Does the Big Bang Theory Require the Existance of Energy from the Dirac Sea?
Date: Saturday, January 24, 2004 @ 12:25:02 GMT
Topic: General


Does cosmological orthodoxy demand the existence of free-energy (at least of the variety that may be tapped from Dirac's sea)?

Maybe. How does 'space' itself expand otherwise? I don't personally believe in the orthodox view anyway...but instead favor the Arp implications of a pulsating universe, nevertheless ...



For those who "want" to believe in a Big Bang singularity - a big-boum, as the French like to say, an event that actually transpired at a certain time and place, then the orthodox theory says that space itself has been expanding ever since that instant in time ~15 billion years ago. If it has expanded at near lightspeed there must exist a hidden ongoing energy source, one could surmise.

At any rate, a question that is seldom addressed is this. Did some residual mass remain after the singularity? In a 3-space universe... one that is not hollow, we must assume that some of the original matter remained fixed, and some of it accelerated at a lesser rate to fill the void... at least some experts maintain this view, and if they are correct, some residual mass should be found clumped at "ground zero". Again this does not seem any less likely than 'expanding space' itself or so-called 'inflation.' In fact, all these ideas seem on the surface like crude illogical kludges concocted without any evidence whatsoever to explain redshift, a phenomena that Arp says is mostly intrinsic... but that is another story.

So just where in the sky would be the locus of a putative big bang if Arp is wrong and the event actually transpired in a universe of only 3 spatial dimensions + time? Believe it or not, there is a candidate for an incredible residual mass ... discovered just last month by the SDSS... some would say it is a fair fraction as massive as the rest of the visible universe... depending, of course, on what assumptions you plug-in to explain the incredible extent of the lensing effect.

www.universetoday.com

"Sloan Digital Sky Survey scientists have discovered a gravitationally lensed quasar with the largest separation ever recorded, and, contrary to expectations, found that four of the most distant, most luminous quasars known are not gravitationally lensed..." More than 80 gravitationally lensed quasars have been discovered since the first example was found in 1979... but what makes this latest finding so dramatic is that the separation between the four images is twice as large as that of any previously known gravitationally lensed quasar. Until the discovery of this quadruple lens quasar, the largest separation known in a gravitationally lensed quasar was 7 arcseconds. The quasar found by the SDSS team lies in the constellation Leo Minor; it consists of four images separated by 14.62 arcseconds." END of quote

Whoa... lets just say the implications of that could be staggering - the jury is still out (or rather, hasn't even been seated yet)... and I wouldn't want to be the first to say that that a lensing effect that large could only point to one thing...

Regards,

Jones Beene





This article comes from ZPEnergy.com
http://www.zpenergy.com

The URL for this story is:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=612