Comments for Inflation & Gravity

Comment on QUANTUM MECHANICAL CONSIDERATIONS by MaZe741

MaZe741 — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:00:49 +0000

This section about the tendency of waves seeking harmonic stability is extremely fascinating.

can it somehow be aligned to the tendency of the universe to increase its entropy? it seems like the urge to stabilize harmonically would reduce the entropy instead of increasing it, however my knowledge about this topic is extremely weak. just an input.

Comment on THE GALACTIC ENERGY CYCLE by Sydney James

Sydney James — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:37:31 +0000

You make a fine argument. In examining the E cycle we should look for symbols that are common to us. This is why mother and father are used so effectively in myth. We can use this again here if we take the background field to be the mother and the aether or dark matter her womb full of infinite possibilities. Along comes the father in the form of the organizer or plant who encodes maybe something as simple as a ratio from what all else is concieved.

The two together create the Son or Word. I am not a christian but can appreciate the use of these symbols.

I do think you need the two aspects to ‘create’. This does make an infinte field of anti matter or spacetime all the more probable.

Whether there is something or someone who set everything in motion is impossible to say beyond faith. There is another alternative that the omniverse itself is consciousness in its purest form and this is why we have the selfsustaining cosmos of infinite expression but common laws do persist but only on a relative level.

Comment on Black Holes and Other Massive Objects by Pierre

Pierre — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:29:14 +0000

Hi Boet,
I presume that you have read the section on gravity which defines gravity as the absorbtion of space by mass. Because space is a fabric of electromagnetic standing waves it is subject to any warp (density)factors that any other medium would be subjected to … in this case the Doppler effect of Special relativity, which describes the warping of space due to mass moving THROUGH space, compared to General Relativity which defines the warpedness (density) of space due to mass ABSORBING space (causing isodensity concentric rings around the mass)
Both Special and General relativity thus warp the density of space; the one in front of the mass (Special as result of Doppler) and around mass (General as result of space absorption)
If you were at the interface between the mass and the condensed space, you would have no way of knowing whether the mass was travelling at speed into space or whether space was being absorbed at that same rate because of the size of the body.
Now take this to the extreme speeds near the speed of light and you have the ultimate space gobbler (black Hole) absorbing space at nearly the speed of light or from your interface perspective you could be on a mass travelling at nearly the speed of light. You would not know the difference and quite frankly there would not BE a difference because the mass of whatever you as interface observer were standing on would increase from the energy having to be put into it to reach that speed. It is this equivalence that I was referring to …
My contention is that neither situation (mass travelling at the speed of light or a black hole from which light cannot escape) is possible. Other processes like radiation and particle emissions will take over before this “singularity” is reached. My definition of a black hole is thus the largest mass accumulation (or density) possible. This EXCLUDES the criterion of light not being able to escape which is an impossibility.
hope that helps and thanks for your question.

Comment on Black Holes and Other Massive Objects by Andre Hugo

Andre Hugo — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:29:23 +0000

Hi Stoks. I don’t understand at this point why saying that radiation can’t escape a black hole is equivent to saying that mass CAN travel at c.