Relativity and Cosmology

1809 Submissions

[19] viXra:1809.0374 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-20 02:13:47

One Way Speed Of Light Based on Wineland's Laser Cooling Experiment

Authors: Eric Su
Comments: 2 Pages.

Based on David Wineland's experiment in 1978, a laser beam points at an electromagnetcally trapped magnesium ion. The frequency of the laser light in the rest frame of the laser becomes a different frequency in the rest frame of the ion. If this new frequency matches the absorption frequency of the ion, the light will be absorbed by the ion. The wavelength is independent of reference frame. Therefore, the faster the ion moves toward the laser, the higher the frequency detected by the ion will be.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[18] viXra:1809.0372 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-20 03:08:59

A Wrong Formula of Fizeau

Authors: Emil Gigov
Comments: 1 Page.

The experiment of Fizeau has nothing to do with the theory of relativity.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[17] viXra:1809.0366 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-18 08:41:11

The World Lines of a Dust Collapsar

Authors: Trevor W. Marshall
Comments: 12 Pages.

In a previous article it was shown that the end state for the dust metric of Oppenheimer and Snyder has most of its mass concentrated just inside the gravitational radius; it is proposed that the resulting object be considered as an idealized shell collapsar. Here the treatment is extended to include the family of interior metrics described by Choquet-Bruhat. The end state is again a shell collapsar, and its structure depends on the density pro…le at the beginning of the collapse. What is lacking in most previous commentaries on the Oppenheimer- Snyder article is the recognition that Oppenheimer and Snyder matched the time coordinate at the surface, and that implies a …nite upper limit for the comoving time coordinate inside the collapsar. A collapse process having all the matter going inside the gravitational radius would require comoving times which go outside that upper limit.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[16] viXra:1809.0363 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-18 15:52:28

Origin of Universe, Theory of Everything and the Origin of Consciousness: Concepts of Existence Are Inherently Philosophically, Scientifically and Metaphysically Incomplete. HAWKING’S and GODEL’S Incompleteness.

Authors: Abed Peerally
Comments: 24 Pages. The eighth paper under theory of everything.

The series of nine articles by the author (vixra Peerally archives), of which this article is the sixth about the Theory of Everything, are meant to highlight that our currentscientific culture could soon have dramatic new openings, that will trigger science towards a far more productive potential than is generally believed. Hawking in his various writings harboured both optimism and pessimism about the Theory of Everything and the future of fundamental physics and mathematics, and a particularly thoughtful one is "Gödel and the end of physics". He was generally right in those view, for there is nothing in science and philosophy that will ever be proved to be final. The reason is that existence and the universe arose from precursors that cannot be seen to be final in terms of their physics and philosophy. In any case Hawking’s feeling is that Gödel’s theorem indicates that there is incompleteness is any concept, for example, Hawking said: “One can have a well-defined position, or a well-defined velocity, but not both.”…“This would seem to make complete determinism impossible. If one can't accurately define both the positions, and the velocities, of particles at one time, how can one predict what they will be in the future.” It is not quite why the behaviour should be an example for the whole of physics, but what he says makes sense. In p 2 come. The author’s publications, in addition, are his two posters about consciousness (Tucson Consciousness Conferences, 2016,2017) and two books that discuss the Theory of Everything and consciousness, for the issue of consciousness is a corner stone of existence. The objective of the author’s publications is to demonstrate that the various facets of the universe are capable of being encapsulated within a single philosophical and physical concept, the Ultimate Theory of Everything that agrees with Hawking’s later view that natural phenomena and existence fundamentally imply the property of incompletenesss. This final concept of existence is coming at the right time, in view of the wide range of mixed feelings on the scientific dreams of a final theory of existence. As the eminent physicist Steven Weinberg said, in his Dreams of a Final Theory, a really wonderful book to read: “We are on the track of something universalsomething that governs physical phenomena throughout the universesomething that we call the laws of nature. We do not want to discover a theory that is capable of describing all imaginable kinds of force among the particles of nature. Rather, we hope for a theory that rigidly will allow us to describe only those forces-gravitational, electroweak, and strong-that actually as it happens do exist. This kind of rigidity in our physical theories is part of what we recognise as beauty.”….. “As Abdus Salam has said, it is not particles or forces with which nature is sparing, but principles. The important thing is to have a set of simple and economical principles that explain why the particles are what they are. It is disturbing that we no not yet have a complete theory of the sort we want. But, when we do, it will not matter very much how many kinds of consequence of simple principles.” Weinberg then remarked “The creation of new physical principles is agony and apparently cannot be taught.” In fact, the Ultimate Theory of Everything will squarely meet Weinberg’s prescription, and will also widely opine about a large range of aspects of the universe and existence. Weinberg’s remark does however illustrate to what extent intellectual pursuits can be challenging, and Einstein did go through precisely this kind of agony, for he unsuccessfully devoted the last three decades of his life to the search of a theory that would unify gravitation and the electromagnetic force, a search which has not been pursued by other physicists. The truth is that the solution of the mystery of gravitation in relation to the electromagnetic force is very elusive and requires the Theory 3 of Everything to elucidate. However, this ultimate concept has been, in the scientific literature, well regarded as a near impossible ambition of science. Seeing where we are in cosmology, there is an urgency for it, as, if there such a concept, it would have a universal impact on how we view the universe and our existence, as realistically as possible. The fact we were unable to work out a theory of everything in the last decades of scientific and philosophical studies, more than a century after the Golden Age of Physics, is ample support of the view that finding the theory of everything is a tough proposition. Even though it was not forthcoming, it does look like that without the Theory of Everything, the impact of practically every aspect of life would feel this lacuna. Potentially the Theory of Everything is capable of guiding us on views of nature which appear to readers either as science fiction or just lacking in credibility. To some groups of physicists, despite the thoroughly organised and extraordinary nature of our universe, it does not strike them that we are a supernatural creation and, in fact, some of them go to the extreme of spending decades on natural theories of the origin of existence, based on mathematical concepts, instead of the attempting to figure out how to integrate the ultimate philosophy with the ultimate physics of existence. They cannot be blamed, though. This is simply because the creation process, for reasons that the Theory of Everything will make clear, could not, even slightly, have made the universe other than what the physics of everything integrated with the philosophy of everything tells us. The final concept of existence and the basic nature of existence have to correspond, and such a concept does exist. Kepler and Whewell soundly predicted that humans do have some of the mind of the Supernatural Power that created the universe, and that we would in due course discover how and why the universe was conceived, as far as possible. The Supernatural Creator of the universe must be perfectly and infinitely positive and constructive,such that the nature of any material creation has necessarily to be infinitely inferior to Supernatural Power, which is why it cannot be totally evil free. This is because infinite power goes with absolute perfection. This remark is a profoundly balanced remark, and can be, nevertheless, very elusive even to some very great minds. When we reflect deeply about the universe and existence, we cannot avoid this view. The nature of our realities is both down to earth and partly supernatural, ultimately, and so it certainly cannot be perfect, thus signifying we are a 4 combination of positive and negative influences. No concepts of the natural origin of universes, in most cases based on mathematical models, could ever figure out, scientifically, how our extraordinarily complex universe popped into existence, 13.8 billion years ago, under any kind of philosophical and scientific circumstances. That is totally ruled out, except in fiction. In other words, the actual manner our universe was created imperatively requires a theory that combines the philosophy of existence with the physics of existence, as the author’s two books explain in great details. These two books need to be carefully read and understood to see the marvels in the concept of the creation of the universe.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[15] viXra:1809.0346 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-16 06:28:14

Un Inconsistency Between Light Speed Invariance and Causal Relations

Authors: Luk Rossey
Comments: 7 Pages.

If the speed of light is independent of the movement of its source, then it should make no difference at all when clocks are synchronized using light sources at rest or moving ones. It seems it does. When clocks are synchronized in two reference frames, moving relatively to one another, the causal relations between two particular events will depend on whether sources at rest or moving ones have been used. This inconsistency will appear solid evidence that the speed of light can never be invariant.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[14] viXra:1809.0319 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-15 15:47:48

On Macroscopic Wave-Particle Duality Quantum Phenomena

Authors: Royan Rosche
Comments: 3 Pages.

This is a “Unified theory”. “Atoms” of the ocean have a single unified property forming the ocean as a whole-thus we can see “an atom”. While they are moved by the Moon, thus we have unified the Moon with "Atoms' of the Ocean. I propose to you that The Human can only see with Photons, so they will never be able to see an Atom. What I have done is took an "atom" out of the equation. I propose that "Water" is not made out of "atoms" but made out of "waves" and these come from the Moon. While "earth' are not "atoms" but transformed Photons from the Sun creating Dirt as Sulfur forming land masses and volcanoes when heated by the Earth. "Matter" is a visible manifestation of a Celestial Force and not composed out of anything other than what is visible in its "macroscopic form". "Metals, Dirt, Rocks, gems and Stones" are made from the Photons from the Sun, which are not "small" but "Visible Light", while Water from the Moon forms Air. I also propose the Mass is given by the Earth which holds these forces in place and it has its own called Electromagnetism. What no One has bothered to do on Modern Science is to take into account Human Perception for we are IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LARGE AND THE SMALL. I have Unified Physics by destroying the Atom. I have Unified Physics by saying the Sun and Moon are the things which generate Water and Earth and the Earth gives them Mass, and allows these force to manifest as these so called "elements". There is no such thing as an "atom" there is only Celestial forces interacting and thus generating the "Matter" we see.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[13] viXra:1809.0301 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-14 11:57:37

The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe is an Observational Error in the Measurement of the co-Moving Distant, as Well as the Measurement of the Velocity of Recession.

Authors: S.M.Hosseini, M.I.Kendrick
Comments: 7 Pages.

Abstract The observation of the Universe at the present epoch will only give the rate of the expansion of the Universe at present era and produce one value of the Hubble constant by any observer in any galaxy in the cosmos. The expansion rate of the Universe is not obtainable for the past or the future of the Universe by observation; it can only be calculated by the fact that the invers of the Hubble constant is the age of the Universe at any period. One of the fundamental pillars of the cosmology is the Hubble constant and the inverse of it is the age of the Universe: , this relationship will be violated by observation that the Universe’s expansion is accelerating. This is fundamental that any epoch any observer on any galaxy in the Universe by looking at all the distant galaxies will measure the velocity of recession divided by Co-moving distant will obtain the value of the Hubble constant precisely the same exact value. The value of the Hubble constant is only constant at a particular epoch by all the observers in the Universe and decays as the passage of time according to the relationship: .
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[12] viXra:1809.0299 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-14 13:03:25

Blueshift and the Antigravitation

Authors: Piscedda Giampaolo
Comments: 4 Pages.

In this theory it is shown that the universe does not expand. The equation that we derive is equivalent to the equation m = a (t)^2 from the book SEEING RED written by the scientist Halton Harp with the replacement M'= a and |delta r| = t^2
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[11] viXra:1809.0240 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-11 15:35:04

Question on Iterated Limits in Relativity

Authors: Valeriy Dvoeglazov
Comments: 3 Pages.

Two iterated limits are not equal each other, in general. Thus, we present an example when the massless limit of the function of E, vec p, m does not exist in some calculations within quantum field theory.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[10] viXra:1809.0233 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-12 01:24:56

Smolin Sir, I Have the Answers-Part-II, Alternative Cosmology: Redshift of Light Yes, Expansion of the Universe No! Part-a and Part-B

Authors: S. k. Malhotra
Comments: 49 Pages. a paper that changes phyics and cosmology completely!

In the history of physics, ideas on space and time have changed the course of physics a number of times; this is another such event. This time, we postulate ‘space and time’ as a flow of quantum gravity energy, having the absolute velocity c (same as the velocity of light), where time is the delay in the spread of space (delay from infinite velocity flow, when there would be no time), such a flow has to have a reverse cycle, as energy creating it (howsoever large it might be, has to be limited and limited energy can only create a limited space and time energy spread) and the reverse cycle is that of the creation of fundamental particles. This explanation of the universe (space and time not spacetime), as energy flow having a reverse cycle as its base, tells us that the idea of an expanding universe is prime facie wrong. The problem has been that we have gone along too far with the perception of the relativistic world that Einstein built over 100 years ago. Einstein had no hesitation in accepting the idea of absoluteness of the velocity of light but never thought of giving the same absoluteness to space (and time) as a flow having the same absolute velocity c (the universal constant of nature). Thus, the problem with cosmology is not something contained in the subject but with things, it inherited from physics; they take physics given to us by great minds like Einstein (and Bohr on quantum mechanics) for over the 100 years as a gospel truth and have not questioned it seriously ever. Physicist incorrect conclusions have become the bread and butter of cosmology; cosmologists and physicists thus see the universe without the essential part of it: as an absolute flow of quantum gravity. This new reasoning on space and time—as a flow of energy--leads us to show that expansion of the universe is only an appearance, reality is far away from it. And why is it only an appearance? The argument, in brief, is as follows: One, the universe is so large that we cannot see the edges, light from the edges takes far too long to reach us, there is a theoretical limit to possible visibility, thus, we have to refute its unlimitedness by theoretical considerations only; the reality is non-observable. Two, the process is dark, it is range of invisible (before charge emerged), the process of creation of charge (the reflection of light starts with it) has not yet taken place; it is the elusive dark energy that constitutes 74% of the total energy of the universe. We never connected space and time to flow of energy, and so did not find its connection either to its limitedness or to its dark nature (dark energy). Three, the space energy flow has a reverse process which leads to the formation of fundamental particles we have not included it in the totality of the processes of the universe, the former is the dark energy and the initial part of the reverse process—till it reaches the state of ionisation-- is dark matter. In the continuity of the cycle of space flow and its reversal to matter forms, ionisation happens at a particular point and visibility comes through along with; ionisation is a later event (which, as we explain later when we come to explaining the reverse process and with it enters visibility). It is this reverse process which creates fundamental particles (no big bang, the creation of particles is here and now). With no idea of space as energy flow and no idea of the reverse process, physicists could never take the step in the direction of the correct understanding of the ‘dark energy’ or ‘dark matter’. Along with the correct understanding of the dark matter and the dark energy, enters another conclusion of great importance: the limitedness of the universe means it is closed from all ends, it is like a crucible of huge dimensions, thus CMB is not radiation from primordial past, it is something which is happening here and now. Thus, one correction—space is an absolute flow of quantum gravity, emerging probably from the binary black holes-- changes all our understanding of cosmology. This is one stone—space is an absolute flow of quantum gravity—that kills (correctly explains) four birds (issues): explains the not expanding universe, explain what dark energy is, explain what dark matter is and it tells us that CMB is not radiation from primordial past. The lack of one entity—absoluteness of space and time—has led us to the wrong conclusion on each of the four issues, biggest of all being: the inflationary universe (and its subsequent conclusion to its Big Bang creation).
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[9] viXra:1809.0211 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-10 10:59:43

The Cosmological Rotation Reversal and the G\"{o}del-Brahe Model: the Modifications of the G\"{o}del Metric

Authors: Moninder Singh Modgil
Comments: 10 Pages.

The General Relativistic G\"{o}del-Brahe model visualizes the universe rotating with angular velocity $2 \pi$ radians/day - around a stationary earth. The wave function of this model of universe $\psi_{Univ}$, has two chiral states - clockwise and anti clockwise. Due to instabilities in the electromagnetic fields, the wave function can tunnel between the two states. G\"{o}del-Rindler model with a heigth varying acceleration gives the gravitational field of the earth. G\"{o}del-Obukhov model with a sinusoidally varying scale factor gives the yearly north-south motion of the sun. G\"{o}del-Randall-Sundram model with an angular velocity varying with height, gives the yearly rotation of sun with respect to the back ground of the fixed stars. Confinement of light rays due to rotation in the G\"{o}del universe, coupled with an appropriate mapping, generates the illusion of sphericity over a flat earth - with half of earth lit by sun light and the other half in darkness. Finally a metric combining all these properties is given. Discussion of further work is given, namely - (1) Origin of earth's magnetic field due to a charged G\"{o}del universe - with a relation to the Van Allen radiation belt, (2) Geomagnetic reversals due to reversals of cosmological rotation, (3) Caismir energy in the charged G\"{o}del type universe and the energy density required for the G\"{o}del-Brahe model and (4) Behaviour of Causality in G\"{o}del universe and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[8] viXra:1809.0199 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-10 23:57:04

Kinematics Atoms of Space

Authors: Kuyukov Vitaly
Comments: 4 Pages.

Chaos and the motion of space atoms, energy of topological knot.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[7] viXra:1809.0170 [pdf] replaced on 2018-09-20 13:49:52

One Way Speed Of Light Based on Anderson's Experiment

Authors: Eric Su
Comments: 3 Pages.

Based on Wilmer Anderson's experiment in 1937, the light detector is put in motion relatively to the mirror. Two light pulses are emitted from the mirror toward the detector. The elapsed time between two emissions is recorded on the oscilloscope. This elapsed time is larger if the detector moves away from the mirror faster. By comparing the elapsed time in the rest frame of the mirror to the elapsed time in the rest frame of the detector, the speed of light pulse in the rest frame of the mirror is found to be different from the speed of light pulse in the rest frame of the detector.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[6] viXra:1809.0164 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-07 06:09:33

A Fully Relativistic Description of Stellar or Planetary Objects Orbiting a Very Heavy Central Mass

Authors: Lluís Bel
Comments: 6 Pages.

A fully relativistic numerical program is used to calculate the advance of the peri-helium of Mercury or the deflection of light by the Sun is here used also to discuss the case of S2, a star orbiting a very heavy central mass of the order of $4.3\,10^6$ solar masses.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[5] viXra:1809.0130 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-06 12:04:03

Theory of Everything: First Ultimate Concept in Our Scientific Era: Scope, Implications for Relativity, Quantum Theory, and the Standard Model, and Theories of Origin of the Universe

Authors: Abed Peerally

The Theory of Everything is not a kind of master concept meant to integrate relativity and quantum theory, or to formulate the Grand Unified Theory. Nor is it a concept about the merging the forces and/or particles in one unified theory. In fact, these kinds of unified concepts are not very profound and are far from being a Theory of Everything, capable of describing the ultimate nature of our universe and existence. This is because the universe is now, in the beginning of the 21st century, starting to reveal its scientific nature, but an awful lot remains to be seen, perhaps in the decades, centuries and millennia of the future. We are still at a very early phase of elucidating its fundamental nature. What we know about Einstein’s relativity and quantum theory is a fraction of what is potentially possible. The nature of forces, particles, mass, gravitation is still fragmentary, while space-time and consciousness are hardly beginning to be investigated systematically. These are profoundly complex and elusive phenomena, and that is why we need to be capable of formulating the first version of quite a fairly basic Theory of Everything, the best we are able to achieve in our present time, which is what the author’s second book will present in a fairly detailed treatment of the ultimate philosophical and scientific organisation of our realities of existence. There will wide scope for physicists, cosmologists and mathematicians to evolve new approaches and research projects to start expanding, as deeply as possible, our understanding of what we really are and how the universe was created. It is inevitable that a final Theory of Everything must integrate science and philosophy into a universal scheme capable of telling us practically everything about existence, and in so doing it would indicate how the universe and its realities originated. The whole approach must be, philosophically and scientifically, unbiased and very objective, to satisfy the criteria that dictate what good science is and to avoid the fictitious kind of pitfalls that seem to be of common occurrence in modern cosmology, which have prompted various eminent thinkers to talk about the end of Physics. The absolute Ultimate Theory of Everything is not an objective attainable in our period of existence, but could only be the result of a process across time, a natural development across the ages, and will be what it is at any time, except that it is continuously evolving, due to new scientific and 2 philosophical data and interpretations. It is a bit awkward, in our still premature scientific culture, to look for an appellation for what is clearly a very ambitious concept, one that is too elusive at a time when so little is known about the nature of our universe. For instance, calling a concept “The Theory of Everything” is unreasonable, for our present times are too unprepared for such an impossible mission. If we do use it, then it has to be understood, in any case, that what we call the Theory of Everything is something that is continuously evolving and we have absolutely no idea when our Planet will be satisfied it has in fact found the Ultimate Theory of Everything. For this reason, the author has to refer to his concept of everything as The First Theory of Everything, because strictly speaking, we have not had a scientific Theory of Everything that is really the one the scientific community would be expecting. The author is quite aware that the Standard Model, Einstein’s Laws of Relativity and Quantum Theory are still largely incomplete, and there is nothing we can do to have the comprehensive mastery of the nature of our universe, even in the next several centuries. Realities like matter, forces, particles, space, space-time, mass, gravity, micro and macro realities of the universe, the Higgs phenomenon, and particularly the existence and nature of consciousness, among other facets of our realities, will take centuries and millennia, to be fairly well explained. There is no doubt that there are complicated schemes of existence that will require an awful lot of new physics and mathematics before we are satisfied we can begin to really understand the origin and the ultimate nature of the universe.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[4] viXra:1809.0112 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-05 23:01:30

Einstein and Ethere. Refutation of SRT

Authors: Henry Leonidovich Arutyunov
Comments: 2 Pages.

The constancy of the speed of light in Einstein's theory of relativity, testifies to the existence of an absolute frame of reference.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[3] viXra:1809.0106 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-06 02:05:39

On Some Metaphysical Problems of Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Authors: Victor Christianto, Florentin Smarandache
Comments: 10 Pages. this article has been published in Scientific God Journal

Despite its enormous practical success, many physicists and philosophers alike agree that the quantum theory is full of contradictions and paradoxes which are difficult to solve consistently. Even after 90 years, the experts themselves still do not all agree what to make of it. The area of disagreement centers primarily around the problem of describing observations. Formally, the socalled quantum measurement problem can be defined as follows: the result of a measurement is a superposition of vectors, each representing the quantity being observed as having one of its possible values. The question that has to be answered is : how this superposition can be reconciled with the fact that in practice we only observe one value. How is the measuring instrument prodded into making up its mind which value it has observed? Among some alternatives to resolve the above QM measurement problem, a very counterintuitive one was suggested by Hugh Everett in his 1955 Princeton dissertation, which was subsequently called the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM (MWI). In this paper, we will not discuss all possible scenarios to solve the measurement problem, but we will only shortly discuss Everett’s MWI, because it has led to heated debates on possibility of multiverses, beyond the Universe we live in. We also discuss two alternatives against MWI proposal: (a) the so-called scale symmetry theory, and (b) the Maxwell-Dirac isomorphism. In last section, we also discuss shortly MWI hypothesis from philosophical perspective.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[2] viXra:1809.0105 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-06 02:07:47

Remark on Vacuum Fluctuation as the Cause of Universe Creation

Authors: Victor Christianto, Florentin Smarandache
Comments: 18 Pages. This paper has been submitted for a book chapter. Comments are welcome

Questions regarding the formation of the Universe and what was there before the existence of Early Universe have been great interest to mankind of all times. In recent decades, the Big Bang as described by the Lambda CDM-Standard Model Cosmology has become widely accepted by majority of physics and cosmology communities. Among other things, we can cite A.A. Grib & Pavlov who pointed out some problems of heavy particles creation out of vacuum and also other proposal of Creatio ex nihilo theory (CET). But the philosophical problems remain, as Vaas pointed out: Did the universe have a beginning or does it exist forever, i.e. is it eternal at least in relation to the past? This fundamental question was a main topic in ancient philosophy of nature and the Middle Ages, and still has its revival in modern physical cosmology both in the controversy between the big bang and steady state models some decades ago and in the contemporary attempts to explain the big bang within a quantum cosmological (vacuum fluctuation) framework. In this paper we argue that Neutrosophic Logic offers a resolution to the long standing disputes between beginning and eternity of the Universe. In other words, in this respect we agree with Vaas, i.e. it can be shown: “how a conceptual and perhaps physical solution of the temporal aspect of Immanuel Kant’s „first antinomy of pure reason“ is possible, i.e. how our universe in some respect could have both a beginning and an eternal existence. Therefore, paradoxically, there might have been a time before time or a beginning of time in time.” By the help of computational simulation, we also show how a model of early Universe with rotation can fit this new picture. Further observations are recommended.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology

[1] viXra:1809.0085 [pdf] submitted on 2018-09-04 17:51:54

CLTG Emergent and Fission Classifications of Multi-Object Systems for Morphological Taxonomy Part II

Authors: Tarzan
Comments: 59 Pages.

Part I of Emergent Theory elaborated many object family types and our naming shortcuts. This group was too large to include as one publication. As outlined in Part I of this series there are many types of paired- and multi-object systems which exemplify emergent and fission systems. This report describes the “cutout” families of objects. Along with this collection we include a data-driven method of classification members of the family. We also created an ad hoc description of our ‘cutout’ pattern formed by paired family objects.
Category: Relativity and Cosmology