, both of them fall at 1.227 m/s^2 and hit at the same time.
Posts: 11member
Hello, is safe for a lady to to appear here? Can I comment that the suggestion in the first post is refuted by Stephen Hawking? - Not being a Theoretical Astro-physicist myself I would not know which of you is correct. Also the latest 'age of the iniverse is around 15.755Bn Yrs (Nasa this week) ,so my man tells me. Though it seems to be getting older by the day, (pun intended). If the article is 'dodgy' in any sense I'd just ignore it. Apologies if the Author is reading this, Have you sent it to Stephen? - No reply? Never mind... Perhaps next time.
Posts: 4,442member
Alas, I have learned something I guess I knew all the time. If you cant 'prove' the hypothesis, then the idea is essentially worthless. Too bad the world works this way, but it is this way for a reason, and is something I have infact strongly argued for - so I have to accept it whether I like it or not.

Personally, im not trying to overthrow current theories - as I believe they are essentially correct, what I am trying to do is look at the current theories though a differernt Perspective and see if they can be resolved in a different manner that might give us some useful insight, whilst still holding to the laws we currently accept.

It is probably because Im arguing from a position of ignorance, that I dont see that my theory changes anything thats already well established, except (possibly, hopefully) giving a deeper understanding of what happens/has happened on the most fundamental level.

I'd guess that as our understandind is refined, we will continue to age the universe longer and longer, infact, essentially I have faith that although the big bang happened, we will eventually age the universe as infinite, while we also find that is does not exist at all from its own perspective.
Posts: 4,841member
As with any theories on creation, all is speculation with tiny amounts of evidence. Like god, really.
Posts: 4,442member
there was a greek philosopher who believed that the solution to any problem could be found with purely mental thought alone. Trouble is I cant remember his name. Anyone?...