Notices
Results 1 to 96 of 96

Thread: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang

  1. #1 Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?


    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    ooh. Free for all.

    How about: Yes, our local bit of the universe originated via a big bang.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
    Hey jah!

    I think could be, but, where was the spark being from? And what was lit? The big nothing?

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 a.k.a. Iluvfizx 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Let her rip, Pluto (I mean Harry)!

    The ultimate question is "When will you get it?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
    Well, the BB'ers say there was no explosion. Just an expansion of space because the catholic priest/PhD said so. Therefore, it had a divine beginning and than it is not a physical event but a cosmogony event.

    Since the Laws of Physics say that Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot be a physical event.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
    Well, the BB'ers say there was no explosion. Just an expansion of space because the catholic priest/PhD said so. Therefore, it had a divine beginning and than it is not a physical event but a cosmogony event.
    In a classic explosion, the matter would be ejected by the release of energy; the energy has contact WITH the matter and accelerates it away from the point of origin. All the matter would accelerate away relatively equal in velocity, hence all the visible galaxies would be moving in the same direction and speed away from the point of origin. That is not observed.

    But, the BB was not a classic explosion as all the galaxies in the universe are moving away from each other at different velocities from each other, with no point of origin. The only way this could take place is if there was no explosion in the classical sense, but instead, an expansion of the space around the matter carrying with it, the matter.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hi (Q),

    that's ok so far, but where did it all begin?

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Why are we so sure it had a beginning?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Ruro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why are we so sure it had a beginning?
    As confusing as it is for me to imagine "No Start" to the Universe, it also makes sense in some bizare fashion. If there was a start, then nothing could occur before-hand, therefore nothing could initiate the start in the first place. Like some external force to the Universe spawned the Big Bang (and the Universe itself?), I know I've come across the theories on that business before -_- Like the Universe is a Leaf of some bigger Tree.

    But if it's just our Universe and no "Tree"... then it has always been... it's like it was completely void and empty to begin with, and the Universe itself spawned something to compensate for the lack of... anything O_o I imply the Universe has some degree of Life in itself there.

    Or, I havn't the foggiest XD

    ... if the Universe was completely empty, of everything, then it would collapse (Don't ask, I don't know how the Universe has a boundary!?) under the severe pressure of Zero pressure. So it implodes, till the... Walls of the Universe touch in a the TINIEST space, infact there would be no Space, the Walls on all sides of the Universe would meet, perhaps that spawned something to fill the space.

    Or, I still havn't the foggiest :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Some people know me as Pluto and thats ok.

    Hello arch2008

    You said:

    When will I get it? Get what mate? To agree with others on issues that I do not agree with?

    I read this link emailed to me, read it for interest sake.

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635
    Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
    May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47

    The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole]
    by Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Brad Harrub, Ph.D., and Branyon May
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruro
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why are we so sure it had a beginning?
    As confusing as it is for me to imagine "No Start" to the Universe, it also makes sense in some bizare fashion. If there was a start, then nothing could occur before-hand, therefore nothing could initiate the start in the first place. Like some external force to the Universe spawned the Big Bang (and the Universe itself?), I know I've come across the theories on that business before -_- Like the Universe is a Leaf of some bigger Tree.
    I think you're nailing the problem pretty well. If there's anything prior to the beginning, then we'll want to know when that thing started, and the thing before it, and the thing before it, etc..

    Trying to pass the buck off to a pre-big bang even is just procrastinating the inevitable. Something somewhere must have had no beginning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why are we so sure it had a beginning?
    You see, this is the craziness with it. If we accept BB the universe has a beginning.

    The only other thing we could do was to push our mental boundaries for the sake
    of reasoning. But this would mean to say good by to BB firstly I think.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    One way or the other, it's religion isn't it? And this is scary: those who "get" infinity "have seen the light" and are a very small minority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


    This link is an eye opener:

    Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter - April 2008
    http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2008.04.htm

    Are old galaxies smaller, bigger or neither?

    Three new papers on galaxy size deepen the contradiction between expanding-universe predictions and measurements. Van Dokkum et al look at very massive galaxies at a redshift of about 2.3 and find that on average they are 5- 6 times smaller in radius and hundreds of times denser than massive galaxies in today’s universe. The densest of these high-z galaxies have densities five times that of any galaxies that now exist. The authors speculate that perhaps mergers may result in less dense galaxies, but mergers would also result in more massive galaxies, and some of the high-z galaxies are as massive already as the most massive galaxies observed today. So, if they merged, they would create galaxies larger than any we see. Since massive galaxies are easy to find, getting rid of either extremely massive or extremely dense galaxies is difficult, akin to hiding an elephant under a rug.

    Sirocco et al confirm these results, reporting that at z=1.5 the surface brightness of galaxies, as determined with the conventional cosmology assumptions, is 2.5 magnitudes brighter than for nearby galaxies, which implies that, for a given luminosity, the galaxies have radii that are 3.2 times smaller.

    On the surface, these results, taken in the context of conventional cosmology imply that smaller galaxies form first and then merge into larger ones. But more and more observations are showing that the oldest galaxies are the largest ones. Rakos et al find that in cluster galaxies that the most massive galaxies are the oldest ones, exactly the opposite of what would be expected if they are formed by merger of smaller galaxies. In addition, they find that galaxies in more massive clusters are also older, implying the clusters formed before the galaxies, again contradicting the conventional ideas of mass accumulating “bottom-up”.

    To add to the puzzles presented by these papers, the average ages of the stellar populations measured by Rakos extend all the way up to the standard “age of the universe” of almost 14 Gy. This is a problem, since even in elliptical galaxies, there is some star formation going on. Since some stars in these populations are a lot younger than 14 Gy, there must be some older than 14Gy for the average to be that age. This creates the conundrum of having stars older than the universe.

    These puzzle all find easy resolution if the universe is not in fact expanding. In a non-expanding universe, a galaxies physical size is proportional to its angular size times the redshift. If this formula is used for the samples studies by van Dokkum and Sirroco, rather than the formula based on the expanding universe, the galaxy sizes are almost exactly the same at high redshift as at the present time. As well, if the universe is not expanding, and there was no Big Bang, stars can be older than 14 Gy.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    One way or the other, it's religion isn't it? And this is scary: those who "get" infinity "have seen the light" and are a very small minority.
    Whether religion or not. Religion was some science that students do study in fact. So everything was included, any science I mean, and there are relevant aspects the least of each field of knowledge within single sciences, that, at the end, have to be taken into account.

    So was my experience.

    And not only on BB research I can tell you.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Hi (Q),

    that's ok so far, but where did it all begin?

    Steve
    The space-time structure of the universe has specific characteristics, for example, it designates the speed of light (permittivity and permeability of free space).

    Another characteristic is the capacity to "borrow" energy, hence we have "virtual particles" appearing and disappearing; the creation of something from nothing, so to speak. There is also "pair production" in which particles can be created near tidal forces in general relativity.

    From these we can extract theoretical beginnings.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Hi (Q),

    that's ok so far, but where did it all begin?

    Steve
    The space-time structure of the universe has specific characteristics, for example, it designates the speed of light (permittivity and permeability of free space).

    Another characteristic is the capacity to "borrow" energy, hence we have "virtual particles" appearing and disappearing; the creation of something from nothing, so to speak. There is also "pair production" in which particles can be created near tidal forces in general relativity.

    From these we can extract theoretical beginnings.
    You say your space time structure of the universe can do these miraculous things (and I don't contest that here) for example It can create something from nothing. Therefore It could create the whole universe, even Itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    You say your space time structure of the universe can do these miraculous things (and I don't contest that here) for example It can create something from nothing. Therefore It could create the whole universe, even Itself.
    Not really, the spacetime structure doesn't have the capacity to create anything. It does have the capacity to "gate" energy, so to speak.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


    Down under we rely on reality.

    Matter can change form from one to the other. It is unable to be created from nothing.

    Space and time cannot be changed, only the matter within can do that.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    I will stick with the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

    I interpret these Laws to say, 'Matter cannot be created or destroyed but only tansformed'.

    And I have a problem with the transformation of the matter.
    By that, I mean that matter can be reduced to a gaseous form but it cannot be converted into 'pure' energy.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    To All

    I will stick with the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

    I interpret these Laws to say, 'Matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed'.

    And I have a problem with the transformation of the matter.
    By that, I mean that matter can be reduced to a gaseous form but it cannot be converted into 'pure' energy.

    Cosmo
    Matter is converted to energy in the form of photons during fusion and this has been shown experimentally and accurately predicts the emmition levels of stars.
    Matter can change form from one to the other. It is unable to be created from nothing.
    Hawking radiation is perfectly plausible without violating any current theories, which is a consequence of pair production, i.e. the creation of virtual particle pairs that get separated at the event horizon due to Heisenberg uncertainty. The total energy of the black hole then gets reduced by the exact energy value of one half of the created pair (the escaped particle). Also, under favourable conditions the two created virtual particles can be separated from each other long enough to exist on its own and become a "whole" particle in normal space as well. This has been demonstrated AFAIK.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


    Down under we rely on reality.

    Matter can change form from one to the other. It is unable to be created from nothing.

    Space and time cannot be changed, only the matter within can do that.
    So, what's your point?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman Odd Ass City's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11
    Well, pre big bang, when the perpetuity of nothingness reigned- there would be no time aswell as no matter for a reference point, does this mean that the 4th dimension wouldnt exist at all (aswell as the subsequent higher and lower dimensions) ? i choose to think that they would all be in some form of infinite fluxuation. so maybe "one moment" the time portion of the space time continuum leapt forward and grabbed a bit of matter from the future.. so because matter would exist eventually it began to exist beforehand. i know its silly, but its on par with "matter exploded out of nowhere".

    Perhaps the center of a black hole is teleporting matter faster than the speed of light into the past for the universe to begin collecting matter... maybe our universe was spawned from an adjacent universe (though intrinsically where back to the question that asks what progenerated that universe and so on).

    i figure we gotta start looking waaay deeper into the structure of matter before we even get a vauge idea of the real building blocks of the universe were/are.
    (0||i|\|!||0)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    65
    Let’s get some things straight. We obviously don’t have a clue why we’re here, or how we got here. We don’t know what time is, and we can’t define reality. Trying to grasp any of that is useless. We are just some limited earthlings. We’re mammals. The comparison that we often do to other animals and our brains is just a hint of how our supposedly “logic thought” may not be logic at all, in a universal scale. Maybe there was no beginning. Maybe the universe is something else that not even our imagination can conceive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

    VMstudent,,,,,,,,,mate thats a cop out.

    (Q) said

    Harry Costas wrote:
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


    Down under we rely on reality.

    Matter can change form from one to the other. It is unable to be created from nothing.

    Space and time cannot be changed, only the matter within can do that.


    So, what's your point?
    Smile,,,,,,,,,,what do you think is my point in reference to?

    ========================================

    I'm looking for explanations, why things form such as Jets from compacted matter such as black holes and Neutron stars. So I read

    Theory and Simulations of the Origin of Astrophysical Jets
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004APS..DPPCM1004L


    Relativistic Jets from Accretion Disks
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Ap%26SS.298..115L

    *2006RvMP...78..755R
    http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes
    Experimental astrophysics with high power lasers and Z pinches

    I want to know how ordinary matter can change its form and be compacted to 10^20 Kg/m3.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by VMStudent
    Let’s get some things straight. We obviously don’t have a clue why we’re here, or how we got here. We don’t know what time is, and we can’t define reality. Trying to grasp any of that is useless. We are just some limited earthlings. We’re mammals. The comparison that we often do to other animals and our brains is just a hint of how our supposedly “logic thought” may not be logic at all, in a universal scale. Maybe there was no beginning. Maybe the universe is something else that not even our imagination can conceive.
    Brave. Honest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzz

    Brave, honest?

    I do not understand.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    To All

    I will stick with the Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

    I interpret these Laws to say, 'Matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transformed'.

    And I have a problem with the transformation of the matter.
    By that, I mean that matter can be reduced to a gaseous form but it cannot be converted into 'pure' energy.

    Cosmo
    Matter is converted to energy in the form of photons during fusion and this has been shown experimentally and accurately predicts the emmition levels of stars.
    Matter can change form from one to the other. It is unable to be created from nothing.
    Hawking radiation is perfectly plausible without violating any current theories, which is a consequence of pair production, i.e. the creation of virtual particle pairs that get separated at the event horizon due to Heisenberg uncertainty. The total energy of the black hole then gets reduced by the exact energy value of one half of the created pair (the escaped particle). Also, under favourable conditions the two created virtual particles can be separated from each other long enough to exist on its own and become a "whole" particle in normal space as well. This has been demonstrated AFAIK.
    I wrote an article on how photons are created and my opinion is that all photons created by electron transitions is the result of the 'magnetic force' variations resulting from the electrons changing velocity and orbital transations.
    This is based on the Bohr model of the HA.

    These MF variations influence the field particles that surround the electrons.
    There is NO mass conversion.

    The virtual particle pairs that are supposedly created and automatically annihilate are products of mathematics. AFAIK, there is no experiment for their reality
    If you know of any, post the source.
    Thank you.

    Cosmo

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Ever heard of the Casimir effect, Cosmo?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    I want to know how ordinary matter can change its form and be compacted to 10^20 Kg/m3.
    If you're talking about a black hole, the properties of matter have been "compacted" right out of the matter, leaving the charge, spin and mass. That's one way.

    Pre-BB matter is another story. The "matter" from the BB was a sea of radiation, no particles had even formed as yet.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by VMStudent
    Let’s get some things straight. We obviously don’t have a clue why we’re here, or how we got here.
    "Why" we are here is a philosophical question, mostly irrelevant. We got here through the process of evolution.

    We don’t know what time is, and we can’t define reality.
    Yes, we do know what time is and can define reality. What makes you think we can't?

    Trying to grasp any of that is useless.
    You are of course, speaking for yourself.

    We are just some limited earthlings. We’re mammals. The comparison that we often do to other animals and our brains is just a hint of how our supposedly “logic thought” may not be logic at all, in a universal scale. Maybe there was no beginning. Maybe the universe is something else that not even our imagination can conceive.
    Maybe. But, we're not using our imaginations.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
    Well, the BB'ers say there was no explosion. Just an expansion of space because the catholic priest/PhD said so. Therefore, it had a divine beginning and than it is not a physical event but a cosmogony event.

    Since the Laws of Physics say that Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot be a physical event.

    Cosmo
    Your wordings off, matter can be created but from energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    One way or the other, it's religion isn't it? And this is scary: those who "get" infinity "have seen the light" and are a very small minority.
    A lot of people really don't get the mathematical concept of infinity. For example: a lot of people can't grasp the idea of one infinite thing being bigger than another.

    I hope it wouldn't be a question of gets "saved" and who doesn't, but the question of how infinity works actually can be resolved, and people who don't understand it are people who simply haven't studied it enough to understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Odd Ass City
    Perhaps the center of a black hole is teleporting matter faster than the speed of light into the past for the universe to begin collecting matter... maybe our universe was spawned from an adjacent universe (though intrinsically where back to the question that asks what progenerated that universe and so on).
    That is a really interesting idea.

    Time travel is seen as theoretically possible, so maybe the BB is just the space-time moment where all the matter from black holes is ending up? Then the universe could be finite both in space and time, beginning with a singularity, and ending when all the matter is finally absorbed into black holes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman Odd Ass City's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by Odd Ass City
    Perhaps the center of a black hole is teleporting matter faster than the speed of light into the past for the universe to begin collecting matter... maybe our universe was spawned from an adjacent universe (though intrinsically where back to the question that asks what progenerated that universe and so on).
    That is a really interesting idea.

    Time travel is seen as theoretically possible, so maybe the BB is just the space-time moment where all the matter from black holes is ending up? Then the universe could be finite both in space and time, beginning with a singularity, and ending when all the matter is finally absorbed into black holes?
    well it still wouldnt be the end, because those black holes count as matter too, (the term black hole is so misleading) an interesting conversation i had with a friend though, is what would happen if 2 black holes collided-after some thought we figured they would grind at eachother with such intensity so as to throw off their own matter into deep space, then make all that freed matter start to orbit the remnants of those 2 black holes, so the final product would look alot like a spiral galaxy! so maybe the big bang was an explosion of black holes (or just alot of matter that would eventually condense into black holes) and those black holes would make the galaxies... but im afraid that still doesnt really come close to where all that matter came from in the first place =P
    (0||i|\|!||0)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Compacted matter is formed through out the galaxy and by merging become bigger as they approach the centre.

    Our MW galaxy has millions of so called stellar black holes and a swam of larger ones near the centre with a large one several million sun masses.

    The ability for matter to change phase is quite normal.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by chewimcdougle
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
    Well, the BB'ers say there was no explosion. Just an expansion of space because the catholic priest/PhD said so. Therefore, it had a divine beginning and than it is not a physical event but a cosmogony event.

    Since the Laws of Physics say that Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot be a physical event.

    Cosmo
    Your wordings off, matter can be created but from energy.
    There is no way you can create physical matter out of energy.
    There is one way that this can be done and that is the way plants use energy to create biological matter for their growth.
    But this matter is not new matter but transformed matter from the soils.

    I define physical matter as 'substance' that can be seen and felt.

    I define energy as 'motion'.
    There are many types pf energy, such as work. explosions, matter in motion such as the planets and any other movements, growth, heat and etc.

    By forcing the matter to move is not conversion into energy. It is still there as an unchanged substance. There is no change of matter quantity or sacrificed matter.

    Those are my opinions.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It is an interesting question to consider. How would light condense to form matter? (assuming that light truly is perfectly massless energy)

    I understand that an object does really seem to gain mass if it is accelerated toward relativistic speeds, but there's no being certain it has more mass just because it carries more momentum that what it's velocity would indicate.

    So basically: I'm curious what evidence we really have for E = MC^2

    Nuclear fission could be interpreted a number of ways that might not lead to us being so sure matter was "converted" into energy, per se.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It is an interesting question to consider. How would light condense to form matter? (assuming that light truly is perfectly massless energy)

    I understand that an object does really seem to gain mass if it is accelerated toward relativistic speeds, but there's no being certain it has more mass just because it carries more momentum that what it's velocity would indicate.

    So basically: I'm curious what evidence we really have for E = MC^2

    Nuclear fission could be interpreted a number of ways that might not lead to us being so sure matter was "converted" into energy, per se.
    AFAIK, the convertion of matter into energy is the only explanation for how the sun produces energy (photons). It can't come from electrons falling to a lower orbital, since the hydrogen is in plasma and the electrons are moving freely AFAIK. Also, the amount of observed energy liberated ties in nicely prediction.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39 WTF? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Let's see...no Big Bang, matter cannot be made from energy and E=mc^2 is questionable.

    This is the Science Forum, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    KALSTER said

    AFAIK, the convertion of matter into energy is the only explanation for how the sun produces energy (photons). It can't come from electrons falling to a lower orbital, since the hydrogen is in plasma and the electrons are moving freely AFAIK. Also, the amount of observed energy liberated ties in nicely prediction.
    I got this email from Prof Oliver Manuel. It is quite interesting

    About sixty-five (65) nuclear physicists at Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and several other leading research facilities and universities around the world, including MIT, have cautiously confirmed strongly repulsive forces between neutrons.

    This probably marks the end of the standard model of Hydrogen-filled stars.

    In the spring semester of 2000 five graduate students (Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke and Bing Zhang) and I made this three-dimensional (3-D) plot of the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of atoms that constitute all visible matter in the universe:

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

    This "Cradle of the Nuclides" showed that neutron-proton interactions are attractive, unlike proton-proton and neutron-neutron interactions [1], and exposed repulsive forces between neutrons as the energy source that powers the Sun, ordinary stars, neutron stars, and the cosmos [2-10].

    In this new report from Brookhaven National Laboratory [11] on collisions between two heavy nuclei, four nuclear physicists report that:

    A. Nucleons "repel each other strongly" at close distances.

    B. "In nature there exists another way to create dense nuclear matter by using another force to overcome the strong inter-nucleon repulsion at short distances. Neutron stars . . . . . This dense nuclear matter is created by the large gravitational force, which adds the necessary compression."

    C. "The difference between neutron-proton and neutron-neutron or proton-proton pairs is due to the nature of the nucleon-nucleon interaction. The tensor force in the neutron-proton interaction, which is missing in the neutron-neutron or proton-proton interaction, is probably what creates the difference between cold dense matter of nucleons of the same kind, and cold dense matter of mixed nucleons."

    D. "These surprising new results were confirmed in a higher-precision experiment completed recently at Jefferson Laboratory in Virginia."

    The results of measurements at Jefferson Laboratory involving collisions between electrons and the Carbon-12 nucleus were recently published in the 13 June 2008 issue of Science magazine [12].

    This paper stresses the high number of neutron-proton pairs in Carbon-12 from attractive neutron-proton interactions.

    The importance of these results for astrophysics is stated in the last sentence of the abstract: "This difference between the types of pairs is due to the nature of the strong force and has implications for understanding cold dense nuclear systems such as neutron stars."

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    http://www.omatumr.com
    The application of science in its pure form is searching for answers.


    11. Yousef Makdisi, Eli Piasetzky, John Watson and Mark Strikman, "The Study of Cold, Dense Nuclear Matter at BNL", Brookhaven National Laboratory http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=6&gl=us

    or http://tinyurl.com/5tg4tv

    or http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/d...learMatter.pdf

    12. R. Subedi and 63 co-authors, "Probing cold dense nuclear matter", Science (13 June 2008) 320, pp. 1476 - 1478. DOI: 10.1126/science.1156675

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...82/1476?ck=nck
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    How can you post that nonsense with a clear conscience? The sun is iron? IRON? That webpage reads like it was written by a 9th grader…. Bad form man.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kalster

    You can google for it.

    Look if you think its nonsense than why bother.

    Wait for the science to come to you.

    It takes more than a 9th grader to write cutting edge science.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Kalster

    You can google for it.

    Look if you think its nonsense than why bother.

    Wait for the science to come to you.

    It takes more than a 9th grader to write cutting edge science.
    I did not access all the different sources because I use basic physics as my sources although I do refute some of the teachings.

    So the Sun is about 80% hydrogen and about 19% helium and the rest is the heavier elements.

    My opinion is that the fusion process does not create any energy.
    So there is no mass converted into energy.

    The Bohr model tells us that electron transitions create the photons.

    Deep in the Sun, the mass is compressed to a dense plasma medium where the electrons are generating 'open orbital passages' by the protons at very high velocities to create strong magnetic pulses that generate the photons. These photons than migrate to the surface to radiate 'closed orbital photons' that Bohr has discovered as radiated Sun light.

    The fusion process is just a byproduct of this density by the workings of the coulomb and magnetic forces to create the deuterons and subsequently the helium nuclei.

    But the light is the result of the electron movements only.
    No actual mass loss involved. Just light mass fused into the heavier deuterons and helium.

    Any iron presence at the surface is from the cometary impacts that contain iron that forms the sunspots.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    I would suggest you read up on this link.

    Look at the profile of the person writing these papers:
    http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

    than read some of his papers.

    http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html

    Understanding the process is more important than thinking that you KNOW.

    I find that, at this moment in time, I read and the more I read I find that I know very little.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Costas

    These articles are all derived/relavent from the surface of the Sun.

    We see all this activity on the surface. We do not see what goes on in the central region of the Sun. So what happens there is just cnjecture.

    The Sun is impacted by comets, meteroids and occasionally an asteroid.

    So all types of chemical activity goes on the surface of the Sun.
    That is where the iron comes from. When an object impacts on the Sun, the oxides contained in these objects break down to release the oxygen. So you have an erruption (explosion).
    So all types of activity happens on the Sun and all types of elements are involved.

    So I will stick with Bohr's idea of how photons are created.

    After all, these experts all accept the BBT.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    I got this email from Prof Oliver Manuel. It is quite interesting
    Oliver is a well known kook. Are you joining his wacky and zany world of iron sun speculations?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Why shouldn't there be iron in the sun's core? I believe Iron and Nickel are the two atomic states that nuclear processes move toward. IE. You only get energy out of fusion when you fuse atoms lighter than them, and you only get energy out of fission when you split atoms heavier than them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by chewimcdougle
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
    Well, the BB'ers say there was no explosion. Just an expansion of space because the catholic priest/PhD said so. Therefore, it had a divine beginning and than it is not a physical event but a cosmogony event.

    Since the Laws of Physics say that Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it cannot be a physical event.

    Cosmo
    Your wordings off, matter can be created but from energy.
    There is no way you can create physical matter out of energy.
    There is one way that this can be done and that is the way plants use energy to create biological matter for their growth.
    But this matter is not new matter but transformed matter from the soils.

    I define physical matter as 'substance' that can be seen and felt.

    I define energy as 'motion'.
    There are many types pf energy, such as work. explosions, matter in motion such as the planets and any other movements, growth, heat and etc.

    By forcing the matter to move is not conversion into energy. It is still there as an unchanged substance. There is no change of matter quantity or sacrificed matter.

    Those are my opinions.

    Cosmo
    there is no way to create or destroy matter or energy in any way. you can transform energy into matter , like how you stated through plants, or you can transform matter into energy like a battery. but you can not just pull the matter or energy out of thin air like magic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It is an interesting question to consider. How would light condense to form matter? (assuming that light truly is perfectly massless energy)

    I understand that an object does really seem to gain mass if it is accelerated toward relativistic speeds, but there's no being certain it has more mass just because it carries more momentum that what it's velocity would indicate.

    So basically: I'm curious what evidence we really have for E = MC^2

    Nuclear fission could be interpreted a number of ways that might not lead to us being so sure matter was "converted" into energy, per se.
    there is a lot of ways to make matter out of light energy. if you were to connect a solar panel to a battery the light would hit the the solar panel and then it would be transformed into electrical energy. then when it charges the battery the electricity is changed into chemicals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50 Re: Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


    The ultimate question is this.

    Did the universe have an origin via the Big Bang?
    Hey jah!

    I think could be, but, where was the spark being from? And what was lit? The big nothing?

    Steve

    the universe was created in the 11th dimension through membranes. in the 11th dimension there are membranes floating around that ossilate. then when they collide they create space , matter, and energy. so they create every thing for the creation of a universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why shouldn't there be iron in the sun's core? I believe Iron and Nickel are the two atomic states that nuclear processes move toward. IE. You only get energy out of fusion when you fuse atoms lighter than them, and you only get energy out of fission when you split atoms heavier than them.
    The sun is not hot enough for it to fuse iron. That link suggests that practically the whole sun is iron. The iron and heavier elements we are made of were produced during a supernova AFAIK.

    there is a lot of ways to make matter out of light energy. if you were to connect a solar panel to a battery the light would hit the solar panel and then it would be transformed into electrical energy. then when it charges the battery the electricity is changed into chemicals......or you can transform matter into energy like a battery.
    The electricity is not converted into chemicals, but into chemical energy in the battery being charged. During the reverse process chemical energy is converted into electric energy. Nowhere during these processes are pure energy converted into new matter or matter directly converted into energy. This only occurs during fusion, matter anti-matter annihilations, etc.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Interesting reading

    Phase (matter)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter)

    equation of state of a degenerate gas
    http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people...egeneracy.html

    What types of stars are the above equations applicable to? We will see later in the course that there are stars in which no nuclear fusion is occurring and in which it is the outward-acting force due to degeneracy pressure that balances the inward-acting gravitational force. White dwarfs, brown dwarfs and neutron stars are examples of such stars, in which the degeneracy pressure due to electrons (in the case of white dwarfs and brown dwarfs) or neutrons (in the case of neutron stars) balances the force of gravity. We will also see that many stars temporarily develop degenerate cores as they evolve off the main-sequence.
    stellar structure & evolution
    http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/people...evolution.html

    Quantum chromodynamics
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics

    The Phase Diagram of Nuclear Matter
    http://backreaction.blogspot.com/200...ar-matter.html

    also google for Z-pinch dynamics
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    5
    What if the big bang is a repeating cycle of our universe undergoing collapsing and expanding upon itself over unpredictable amount of time?

    As the universe cools off, it would stop giving off radiation which could be in form of the anti-matter or whatever scientists call it which propels us. It then would begin to collapse upon itself and condense into one giant ball of plasma energy before growing to unstable, creating the big bang in the first place, restarting the cycle all over again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day phox

    The BBT states that there were little bangs throughout the universe at the same time making a Big Bang. No from one single point.

    A cyclic process can answer the question. Matter goes into compacted matter such as Neutron exotic stars and Black holes that form jets and expell matter out.

    We can observe the workings of stars and Black holes and the cyclic process.

    Rather than putting them all into one process or one point that does not scientifically fit the bill.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    The Big Bang happened at one point that then inflated exponentially, not at many points.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

    Neutron stars and black holes have never ever been observed to recycle matter in the way that you understand.
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/990923a.html
    http://www.news.wisc.edu/13894

    These jets do not recycle heavy elements into hydrogen for new stars as you pretend. This is not the answer. I explained to you elsewhere that a recycling universe would be full of ancient white dwarf stars, which it is not. If you refuse to understand the universe, then you exclude yourself from any explanation of the universe. Nothing you have said scientifically fits any bill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Arch

    You said

    These jets do not recycle heavy elements into hydrogen for new stars as you pretend. This is not the answer. I explained to you elsewhere that a recycling universe would be full of ancient white dwarf stars, which it is not. If you refuse to understand the universe, then you exclude yourself from any explanation of the universe. Nothing you have said scientifically fits any bill.
    I disagree with you.

    You need to read up on the Bg Bang theory.

    This is a great link
    Evidence for the Big Bang
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr....html#firstlaw

    1) What is the Big Bang theory?
    a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang
    In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

    There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

    The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
    BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
    The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
    The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

    Another cosmologist, the German Rudolf Kippenhahn, wrote the following in his book "Kosmologie fuer die Westentasche" ("cosmology for the pocket"): "There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more. No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." In a footnote, he added: "In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes." (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author's translation, all emphasizes in original)

    Finally, the webpage describing the ekpyrotic universe (a model for the early universe involving concepts from string theory) contains a good recounting of the standard misconceptions. Read the first paragraph, "What is the Big Bang model?".

    Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
    National Aeronautics and Sapce Administration (NASA)

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

    Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

    The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
    By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
    It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
    To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.

    As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:

    Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
    Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
    Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
    Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.
    One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe.
    AS for the cycling of matter that is a bit more complicated and yet so simple and cannot be answered in just one post.

    I'm trying to understand the working parts within the universe.

    Star formation and the trigger that starts a supernovae.
    Compact matter and the formation of jets.
    Z-pinch and the formation of jets
    Active galactic Compact matter that controls the evolution and form of galaxies.
    and so on.

    The field is huge and I'm just lucky to be part of the journey in trying to understand.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Ever heard of the Casimir effect, Cosmo?
    I obviously overlooked this comment and have answered it on other posts in the past.

    My answer is that this interpretation is erroneous.

    There is no perfect vacuum achieved in these experiments.
    There is always some 'left' over molecules in the wider open spaces of the plates.
    These molecules are 'banging' on the outer sides of the plates to be pushing them together.

    So my opinion is that space is not doing this but residual molecules left in these
    experiments.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58 Yeah right! 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Harry-Creationism is not a science. Creationist explanations of BBT or any other theory are not legitimate science for this reason. This is a science forum. If you ever find me quoting science in a religious forum, you have my permission to cry "Foul". Until then, preface everything you post with IMHO (because these posts are simply opinions) and remember that, "Thou shallt not lie."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Arch

    You said

    Harry-Creationism is not a science. Creationist explanations of BBT or any other theory are not legitimate science for this reason. This is a science forum. If you ever find me quoting science in a religious forum, you have my permission to cry "Foul". Until then, preface everything you post with IMHO (because these posts are simply opinions) and remember that, "Thou shallt not lie."
    OK,,,,,,,,,,,,,Whats your point?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Just to be clear: what makes creationism a non-science is that it's not interested in asking any questions about "how God did it". Or rather it's not interested in figuring anything out, because it already has an answer.


    It's not considered non-science because the existence of God is scientifically impossible. It's just scientifically un-interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kojax

    I agree.

    But! I still do not understand this in reference to me.

    I'm not religious.

    Science evidence is the way to go.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    354
    Then stop quoting creationist hacks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by scooter
    there is no way to create or destroy matter or energy in any way. you can transform energy into matter , like how you stated through plants, or you can transform matter into energy like a battery. but you can not just pull the matter or energy out of thin air like magic.
    Thanks for confirming what I said in support of the Conservation Laws.

    The example of transformation of energy into matter by the plants is just that.
    But there is NO new matter created. The plants just used the Sun's energy to transform the matter. But the new matter was created out of the soils and rainfall.
    So this is 'transformation', not creation although it would appear that way. .
    Incidentally, plants also use nitrogen from the air. So there is some creation out of air. Ha ha.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


    What creationist hack?

    What link?

    Have you people been drinking?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Kojax

    I agree.

    But! I still do not understand this in reference to me.

    I'm not religious.

    Science evidence is the way to go.
    My point is that, at the ground level, religion and dogmatic science are not any different from each other, in any way whatsoever.

    Religion was humankind's first attempt at science, really. They didn't know how to gather evidence as well as we do, so they just speculated and then got really mad if anyone questioned their speculations without absolute proof to the contrary.

    ..... A lot like astronomy today....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

    Ok what ever.

    This reminds me the cyclic universe
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Ok. Astronomers can't explain why the accepted equations for gravity/space-time-curvature aren't bearing out for stars on the outer rim of galaxies, soooooo............. we get an ad-hoc adjustment: Dark Matter.


    Is that so different from an Adam and Eve, or six day creation? I'm just saying: jumping to conclusions is jumping to conclusions. It doesn't matter if it's a scientist doing it, or an ancient mystic/prophet/priest doing it. It's all the same.

    If the scientific community would learn to suspend belief a little bit longer, keep the jury deliberating instead of just rendering a verdict asap, we might start making some serious breakthroughs.

    As it stands, the only people willing to keep guessing once a "theory" is in place are the crackpots, and most of them don't know enough to guess intelligently. (Myself included, if I try guessing too much.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day kojax

    You said

    Ok. Astronomers can't explain why the accepted equations for gravity/space-time-curvature aren't bearing out for stars on the outer rim of galaxies, soooooo............. we get an ad-hoc adjustment: Dark Matter.
    YEP!!!!!!!


    You may find this link interesting


    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509800

    Conceptual Problems of the Standard Cosmological Model

    Authors: Yurij Baryshev
    (Submitted on 27 Sep 2005)

    Abstract: The physics of the expansion of the universe is still a poorly studied subject of the standard cosmological model. This because the concept of expanding space can not be tested in the laboratory and because ``expansion'' means continuous creation of space, something that leads to several paradoxes. We re-consider and expand here the discussion of conceptual problems, already noted in the literature, linked to the expansion of space. In particular we discuss the problem of the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equations, the receding velocity of galaxies being greater than the speed of light, and the Hubble law inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. Recent discussion by Kiang, Davis \& Lineweaver, and Whiting of the non-Doppler nature of the Lemaitre cosmological redshift in the standard model is just a particular consequence of the paradoxes mentioned above. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity (general relativity), where there is not a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field and hence no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    As it stands, the only people willing to keep guessing once a "theory" is in place are the crackpots, and most of them don't know enough to guess intelligently. (Myself included, if I try guessing too much.)
    My city is bordered by high mountains to the north. We have some steep foot trails leading up these, most famously the "Grouse Grind". I've seen people entering the Grind, and emerging exhausted and full of pride. They will tell you it was worthwhile. It must have been worthwhile. I suspect a few of them are cheating though, and double back half way. I've completed the Grind, myself. The trail mounts onto cheesy chalet mating with cablecar machinery, public washrooms, and the sort of floral plantings one sees at gas stations. The Emperor has no clothes.

    I should say the climb is worthwhile... if you only knew. Want to disprove that? Haul yourself up the mountain, first. Then say what you will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Pong

    You said

    I should say the climb is worthwhile... if you only knew. Want to disprove that? Haul yourself up the mountain, first. Then say what you will.

    That's one way of saying it.

    Problem is the mountain is toooooooooo far and nobody has climed it.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Pong

    You said

    I should say the climb is worthwhile... if you only knew. Want to disprove that? Haul yourself up the mountain, first. Then say what you will.

    That's one way of saying it.

    Problem is the mountain is toooooooooo far and nobody has climed it.
    No I mean our physics today is that mountain, and still growing. You won't be taken seriously until you've suspended disbelief and invested hugely in it. Only people predisposed to buy-in will follow through. Finally, you'd be crazy to undermine all your effort. Rather, you'll want to validate your investment. Make it worthwhile. I'm talking about real people and real life choices.

    There are other careers seeming whacked-out to lay observers. Ever talked to an art curator? Ridiculous, yet they do keep the galleries up and running. Same of economists. Who grinds through that and graduates a disbeliever?

    These are self-sustaining mountains. They exist because they're there.


    +1 William McCormick :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Pong


    Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I understand.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    24
    The universe we live in started eons ago with an original big bang. God occupied dimensions above our three dimensions. This physical universe was produced by non-physical potential energy.

    The present configuration of the universe is a multi-lightspeed universe with God at zero light speed in the center. The universe is a perfect sphere of radius 2Rg. where Rg is the radius of our galaxy. This is1,50564E26meters. Thus from the center of God to the outer sphers is twice this amount.

    All the galaxies have centers on an sphere of the above radius. If you draw a circle of any radius, then draw six equally spaced circles on the circumference of that circle. Then every ten degrees on the cicumference draw 6 circles. This will produce 36 circles around the first circle. Notice that the outer edge forms a circle as well. If we take a billion galaxies around a sphere of the same radius, we will produce an outer sphere. This is what God and the Universe looks like.

    As we move closer to God we find at light speed C/2, the first heavens. At light speed C/4 we find another universe which comprizes the second heavens and so forth.

    The galaxy works by a set of waves which compress and wipe out the prior galaxy. As our galaxy exploded at the black hole, all the other galaxies in the universe exploded as well.

    There is a dual wave. As our galaxy forms another wave from the outer cirumference heads this way. Thus in the future we will be hit by a killer wave which will wipe out this Earth and all the stars.

    The stars will fall from the sky. Everything will be erased. No one knows when this will occur. The good thing is that it will only take 0.2 seconds for this Earth to disintergrate. Thus man upon this Earth will not have to worry about it. By the time the wave hits, all will be gone. Then the only question will be whether or not people will move upward to the heavens or remain in the destroyed galaxy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by JerryG38
    The universe we live in started eons ago with an original big bang. God occupied dimensions above our three dimensions. This physical universe was produced by non-physical potential energy.

    The present configuration of the universe is a multi-lightspeed universe with God at zero light speed in the center. The universe is a perfect sphere of radius 2Rg. where Rg is the radius of our galaxy. This is1,50564E26meters. Thus from the center of God to the outer sphers is twice this amount.

    All the galaxies have centers on an sphere of the above radius. If you draw a circle of any radius, then draw six equally spaced circles on the circumference of that circle. Then every ten degrees on the cicumference draw 6 circles. This will produce 36 circles around the first circle. Notice that the outer edge forms a circle as well. If we take a billion galaxies around a sphere of the same radius, we will produce an outer sphere. This is what God and the Universe looks like.

    As we move closer to God we find at light speed C/2, the first heavens. At light speed C/4 we find another universe which comprizes the second heavens and so forth.

    The galaxy works by a set of waves which compress and wipe out the prior galaxy. As our galaxy exploded at the black hole, all the other galaxies in the universe exploded as well.

    There is a dual wave. As our galaxy forms another wave from the outer cirumference heads this way. Thus in the future we will be hit by a killer wave which will wipe out this Earth and all the stars.

    The stars will fall from the sky. Everything will be erased. No one knows when this will occur. The good thing is that it will only take 0.2 seconds for this Earth to disintergrate. Thus man upon this Earth will not have to worry about it. By the time the wave hits, all will be gone. Then the only question will be whether or not people will move upward to the heavens or remain in the destroyed galaxy.
    A truly terrifying post!
    I suppose this could apply to many of us but I can only repeat the comment made by one of the greatest of the Universal Scientists when he said, of a colleague "someone should have a word with his mother".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from th eland of ozzzzz

    I'm going to bring is Santa to give his opinion.

    It's funny how so many of us, including myself have this imagination of how the universe should look and function.

    Is fantasy more real than the actual observations.

    Read 100 scientific papers and you will be lucky to find 20 papers with reality based on observations and scientific logic.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by JerryG38
    All the galaxies have centers on an sphere of the above radius. If you draw a circle of any radius, then draw six equally spaced circles on the circumference of that circle. Then every ten degrees on the cicumference draw 6 circles. This will produce 36 circles around the first circle. Notice that the outer edge forms a circle as well. If we take a billion galaxies around a sphere of the same radius, we will produce an outer sphere. This is what God and the Universe looks like.

    The stars will fall from the sky. Everything will be erased. No one knows when this will occur. The good thing is that it will only take 0.2 seconds for this Earth to disintergrate. Thus man upon this Earth will not have to worry about it. By the time the wave hits, all will be gone. Then the only question will be whether or not people will move upward to the heavens or remain in the destroyed galaxy.
    Imaginative stuff. Have you thought about a career in the church?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzz


    Here down under we see the universe upside down.

    ============================================

    Moving on

    Do we look beyond and try to find the secrets of the workings of the universe. Getting to know what makes up the universe will give us an inside scoop to understand. Compact matter is a critical stage in the recycling process.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701768

    The observational legacy of preon stars - probing new physics beyond the LHC

    Authors: F. Sandin, J. Hansson
    (Submitted on 26 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 30 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))

    Abstract: We discuss possible ways to observationally detect the superdense cosmic objects composed of hypothetical sub-constituent fermions beneath the quark/lepton level, recently proposed by us. The characteristic mass and size of such objects depend on the compositeness scale, and their huge density cannot arise within a context of quarks and leptons alone. Their eventual observation would therefore be a direct vindication of physics beyond the standard model of particle physics, possibly far beyond the reach of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in a relatively simple and inexpensive manner. If relic objects of this type exist, they can possibly be detected by present and future x-ray observatories, high-frequency gravitational wave detectors, and seismological detectors. To have a realistic detection rate, i.e., to be observable, they must necessarily constitute a significant fraction of cold dark matter.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612777

    Neutron stars and quark stars: Two coexisting families of compact stars?

    Authors: J. Schaffner-Bielich
    (Submitted on 29 Dec 2006)

    Abstract: The mass-radius relation of compact stars is discussed with relation to the presence of quark matter in the core. The existence of a new family of compact stars with quark matter besides white dwarfs and ordinary neutron stars is outlined.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Pong

    You said

    I should say the climb is worthwhile... if you only knew. Want to disprove that? Haul yourself up the mountain, first. Then say what you will.

    That's one way of saying it.

    Problem is the mountain is toooooooooo far and nobody has climed it.
    No I mean our physics today is that mountain, and still growing. You won't be taken seriously until you've suspended disbelief and invested hugely in it. Only people predisposed to buy-in will follow through. Finally, you'd be crazy to undermine all your effort. Rather, you'll want to validate your investment. Make it worthwhile. I'm talking about real people and real life choices.
    This is exactly what worries me.

    You don't need evidence to convince somebody who's emotionally incapable of disbelief. That's how cults work. The extremely strict, disciplined, lifestyle and sacrifices make it nearly impossible for the cultists to seriously question anything their esteemed leader tells them, no matter how little evidence there is.

    I guess you run into this problem any time you try to push an intellectual discipline too far into the abstract. The cost of learning all of that abstraction increases until emotion catches up with reason.

    On the one hand, they don't want to question their models, because it was too hard to learn, and on the other hand the models themselves are too complex for anyone to seriously analyze them anyway.


    There are other careers seeming whacked-out to lay observers. Ever talked to an art curator? Ridiculous, yet they do keep the galleries up and running. Same of economists. Who grinds through that and graduates a disbeliever?
    I'm not sure the economists are keeping anything running these days, at least not all that well, but maybe things would be worse without them.....



    These are self-sustaining mountains. They exist because they're there.

    +1 William McCormick :?
    I like to call it "push selling". Like with Iraq. The moment the US started taking casualties, half the country didn't care what our justifications were anymore. Pulling out ceased to be an option, and the administration was free to formally admit there were never any WMD's.

    (They'd just made a bunch of "blunders" that lead them to tell us there were. They hadn't been lying, just "blundering")


    Push selling is a very effective tactic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kojax

    You said

    On the one hand, they don't want to question their models, because it was too hard to learn, and on the other hand the models themselves are too complex for anyone to seriously analyze them anyway.

    So!!!! True
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by VMStudent
    Let’s get some things straight. We obviously don’t have a clue why we’re here, or how we got here.
    "Why" we are here is a philosophical question, mostly irrelevant. We got here through the process of evolution.
    That has raised another question of mine.

    Can the universe "evolve", in any sort of the word? Does it have some sort of evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'dau from the land of ozzzzzzz


    Iggy said

    Can the universe "evolve", in any sort of the word? Does it have some sort of evolution?
    The universe a "TOTAL" does not evolve expand or contract.

    The parts within the universe such as stars and galaxies have a pattern of evolution that is complicated by collisions and so on. These parts also expand and contract and go through a recyling process which is general to all.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    To understand the workings of the universe one needs to understand how the so called black holes form jets.

    Plasma properties.
    Technical overview I
    http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tech.html

    Z-pinch astrophysics jets
    SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-basic_connect

    Plasma Cosmology
    http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

    This is an interesting link that may expalin some issues in the workings of the universe.


    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-008-9853-0
    The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe


    Abstract
    The present paper outlines a cosmological paradigm based upon Diracs large number hypothesis and continual creation of matter in a closed static (nonexpanding) universe. The cosmological redshift is caused by the tired-light phenomenon originally proposed by Zwicky. It is shown that the tired-light cosmology together with continual matter creation has a universal Hubble constant H 0=(512π 2/3)1/6(GC 0)1/3 fixed by the universal rate C 0 of matter creation, where G is Newtons gravitational constant. It is also shown that a closed static universe has a finite age τ 0=(243π 5/8GC 0)1/3 also fixed by the universal rate of matter creation. The invariant relationship H 0 τ 0=3π 261/2 shows that a closed static universe is much older (≈one trillion years) than any expanding universe model based upon Big-Bang cosmology. It is this property of a static universe that resolves any cosmic age crisis provided that galaxy formation in the universe is a continual recurring process. Application of Diracs large number hypothesis gives a matter creation rate C 0=4.610‑48 gm cm‑3 s‑1 depending only on the fundamental constants of nature. Hence, the model shows that a closed static universe has a Hubble constant H 0=70 km s‑1 Mpc‑1 in good agreement with recent astronomical determinations of H 0. By using the above numerical value for H 0 together with observational data for elongated cellular-wall structures containing superclusters of galaxies, it is shown that the elongated cellular-wall configurations observed in the real universe are at least one hundred billion years old. Application of the microscopic laws of physics to the large-scale macroscopic universe leads to a static eternal cosmos endowed with a matter-antimatter symmetry. It is proposed that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is continuously created by particle-antiparticle pair annihilation occurring in episodic cosmological gamma-ray bursts observed in the real universe.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

    This is an interesting link that may expalin some issues in the workings of the universe.
    What about the CMB and large scale structure analysis? I don't see that there.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day (Q)

    You said

    What about the CMB and large scale structure analysis? I don't see that there.
    Good question? What do you want to know?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86 its not only a bang 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1
    hey i am a student and not have more knowledge in cosmology. i never read books on it.
    and i am posting here some thoughts of mine


    i think the universe is created not only by a bang

    for me if the current universe is expanding then there must be a contracting universe. also this universe that we live must be contracting in the past time.
    for me, there are several universe each contracting and expanding to make the fundamental dimension adjustable. this fundamental dimension is time.
    for me, the whole universe and the matter in it is just adjusting the change in this time. Time is changing in each universe and all matter in it is just adjusting it. also the whole universes is nothing but is energy just like a ocean of energy. the matter in it is also energy , which we can touch , see and feel and called matter. the whole thing in this universe take to adjust time. if a person or body is moving then he or it is only doing to adjust the time. this make his or its position to change.

    for me universe is like a whirlpool the whole thing is concentrated and revolve rounds a centre point, this center point is associated with center point of another universe. thus eneregy is transferring from to another. among this one is expanding and other is contarcting.


    if we find the end of the universe the we can fine the beginning


    if we calculate the whole energy of this entire universes we get ZERO and thus it can easily know that the universe is from a big zero that is from a void thing.


    this is only my thoughts.


    plz reply to me
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Mr Universe

    Get back to ground zero and try to understand bits at a time. Read up on star formation.

    But! your idea of maybe a contractiog universe is not so bad.

    In actual fact when we observe starformation and galaxy evolution we notic a phase of expansion and a phase of contraction.

    This link maybe of interest. Just because I post these links does not mean that I agree with them or they are right or wrong.


    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1007/s10509-008-9853-0
    The cosmic age crisis and the Hubble constant in a non-expanding universe

    Abstract

    The present paper outlines a cosmological paradigm based upon Diracs large number hypothesis and continual creation of matter in a closed static (nonexpanding) universe. The cosmological redshift is caused by the tired-light phenomenon originally proposed by Zwicky. It is shown that the tired-light cosmology together with continual matter creation has a universal Hubble constant H 0=(512π 2/3)1/6(GC 0)1/3 fixed by the universal rate C 0 of matter creation, where G is Newtons gravitational constant. It is also shown that a closed static universe has a finite age τ 0=(243π 5/8GC 0)1/3 also fixed by the universal rate of matter creation. The invariant relationship H 0 τ 0=3π 261/2 shows that a closed static universe is much older (≈one trillion years) than any expanding universe model based upon Big-Bang cosmology. It is this property of a static universe that resolves any cosmic age crisis provided that galaxy formation in the universe is a continual recurring process. Application of Diracs large number hypothesis gives a matter creation rate C 0=4.610‑48 gm cm‑3 s‑1 depending only on the fundamental constants of nature. Hence, the model shows that a closed static universe has a Hubble constant H 0=70 km s‑1 Mpc‑1 in good agreement with recent astronomical determinations of H 0. By using the above numerical value for H 0 together with observational data for elongated cellular-wall structures containing superclusters of galaxies, it is shown that the elongated cellular-wall configurations observed in the real universe are at least one hundred billion years old. Application of the microscopic laws of physics to the large-scale macroscopic universe leads to a static eternal cosmos endowed with a matter-antimatter symmetry. It is proposed that the matter-antimatter asymmetry is continuously created by particle-antiparticle pair annihilation occurring in episodic cosmological gamma-ray bursts observed in the real universe.

    The standard model is the BBT, right or wrong its what scientists base their assumptions and make the data fit and in many cases use ad hoc ideas to do that.

    One more thing time and space cannot be changed, contracted or expanded or created.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    Good question? What do you want to know?
    Tired light does not explain them, can you?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day (Q)

    You said

    What about the CMB and large scale structure analysis? I don't see that there.
    Tired light does not explain them, can you?
    CMB is not the proof of the BBT. CMB is the resultant of what is occuring day in day out out there and beyond.

    Large scale structures are build by merges. But! how do these large structures break up? The centre Nucelon (BH) grows enough power to create a jet and eject matter deep into space reforming clusters of stars and shooting them away.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    CMB is not the proof of the BBT. CMB is the resultant of what is occuring day in day out out there and beyond.

    Large scale structures are build by merges. But! how do these large structures break up? The centre Nucelon (BH) grows enough power to create a jet and eject matter deep into space reforming clusters of stars and shooting them away.
    Are those your explanations or did you get that from the article?

    I asked how they were explained using tired light? You didn't explain.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day (Q)

    You said

    Are those your explanations or did you get that from the article?
    These are explanations deduced from observations, seeing huge jets eject matter millions of light years away from the Nucleon (BH).



    I asked how they were explained using tired light? You didn't explain.
    Please expand on your question. Jet? or cluster of galaxies?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day from the land of ozzzz

    Interesting

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.3664
    GRAVITAS: Portraits of a Universe in Motion

    Authors: John Dubinski, John Kameel Farah
    (Submitted on 25 Feb 2008)


    Abstract: GRAVITAS is a self-published DVD that presents a visual and musical celebration of the beauty in a dynamic universe driven by gravity. Animations from supercomputer simulations of forming galaxies, star clusters, galaxy clusters, and galaxy interactions are presented as moving portraits of cosmic evolution. Billions of years of complex gravitational choreography are presented in 9 animations - each one interpreted with an original musical composition inspired by the exquisite movements of gravity. The result is an emotive and spiritually uplifting synthesis of science and art. The GRAVITAS DVD has been out for two years now but I am now making the DVD disk image freely available for personal and educational use through a bittorrent download. Download and burn at your leisure. The animations are also downloadable in various video formats.

    http://www.galaxydynamics.org/
    http://www.galaxydynamics.org/gravitas.html
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

    This is an interesting link that may expalin some issues in the workings of the universe.
    What about the CMB and large scale structure analysis? I don't see that there.
    They could be separate and independent phenomena that have nothing to do with the Hubble Redshift.

    The CMBR kind of makes sense of its own accord. Why shouldn't there be an approximately equal amount of black body radiation moving through space in all directions?

    By large scale structure analysis, I gather you mean the more or less even distribution of elements throughout the galaxy? Any statician will tell you that that's just a consequence of the "law of large numbers" which states that any truly random determination, if carried out enough times, will yield approximately even results. (IE. if you roll a billion dice, the ratio of "1"'s to "2"'s will be approximately equal to 1/1)


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas

    Good question? What do you want to know?
    Tired light does not explain them, can you?
    Why should one theory explain them all? It would be nice if that happened, but if we compare, for example, Einstein's Relativity vs. Newtonian Mechanics, you'll notice that the more accurate theory is more complicated, not less complicated.

    The universe doesn't appear to have any intention of making itself simple for us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Kojax

    You may find this paper interesting

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0364
    Modified Gravity: Cosmology without dark matter or Einstein's cosmological constant

    Authors: J. W. Moffat, V. T. Toth
    (Submitted on 1 Oct 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Jun 2008 (this version, v6))

    Abstract: We explore the cosmological consequences of Modified Gravity (MOG), and find that it provides, using a minimal number of parameters, good fits to data, including CMB temperature anisotropy, galaxy power spectrum, and supernova luminosity-distance observations without exotic dark matter. MOG predicts a bouncing cosmology with a vacuum energy term that yields accelerating expansion and an age of ~13 billion years.
    I question the 13 Gyrs.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    20
    I have a method to calculate the age of universe: The effective form of universe

    According to this model:


    The age of Universe: 19.3 +/- 0,6 Gyrs

    The diameter of universe : 26.86 Gly

    Ho = 43.7 +/- 1,3 km/s/mpc
    Restoration of postulates
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The problem is the CMB which limits our view of the rest of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •