You are welcome. On Fri, Apr 14, 2023, 8:00 PM Markendeya Yeddanapudi < [email protected]> wrote:
> Sir, > Thank You.You big bang my humble musing into the high brow arena,as > usual,an arena which simply is beyond me.My very simple point is that faith > helps in success and that every beginning is very small.Anyhow thank you > very much for actually responding by reading my not so great write up. > YM > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 7:53 AM Rajaram Krishnamurthy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear YMji >> Yesterday I released an article where this theory of nano second is lost >> now and changing and the day is not far off when the west says we are in >> the 28th chaturyuga. So what happened just before Bang is over. And as far >> as the singularity theory, there was nothing like that as admitted by the >> late Richard Hawkins himself. >> "The work of Lifshitz and Khalatnikov was valuable because it showed that >> the universe *could *have had a singularity, a big bang, if the general >> theory of relativity was correct. However, it did not resolve the crucial >> >> question: Does general relativity predict that our universe *should *have >> had a big bang, a beginning of time? >> >> >> >> The answer to this carne out of a completely different approach >> introduced by a British mathematician and physicist, Roger Penrose, in >> 1965. Using the way light cones behave in general relativity, together with >> the fact that gravity is always attractive, he showed that a star >> collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface >> eventually shrinks to zero size. And, since the surface of the region >> shrinks to zero, so too must its volume. All the matter in the star will be >> compressed into a region of zero volume, so the density of matter >> >> and the curvature of space-time become infinite. In other words, one has >> a singularity contained within a region of space-time known as a black hole. >> >> >> >> At first sight, Penrose’s result applied only to stars; it didn’t have >> anything to say about the question of whether the entire universe had a big >> bang singularity in its past. However, at the time that Penrose produced >> his theorem, I was a research student desperately looking for a problem >> with which to complete my Ph.D. thesis. Two years before, I had been >> diagnosed as suffering from ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, or >> motor neuron disease, and given to understand that I had only one or two >> more years to live. In these circumstances there had not seemed much point >> in working on my Ph.D.– I did not expect to survive that long. >> >> Yet two years had gone by and I was not that much worse. In fact, things >> were going rather well for me and Ihad gotten engaged to a very nice girl, >> Jane Wilde. But in order to get married, I needed a job, and in order to >> get a job, I needed a Ph.D. >> >> In 1965 I read about Penrose’s theorem that any body undergoing gravitational >> collapse must eventually form a singularity. I soon realized that if one >> reversed the direction of time in Penrose’s theorem, so that the collapse >> became an expansion, the conditions of his theorem would still hold, >> provided the universe were roughly like a Friedmann model on large scales >> at the present time. Penrose’s theorem had shown that any collapsing star >> *must >> *end in a singularity; the time-reversed argument showed that any >> Friedmann-like expanding universe *must *have begun with a singularity. >> For technical reasons, Penrose’s theorem required that the universe be >> infinite in space. So I could in fact, use it to prove that there should be >> a singularity only if the universe was expanding fast enough to avoid >> collapsing again (since only those Friedmann models were infinite in >> space). During the next few years, I developed new mathematical >> techniques to remove this and other technical conditions from the theorems >> that proved that singularities must occur. The final result was a joint >> paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there >> must have been a big bang singularity provided >> >> only that *general relativity is correct* and the universe contains as >> much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, >> partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific >> determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of >> singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. >> >> >> >> However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the >> end our work (A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking... Chapter 3) >> became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the >> universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, >> having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists >> that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as >> we shall see later, *it can disappear once quantum effects are taken >> into account.* >> >> We have seen in this chapter how, in less than half a century, man’s view >> of the universe formed over millennia has been transformed. Hubble’s >> discovery that the universe was expanding, and the realization of the >> insignificance of our own planet in the vastness of the universe, were just >> the starting point. As experimental and theoretical evidence mounted, it >> became more and more clear that the universe must have had a beginning in >> time, until in 1970 this was finally proved by Penrose and myself, on the >> basis of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. That proof showed that >> general relativity is only an incomplete theory: it cannot tell us how the >> universe started off, because it predicts that all physical theories, >> including itself, break down at the beginning of the universe. However, >> general relativity claims to be only a partial theory, so what the >> singularity theorems really show is that there must have been a time in the >> very early universe when the universe was so >> >> small that one could no longer ignore the small-scale effects of the >> other great partial theory of the twentieth century, quantum mechanics. At >> the start of the 1970s, then, we were forced to turn our search for an >> >> understanding of the universe from our theory of the extraordinarily vast >> to our theory of the extraordinarily tiny. That theory, quantum mechanics, >> will be described next, before we turn to the efforts to combine the two >> partial theories into a single quantum theory of gravity. KR IRS 15423 >> >> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 at 18:59, Markendeya Yeddanapudi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mar*The Nano Beginning of Big Bangs >>> >>> >>> >>> The Singularity, which was smaller than an electron, unleashed the Big >>> bang of the creation of the Universe, which has not ended even after about >>> 12 billion years. Every attempt has a nano beginning for the result which >>> one sees in visible manifestations. When one makes an attempt, one needs >>> belief in the success, so that disbelief and haste do not stifle the >>> processes in the invisible spectrum. It is belief and faith that help the >>> nano invisible processes. >>> >>> In the vacuum or the great ‘Nothing’, some event starts the >>> consciousness and space-time, creating the deviation from the >>> space-time-less situation of the vacuum. Space-time or the identification >>> of when (time) and where (Space), the interaction sprouted, which >>> automatically creates conscious notice, expands in the vacuum. The >>> expansion takes to the creation of a wide variety of conscious entities >>> called the life forms. The expanding universe really means, the expansion >>> of the arena of consciousness, resulting from conscious notice. >>> >>> An attempt needs conscious notice. If the attempt synchronizes with the >>> great macro expansion of the universe as the expansion of the conscious >>> notice, then one can be definite of getting what one wants, as the whole >>> universe is inducted. >>> >>> On the earth one has to induct the flora and the fauna via, emotional >>> entanglement based on breathing, smelling and sensing, to make the attempt >>> of conscious beginning, into the attempt of the Biosphere as a whole. >>> Simply put, one has to attempt in accordance of nature and not by harming >>> nature. The nano processes grow and become the visible macro processes, and >>> these processes of consciousness synchronize with the cosmic processes of >>> the universe. The belief in success creates cascades of processes that >>> bring success. Belief means, the freedom from the questioning, and >>> continuously doubting mind. When one does not question and doubt, just >>> believes, one enables nature to help as one actually joins nature as part >>> of nature. Questioning and doubting disconnect one from the natural process. >>> >>> Belief automatically creates the belief hormones, in the blood stream, >>> which enter every cell. The tiny capillaries become very active, they are >>> very small in size but they are pipes into the cell. >>> >>> A cell is a mini universe. >>> >>> If your mind coordinates with the free and happy nature, automatically >>> nature takes up your attempt as its process. The body listens to the mind >>> in a healthy way only in healthy nature. Unseen by your eyes, there is a >>> gigantic process in the invisible spectrum. If nature is not polluted and >>> poisoned, the invisible processes help you. The method is doing what is >>> needed and believing in the success. >>> >>> YM >>> >> > > -- > *Mar* > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoovDUTN_9w%2BncNohHbU674-Zn61N4xA83fNCC9_HrYKTA%40mail.gmail.com.
