williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (09/13/84)
I am posting a response to a letter I received concerning one of my previous articles. I was not sure whether posting someone else's private message was ethical, so I left him anonymous. I also intend to post this to net.physics ( much as I try to avoid multiple postings ) to see if I can encourage some response. I don't think you will find this one of those `` first glance '' postings, and that it may require some thinking. It is based upon a theory of mine which I call Historical Relativity. It accounts for black holes, and how we may actually reside within something that was one prior to the big bang. Thus begins: >> I believe you are forgetting the definition that most people use >> for universe. There can be nothing "outside the universe" >> because there is no "outside the universe." The Big Bang (or >> start of the inflationary universe, depending on which theory you >> subscribe to) does not imply any "outside." The universe, when >> smaller, was not contained in a bigger somewhere; the universe >> con- tained all--by definition. As for god, if you are talking >> about a controlling, theistic god, you are creating more problems >> than you solve (except perhaps for certain per- sonality >> disorders :-). If god is outside the universe And there is >> nothing outside the universe god doesn't exist. > What do you propose we call that which is outside the > universe? OR . . . What do you propose we call that which is > contained within our event horizon? I will try to demonstrate a > finite yet unbounded entity to you. > Imagine a gravity field in space that is so strong, that > no particle may escape it. The amount of mass in this entity is > enormous ( billions 'n' billions <sagan> ). The escape velocity > for this mass exceeds the speed of light. The time dilation > effect makes the internal clock extremely slow. As a particle > moves from the center of the mass, it's time scale starts to > speed up. As it reaches it's apex, it is doing so much faster > relative to the center, and turns around to go in the other side > so that the amount of time it took relative to the center is > proportionate to the amount of time it might take if it had > simply disappeared and reappeared on the other side. The time > passes much more slowly inside one of these entities, so that > anything that occurs outside happens relatively much faster. > Inside, there would be no way of knowing where the center is, due > to the way the time dilation effects would alter your > observations. Assuming that matter has the same repulsive force > inside as that which caused the BIG BANG, this entity would be > exploding, but at a much slower rate, relatively, as to be > virtually unobservable. > What I have tried to explain to you is an unstable > quantum called a black hole. The comparison one can make with the > universe is compelling. It is possible that the characteristics > of stabile quanta are determined by the harmony of such unstable > quanta within gravity fields and being observed essentially from > outside. There is an inherent instability with the universe, > particles are waves, oscillations. What is inside a quanta can > never escape except in the presence of external influence. > Happy Digestion. > The universe works, somehow. > ----{ john williams}---- I am not sure whether this discussion belongs in net.philosophy, but I feel that it is important to note that something residing outside the `` universe '' is a strong possibility. It is interesting to consider what a finite, unbounded entity might look like to an outside observer. It is also interesting to consider what makes subatomic particles unstable. The idea of stable quanta ( or unstable, for that matter ) depends very strongly on relativity. Is it possible that time provides a sort of hysteresis between two opposing forces so they oscillate? One force would be gravity. What would the other force be? I subscribe to both net.philosophy -and- net.physics. Any responses are welcome. < man's greatest mistakes occur when he over estimates the privileges GOD has given him > ----{ john williams }---- (DEC E-NET) KIRK::WILLIAMS (UUCP) {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-kirk!williams (ARPA) williams%kirk.DEC@decwrl.ARPA williams%kirk.DEC@Purdue-Merlin.ARPA
williams@kirk.DEC (John Williams 223-3402) (05/01/85)
> 3- the universe has finite age, but no first moment. > It may be distasteful to some, but need not contradict the assumption > that each moment has a predecessor. It's extremely difficult for > the vast majority of humans (me included) to hypothesize the > difficulties of such problems. Anyone who's ever checked out > texts on general relativity is aware of how bizarre and unintuitive > regions near black (or white, I suppose, in this case) holes can be. > Following a timelike path backwards towards the initial discontinuity > would be analogous to asymptotically approaching an unreachable point, > assuming you could go backwards thru time in the first place. > Can anyone out there who understands general relativity comment? > Is there such a thing as a person who understands general relativity? > -michael Yes. This is possible. It requires that the universe be continuous with laws that apply irrespective of scale. Einstein was not too far off the track, according to many current theories, is stating that the universe was finite and unbounded, and spherical in shape. The current theories indicate that the universe is curved, ( the known universe, that is ) but is not curved enough to completely curve in on itself. The comparison between the known universe and black holes are compelling. It is possible that black holes are actually smaller universes that are exploding, but virtually unobservable because of the time dilation effect. This introduces the idea of a force opposing gravity that, because of time dilation, causes the universe to be an unstable oscillator in certain regions, regardless of scale. In other words, the curvature of space in the known universe is simply a localized region in the grander scheme of things. John.