Donald Hamilton wrote:

Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big Bang?


How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Your question is speculative and therefore unanswerable.

John Anderson

wrote:
Donald Hamilton wrote:

Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big Bang?



How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Your question is speculative and therefore unanswerable.

John Anderson

Dale Trynor wrote:
No John you are wrong this is something experimentally testable.
Donald have you seen my arguments for an experimental approach to
showing how time dilation of the sort one gets with gravity and black
holes can be shown to expand the space around objects etc.
If you come to understand this you will quickly see that such arguments
where black holes becomes universe like, then what sort of arguments can
one use to explain why our universe has a different origin without
becoming unreasonable.
Dale

Dale Trynor wrote:

wrote:
Donald Hamilton wrote:

Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big Bang?



How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Your question is speculative and therefore unanswerable.

John Anderson

Dale Trynor wrote:
No John you are wrong this is something experimentally testable.

How?

Back up your assertion!

John Anderson

wrote:
Dale Trynor wrote:

wrote:

Donald Hamilton wrote:


Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big Bang?



How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Your question is speculative and therefore unanswerable.

John Anderson

Dale Trynor wrote:
No John you are wrong this is something experimentally testable.


How?

Back up your assertion!

John Anderson

Dale Trynor wrote:
This alternative theory while somewhat ignored has been posted in
sci.physics for over a year now with no real refutation. Here is an
edited re-posting on the latest idea for an experimental approach,
hopefully written so that anyone can understand it, to testing the
theory and its not the only one.


Have you seen my postings looking at ways to show how gravitational time
dilation must end up equaling more space because of the way objects are
predicted to contract in the theory ( not to be confused with Lorentz
contraction that involves relative speed ) giving one a shorter ruler to
measure what would have been originally thought to be the same space,
however instead resulting in more space as a result.

Basically it also hypothesizes that objects starting on parallel paths
in free fall into deeper parts of a gravitational well, where the time
dilation is also more, will tend to expand apart from the frame of
reference of the co moving observers. The problem is that because
objects will tend to move together because they must be also be
attracted to a common point where ones center of gravity is involved,
they will tend to move toward each other as a result swamping out the
space expansion effects making this effect somewhat more difficult to
look for.

To review.
A spherical object like a planet cases objects to travel towords a
single point in the middle such as if you were to drop an object at the
equator and the poles, the two objects must travel towords each other
and no mater how close we place the objects we can only make it a
smaller factor and never eliminate it.

Fortunately if one were to have a cylindrical mass we would then have
the one axis where this common point of attraction is no longer a
problem and where along the length of the massive object we would not
have this common point where any theorized space expansion would now be
more easily observed. It may otherwise still be an observable effect
with spherical masses but the methodology would be somewhat more
challenging and defiantly not suitable for simplified gedankens.

The theory predicts that if we were to have 2 cubes 1 cm diameter placed
side by side and were to drop them into an orbit where the time dilation
is also 1/2 of our time, that the cubes will have contracted by 50% of
their diameters. The cubes would have appeared to have traveled apart to
the prospective of our local co moving observers by an amount that would
allow an equally sized cube to fit neatly between them.
Do note that our close up observers will now measure their 1 cm by 1/2
of what we would have measured to be 1 cm. The external observer would
only see the cubes shrink by 1/2 of all their diameters, meaning that to
them, the cubes will not have moved at all but will simply have
contracted in volume by 8 times less.

To review
The cubes were 1 cm but on contracting around a common point to 5mm will
have moved away by only 2.5mm if we only concern ourselves with where
the faces of the original cube was, but now note that the opposite cube
will also have gone through the same process and also contracted giving
a total of 5mm separation between the cubes. Now note that our co moving
travelers are now using a 1cm measure that is now also 5mm long that to
him is still indistinguishable from 1cm.

The co moving observer on the other hand will see this effect as the
blocks actually physically moving apart. Its to be noted that inside of
a space ship that is fixed, it would only appear as if the blocks were
simply moving apart and such observers would not necessarily assume that
this extra distance were actually the result of more actual space. Note
the similaritys here to the way space expansion is described when
referring to why galaxys do not expand apart.

Reduction to practice of such an experiment is obviously difficult but
you asked for at least one experimental approach and this must qualify.
Dale