V838 a cosmicray materialization & BigBang without explosion Uh Oh -- Supernovae that Don't Explode

**Double-A**

(volantus4) wrote in message om...
The "Big Bang Theory" is impossible according to theories proposed by
Aristotle in his work "Physics" in which he reasonably and forecably
argued that within a finite time (big bang) you could not create an
infinite amount of space and/or space and/or space that could only be
traversed through an infinite amount of time.
C.V. Compton Shaw, B.S. Biochemistry

Most advocates of the Big Bang consider space to be finite, which
would be in agreement with Aristotle's argument.

Double-A

**Archimedes Plutonium**

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Double-A wrote:

(volantus4) wrote in message om...
The "Big Bang Theory" is impossible according to theories proposed by
Aristotle in his work "Physics" in which he reasonably and forecably
argued that within a finite time (big bang) you could not create an
infinite amount of space and/or space and/or space that could only be
traversed through an infinite amount of time.
C.V. Compton Shaw, B.S. Biochemistry

I am guessing that you pulled that from Plato's and Aristotle's work on
finite compared to infinite processes such as the tortoise-- rabbit race
paradox. Their interest in mathematics of the finite compared to
infinite. Not sure of what sort of Cosmology was believed in during the
time of Plato and Aristotle. Whether they universalized their "ideal forms"
and " being/becoming."

I do know from an English author of about 1930's wrote a small book
on the Atomic theory and he mentions that Democritus may have thought
the entire Universe was one big atom. I do not know where the author
had any evidence or reference to such a claim for I understand that none of Democritus works survived.

Most advocates of the Big Bang consider space to be finite, which
would be in agreement with Aristotle's argument.

Double-A

Most would agree it is finite. But if they truly believed it then they would
automatically have to submit to knowing what the geometry is. Since a
Big Bang being finite would have to be not Euclidean and not
Lobachevskian but has to be Riemannian. And according to our
observations to date, the Universe appears flat Euclidean. The electrons
of atoms seem to require a flat Euclidean 3 dimensional space.
Some experiments have indicated that electrons require this
Euclidean space. I understand some Harvard professor has spent a
lifetime working on inflationary models for the Big Bang in order to
get a flat space. Whereas all he really needed to know is that an Atom
Totality theory must have the electrons create space and since electrons
must be 3-dimensional Euclidean, then you have the geometry solved.

The AtomTotality theory is both finite and infinite and
has not just one geometry but all three geometries simultaneously.

I suppose the Nucleus of any given atom is Riemannian geometry and the
electrons as electron-dot-clouds is Euclidean which leaves only Lobachevskian.
Where is Lobachevskian geometry in a atom? I am not quite sure about that.
Whether the Loba geometry of a typical atom is the geometry of nodes of
an atom?

There is a easy solution for the problem of packing-geometries. An easy way
of having 3 geometries simultaneously. It is something I suggested in sci.math
in the early 1990s and Karl Heuer responded by saying "no". I believe and still
believe that Loba and Riemannian geometries when put together forms
Euclidean geometry in a algebra such as this:

Loba + Riem = Eucl

Such that geometry is a feature of physics where you start with Eucl geometry and if the symmetry is broken
or shattered, it breaks up into Loba and Riem
geometries.

And so what I think is that the space of electrons -- our observable universe --
is Loba geometry but the space occupied by the Nucleus is Riem and when
you add the two together the entire thing becomes Eucl geometry.

That the entire subject of geometry becomes a subdepartment of physics in
the topic of broken symmetry. Just as the Forces of physics all become just
one force wherein Coulomb is the perfect force -- Eucl geometry but when
you break the symmetry of Coulomb such as in the nuclear region you have
StrongNuclear + WeakNuclear and that these two nuclear Coulombs are the
analog of Riem + Loba. So, not only does the mathematics of geometry
become a physics exercise of symmetrybreaking but also the Forces of physics
is just an exercise of symmetrybreaking.

Karl Heuer circa 1994 did not like that idea of Riem + Loba. Not sure why he
frowned on it. For I seem to remember vaguely where Karl came up with a few
examples of where Riem + Loba appeared to make a Eucl space.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
V838 a cosmicray materialization & BigBang without explosion UhOh -- Supernovae that Don't Explode	The Commentator	Physics - General Discussion	0	July 8th 03 07:46 AM
V838 a cosmicray materialization & BigBang without explosion (was Uh Oh -- Supernovae that Don't Explode)	Joseph Lazio	Physics - General Discussion	0	July 8th 03 01:31 AM
V838 a cosmicray materialization & BigBang without explosion Uh Oh -- Supernovae that Don't Explode	Double-A	Physics - General Discussion	1	July 7th 03 07:59 PM
V838 a cosmicray materialization & BigBang without explosion UhOh -- Supernovae that Don't Explode	Archimedes Plutonium	Physics - General Discussion	1	July 7th 03 08:26 AM
V838 a cosmicray materialization & BigBang without explosion UhOh -- Supernovae that Don't Explode	Archimedes Plutonium	Electromagnetic Theory and Applications	1	July 7th 03 08:26 AM