February 5th, 2009, 11:30 AM
Could it be possible that the universe have no beginning at all? I think it makes a bit sense because we always want to rationalize things with a origin as a rule. And it could be other-wise
we have ideas about the beginning of the universe with a big bang, but it would seem to be a never-ending questions of what preceded by it. So we should also consider the opposite idea.
There are theories dealing with this that consist of the Big Bang as being part of them. One of the theories dealing wi9th this is called the cyclic universe theory.
The steady state model of the universe is not as popular as it used to be. Most cosmologists think the big bang theory does a better job of explaining the red shift of distant galaxies and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
There are many serious problems with the big bang idea which have not been addressed. The steady state theory is making a come back. It's main problem is that it needs a process of "continuous creation". I have an idea involving black holes which would solve the problem but it is just an idea.
This 'continuous create' was introduced by Hoyle et al.Originally Posted by Cyberia
Mass and energy comply to the Laws of Conservation.
So there is no need for matter to be created. The SSU was promoted by Hoyle but the introduction of new matter was a mistake.
My version of a SSU is a FLAT SPACE universe that has NO curvaturec. So it is not expanding or contracting.
Therefore, in this type of a universe, there would be NO erosion of 'momentum' as in a curved Einstein space universe.
My solution for the cosmological redshift is the expansion of the light waves.
Cosmo
A flat universe can still expand and contract. And the curvature of space introduced by relativity is purely a local phenomena. It doesn't comment on the global shape of spacetime.
Positive/negative/neutral Curvature and expansion/contraction/static are entirely separate concepts. It's possible to have a any combination of the two concepts (a positively curved expanding universe, a flat contracting universe, etc.)
But surely you believe in the conservation of energy? A photon's energy is related to its frequency. Redshift without an expanding universe and relativity means light is losing energy as it travels through space. Where does that energy go?My solution for the cosmological redshift is the expansion of the light waves.
Unless you don't believe in the particle/wave duality of light? But then you'd have to explain the photoelectric effect.
Greetings forum members,
If I may weight in with a few ideas........
I would be happier representing the Church in matters of astral phenomena than representing some renegade nation trying to prove something today that has never been proven before in the history of human life.
The steady state idea has been pondered by much wiser astronomical and cosmological minds than any here, at enormous length and in enormous detail. End result is that it is not a credible idea. The Big Bang has so many facts supporting it that steady state is simply not credible.
For example ; why is it that Hubble photos of far distant galaxies (meaning much younger galaxies) show that they are much closer together and show a much higher frequency of galactic collisions? Easy to explain from Big Bang and an expanding universe, but not so with steady state.
Why is it that immensely distant stars appear to burn mostly hydrogen and have little helium? Why are many much larger than stars closer to us? These young stars are different to older stars, implying a universe that changes over time - not steady state!
[strawman]And why are galaxies arranged like Fingers pointing at the Hubble telescope? Clearly there is something special about our place and time.[/strawman]
The problem with such a universe is that over a very long time, all matter would eventually be absorbed into black holes. There has to be a release mechanism or it will stay there.
How would light expand? Photons are stable in that they can last billions of years and keep intact in the gravity of a neutron star.
I've found that anyone who accepts the big bang idea as gospel finds it difficult to even consider any other theory for even a second as we see from some very limited minds on any science forum.
The BB has redshift and the CMB. There are alternatives for both. It has failed the shadow test, so is not really credible any more. It inflates/expands against a gravitational force that makes the average black hole look like a balloon, which is blatant nonsense.
Heard of line of sight? The tiny blobs that represent whole galaxies in the most distant images are not really next to each other or they would collide (note our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy, on a collision course though 2,000,000 light years apart. Did you take part in the galaxy zoo survey? I found a lot of colliding galaxies "fairly close" to us. Many galaxies show signs of being in collisions not many billions of years ago. A steady state universe does not mean everything sits in one place. Everything moves about but the universe is of a set size.For example ; why is it that Hubble photos of far distant galaxies (meaning much younger galaxies) show that they are much closer together and show a much higher frequency of galactic collisions? Easy to explain from Big Bang and an expanding universe, but not so with steady state.
Only a very few distant stars have been found to be mostly hydrogen. We cannot assume that all parts of the universe are exactly the same as here. How does the BB explain a void a billion light years across, walls of galaxies and an 18 billion solar mass black hole in under 14 billion years? The BB requires a hypersphere. Evidence of a fourth physical dimension is....? Why is the CMB at 2.7. K, the same as space here, away from a star? Shouldn't it be at 3,000.C?Why is it that immensely distant stars appear to burn mostly hydrogen and have little helium? Why are many much larger than stars closer to us? These young stars are different to older stars, implying a universe that changes over time - not steady state!
What's skeptical about following the party line?
The church and science are incompatible. The bible talks of a flat world 6012 years old, waters above the sky, the stars being fires in the clouds which can fall to Earth or move about at noticeable speed, the Moon shining by it's own light, the sun stopping in the sky or even going backwards in it's trip around the Earth so religion is of no use here.
Space does not curve. It is the effect of gravity travelling through a vacuum. We do not have heated space because infra-red radiation travels through it.
But surely you believe in the conservation of energy? A photon's energy is related to its frequency. Redshift without an expanding universe and relativity means light is losing energy as it travels through space. Where does that energy go?
Unless you don't believe in the particle/wave duality of light? But then you'd have to explain the photoelectric effect.
The universe is a sea of gravity (well gravitational sources but homogeneous over distance) As a photon travels, gravity drags at it so it redshifts over cosmic distances. Redshifting due to gravity is indistinguishable from recession.
Particles do not travel at light speed, waves do. Being discrete, photons might be mistaken for particles as they do not "leak".
Cyberia
The contribution that the Hubble telescope has made includes data that shows without any room for doubt that the early universe was substantially different to the current universe.
Galaxies at distances greater than 10 billion light years are seen as they were 10 billion plus years in the past. Hubble is a 'time machine' viewing the distant past. These distant galaxies are definitely closer together than modern galaxies, regardless of your denials, and the percentage of galactic collisions is much greater than in today's universe, which is what is expected if all the galaxies are 'crowded' into a smaller space. This data is close to proof positive that the universe of 10 billion plus years ago was smaller than the current universe.
Add the traditional evidence of red shifts, which are clearly greater for more distant galaxies, and there is no room to doubt the fact that the universe is expanding and was much smaller in the past. Then add the cosmic microwave background - the left over radiation from the Big Bang, and there is no doubt left. The universe began with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. This is not just an opinion. The solid scientific data shows it to be correct.
If you want to look at what is basically unknown, then look at the nature of the Big Bang and what caused it, and what might have happened 'outside' our universe, and if anything existed before the Big Bang. These are areas of speculation and discussion, and all kinds of possible answers might be true, as far as we know.
Seems it would be hard, or impossible to explain the observed fact of the Second Law of Thermodynamics unless the universe began in an extremely low entropy state and moves inexorably to a higher entropy state. The laws of physics contain no arrow of time. Only a universe with a beginning in a big bang explains why Humpty Dumpty can't reassemble spontaneously.
Life maintains and even reduces entropy. If we exclude Earth, and further assume laws bar life's emergence anywhere or anytime, then we should solve the problem as if this is a dead universe.
No, life reduces entropy inside the cell, but at the cost of a disproportionate increase in the entropy outside the cell. When thinking of life in thermodynamic terms, it's best to think of it as a series of chemical reactions. There's nothing magic going on. The universe still inexorable marches towards a heat death.Life maintains and even reduces entropy. If we exclude Earth, and further assume laws bar life's emergence anywhere or anytime, then we should solve the problem as if this is a dead universe.
I actually typed a preemption of that reductionist argument, but decided to wait.
You can reduce any system to dead & aimless components. It's all just "chemical reactions" does indeed explain away evolution and any other emergent systems. The fact remains, contrary to the 2nd law: we're here.
Honestly what's your motive in "it's best to think of" socks in the sock drawer as meaningless collections of atoms? Best I think only to pretend these larger contradicting patterns don't exist.
You do understand life creates ever larger emergent patterns?
That's why I said "when thinking about life in thermodynamic terms". It neatly avoids the emergent evolutionary characteristics of life, but it still accurately demonstrates where the entropy goes.
Actually, I take that back. Thinking of life in purely biochemical terms actually demonstrates the core emergent evolutionary characteristic. See this diagram. The Krebs cycle specifically demonstrates the core emergent nature of life processes and helps demonstrate its thermodynamic nature as well.
A cell is basically like a little engine. It extracts useful work from sugars pretty efficiently, using the work to keep itself alive. But the waste (CO2) gets expelled into the atmosphere which increases the planet's entropy.
haha
Evidence they were closer together, more collisions, etc?
A picture of the Andromeda galaxy:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap021021.html
A picture of distant galaxies like the ones you are talking about. Spot the difference:
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rs...p_field_02.jpg
Add the traditional evidence of red shifts, which are clearly greater for more distant galaxies, and there is no room to doubt the fact that the universe is expanding and was much smaller in the past. Then add the cosmic microwave background - the left over radiation from the Big Bang, and there is no doubt left. The universe began with a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. This is not just an opinion. The solid scientific data shows it to be correct.
That sounds like an appeal to belief. Gravity redshifts photons. Fact. It is indistinguishable from recessional redshifts. Fact. The universe is full of gravitational sources. Fact. How can a photon travel for billions of years without redshifting due to gravity? The further they travel, the more they are redshifted.
The CMB is leftover from when atoms first appeared so should be about 3,000.C but is actually -271.C, about the same temperature as local space away from a star. How do you account for that?
A black hole starts from a few times the mass of the Sun, call it 10^28 tons. The universe masses about 10^55 tons. A black hole does not expand because gravity holds everything in place. A singularity, a point source with virtually infinite density containing as much mass as 10^27 black holes does expand. Of course, the singularity is not a black hole because it has had pixie dust sprinkled over it which allows it to disobey the most basic rule of the universe.
If you want to look at what is basically unknown, then look at the nature of the Big Bang and what caused it, and what might have happened 'outside' our universe, and if anything existed before the Big Bang. These are areas of speculation and discussion, and all kinds of possible answers might be true, as far as we know.
It was originally 2 branes in dimension Z knocking together to produce the universe but when everyone stopped laughing, it was decided that this universe must have come from a multiverse which allows mass and energy conservation over all. BUT it is not a real origin, just a transferal so how did the multiverse get there?
Cyberia
I do not know where you get your arguments. They are so similar to religious anti-evolution rationalisations - superficially plausible, but nonsense when you understand the subject a little better.
I am not sure of your Andromeda/deep field argument. Perhaps you can explain it??
Gravity versus redshift. It takes massive gravity forces to achieve any significant red shift. Red shift as used to demonstrate the expanding universe is intergalactic, where gravity is so tiny it cannot have any measurable effect at all. We know the degree of red shift as light leaves a galaxy, since Andromeda and other nearby galaxies show that. Light from massively distant galaxies suffers no extra gravity, since intergalactic space is essentially free of gravity. Thus, the extra red shift is due to expansion.
The low temperature of the CMB is exactly what is predicted by Big Bang theory. As the universe expands, space expands, and the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation expands. This expansion of the wavelength lowers the effective temperature so that the massively hot radiation of the Big Bang is cooled to microwaves. This level of temperature reduction can be calculated, and has been. It all fits the observed facts beautifully.
You said :
"It was originally 2 branes in dimension Z knocking together to produce the universe but when everyone stopped laughing, it was decided that this universe must have come from a multiverse which allows mass and energy conservation over all. BUT it is not a real origin, just a transferal so how did the multiverse get there?"
There you go! Now you are discussing something that is unknown, which means your speculation is as good as anyone else's. Isn't that better than trying to deny stuff that is so strong in evidence that it is close to proven?
Gravity blue shifts photons. Fact. I keep pointing this out to you. Gravity doesn't just redshift. It also blueshifts. Why in your explanation would there be a net redshift? Why not a net blueshift?
Cyberia's saying that early galaxies look like near ones and aren't colliding.
Here's a Hubble pic of light about 13 billion years old, the oldest we've got:
I'll add that it does not look primordial either. On the contrary! These galaxies appear diverse and highly evolved.
The schedule of star succession doesn't fit BB age of universe. It's because you can't just throw together metal-rich solar systems (e.g. ours) with BB material. First you're got to accrete a big fat star with hydrogen and some heavier stuff (from where?), and then let that burn its hydrogen for 10 billion years and then burn its helium and then finally start generating heavier metals consecutively until you reach iron and supernova... and then lord knows how long this nebula drifts and flows through other nebula before they accrete into another star... finally with rich starjunk disc that forms a terrestrial planet sustaining humans after 5 billion years of solar system development. Absolute "rush order" Earth means the sequence of conversions must have commenced before Big Bang.
That's like dating California 2,000 years old, and reckoning the tallest sequoia tree must have grown real fast after land appeared.
Check out star populations: pop I, pop II, and the mythical pop IIIs that had no time to exist. Does that Hubble field look like homogeneous soup of first-generation stars?
Pong
My information comes from a Scientific American article on Hubble discoveries. The scientists involved calculated average galactic separations in very early parts of the universe, versus todays, and the differences were very dramatic. Ditto for numbers of galactic collisions. You need careful measurements, and accurate calculations. Simply looking at a photo of star fields does not cut it.
That's true for star like suns, but larger, hotter stars can have lifetimes measurable in millions of years.
Skeptic is correct. The reason why the galaxies APPEAR so well formed is because the matter that made it possible was EVERYWHERE in a VERY SMALL SPACE. That's why it happened so fast. Comparing it to a tree is just obtuse, because a tree has defined genetic limits and the universe does not.
Cyberia, as has been pointed out, light leaving a gravity well is redshifted, but light entering a gravity well is blueshifted. Since the universe is isotropic on a large scale, the gravitation acting on a photon is cancelled out, leaving only shifting due to relative movement and expansion.
I'm still puzzled as to how these ultra deep field galaxies appear various and mature. Would brand-new population III stars even be clustered in galaxies?
I guess they'd have to! So there was enough time for the 3 - 2 - 1 succession. I've got to admit my ...incredulity... at BB is largely due to the creepy-cozy timeline.
These apparently normal galaxies are smaller, faster. :| I sense we're moving into astrophysics I can never get my mind around.
It's like that quote from Blade Runner: "The star that burns twice as bright burns half as long". Only that math is screwy, it's more like: "The star that burns twice as bright burns 25% as long"
I've been educated.
Well larger, hotter stars are capable of producing the heavier elements through a chain starting at hydrogen and moving on up with increasing scarcity. And they have a shorter lifespan, so they'll supernova that much faster.
If you want specifics, this seems like a good link.
When a star goes nova or super-nova, the explosion causes even more heavy and heavier elements to be produced.
Are you claiming to understand the subject because all I see is someone claiming to be a skeptic while repeating the accepted dogma and madly nodding his head and saying "Yup! Yup! Yup!"
I thought someone as all knowing as yourself would instantly understand it. You talk of galaxies ten billion light years away as though they were "next door". We have far better pictures than the one I used of the Andromeda galaxy showing better detail. We even have good images of galaxies maybe a billion light years away. But when it comes to the kind of distances you are talking about, we have tiny smudges in huge photos. No detail. I would have liked evidence that what you call closer together is not line of sight as in constellations. Looking back ten billion light years and more must involve seeing endless galaxies at various distances which a novice might think they are all at the same distance away, so close together.I am not sure of your Andromeda/deep field argument. Perhaps you can explain it??
A wall of galaxies is pulling our galaxy towards it from 147 million light years away so even over such distances, gravity cannot be ignored because nowhere is free of gravity. Sure a neutron star can heavily redshift a photon within miles but while the gravitational pull between galaxies is very tiny, the distances a photon travels is very great, so making up for it. Just one billion light years comes out to 5,880,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles. So you have a low gravity affecting a photon but it is not over a few miles but over tens of billions of trillions of miles. It is a cumulative effect. A continual drag which can affect a photon because it is so small and weak by comparison to anything else.Gravity versus redshift. It takes massive gravity forces to achieve any significant red shift. Red shift as used to demonstrate the expanding universe is intergalactic, where gravity is so tiny it cannot have any measurable effect at all. We know the degree of red shift as light leaves a galaxy, since Andromeda and other nearby galaxies show that. Light from massively distant galaxies suffers no extra gravity, since intergalactic space is essentially free of gravity. Thus, the extra red shift is due to expansion.
Andromeda galaxy shows a blue shift since it is heading towards us. A photon's red shift on leaving Andromeda is about balanced out by it's blue shift on arrival. It only travels a relatively tiny distance so the photon does not have time to have a noticeable redshift due to travelling.
We are looking at the CMB which is very near the big bang. You are talking billions of years later, so billions of years close to us. ie: The CMB at 13.7 billion light years is 3,000.C when atoms appeared but at just a million light years, it is -271.C because of expansion for nearly 13.7 billion light years. The probl;em is that at 13.7 billion light years, the CMB is the same as now.The low temperature of the CMB is exactly what is predicted by Big Bang theory. As the universe expands, space expands, and the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation expands. This expansion of the wavelength lowers the effective temperature so that the massively hot radiation of the Big Bang is cooled to microwaves. This level of temperature reduction can be calculated, and has been. It all fits the observed facts beautifully.
You said :
"It was originally 2 branes in dimension Z knocking together to produce the universe but when everyone stopped laughing, it was decided that this universe must have come from a multiverse which allows mass and energy conservation over all. BUT it is not a real origin, just a transferal so how did the multiverse get there?"
There you go! Now you are discussing something that is unknown, which means your speculation is as good as anyone else's. Isn't that better than trying to deny stuff that is so strong in evidence that it is close to proven?
The brane theory was it before the singularity was made up. I was quoting what you would have been quoting if asked several years ago, what was considered "strong in evidence". Branes are now laughed at.
Sheep would have been a more apt alias for you than Skeptic since you have not questioned anything but just accepted it all like a good little creationist does.
Yes, it was such a small space that density was said to have exceeded 10^92 tons per cubic meter. That makes the average black hole look like a balloon but whereas a black hole is stable and cannot expand, this magic singularity did, so disobeying every law of gravity we know of.
If a planet has an orbit exactly between 2 stars, it will be a smooth orbit rather than the gravity of one star pulling it one way then next moment the gravity of the other star pulling it the other way because gravity becomes homogeneous in such circumstances. The whole universe is full of gravitational sources which act as a sea of gravity, dragging at anything which travels through it. The gravity has lost directional pull, like if you have two dozen heaters heating up a huge indoor stadium, after a while it is hot but you can't tell where the heat is coming from, but you will get heated up evenly by walking through the stadium.
I think you just made that up. Do you have a source? Didn't think so.If a planet has an orbit exactly between 2 stars, it will be a smooth orbit rather than the gravity of one star pulling it one way then next moment the gravity of the other star pulling it the other way because gravity becomes homogeneous in such circumstances. The whole universe is full of gravitational sources which act as a sea of gravity, dragging at anything which travels through it. The gravity has lost directional pull, like if you have two dozen heaters heating up a huge indoor stadium, after a while it is hot but you can't tell where the heat is coming from, but you will get heated up evenly by walking through the stadium.
Cyberia
I have to give you full credit for determination! You do not give up. Several points.
1. Yes, I am a sceptic. However, scepticism does not consist of denial. Scepticism consists of belief systems based on evidence instead of dogma. And the evidence for the Big Bang origin of the universe, and the expanding universe is so strong as to be as close to proof positive as anything in science.
2. the Andromeda argument. It does not matter that galaxies 10 billion light years and more away cannot be resolved to the degree that we resolve Andromeda. It is the measurement of galactic separations and frequency of galactic collisions that I am quoting.
3. On gravitational redshift. This is not a function of time. It is pretty close to instant. Travelling in a gravitational field for billions of years will not increase redshift. The degree of gravitational redshift depends on gravitational force - not time. A thousandth of a second near a neutron star will redshift light far more than billions of years travelling between galaxies. The very, very minor amount of redshift from minute gravitational forces such as distant galaxies is a very tiny fraction of the redshift due to expansion of the universe.
4. The CMB. This was very different in the early years of the universe and was very hot, and very short in wavelength. However, we cannot directly see that, since it has all been stretched by the expansion of the universe. There are no short wavelengths left to directly observe. The actual wavelength of the CMB is exactly what was predicted by the universe expansion. So this supports, not refutes the conventional theory.
The specific I'm stumped on is that supernova appears to be an unusual fate requiring evolved conditions in the first place, otherwise we get dwarf stars. Dwarfs being practically immortal in the timeframe of BB universe.
We've yet to find a star of any age lacking metals.
Other specifics I need to fill are the lifespans & successions in years even ballpark.
Pong
The early giant stars that burned pretty much only hydrogen had a life span of about 10 million years. By contract, our sun has a life span of 10 billion.
Obviously, a star that burns only hydrogen is going to have quite different fusion processes to one like our sun, which is influenced by many elements. I have read that carbon is an essential material in the fusion cycles of our sun. However, without carbon, the first stars had to be much bigger to use a more direct process and burned hotter, and died faster.
Not true. According to hawking radiation black holes are constantly losing some amount of energy. If this was from the black holes frame of reference it would be quite rapid and explode. From the black holes frame of reference. Relativity when discussing the big bang is very important.
Thanks.
I think it would have rather been blue super giants.red giants
That's better. The supergiants are normally red but often have blue spells. Polaris is one such caught in transition - 2000 years ago it was less than half today's brightness - so Polaris must be switching to blue mode.
Were you thinking of "faint blue galaxies"?
Sure, and stars have life cycles. I understand the two flavours of supergiant are modes of the same supergiant. It begins broad, red, and less intense, then collapses down to blue, then swells up to red again... does this several times before the end: supernova, leaving neutron/pulsar star or black hole depending on mass.
Pong
We were talking of the super giants of the early universe. Nothing similar has existed since, and we cannot compare modern stars to them. Real apples and oranges!
Kalster was correct. They were hot blue stars.
Locally we know, hot blue stars appear to be common just because they're so much brighter. If super massive hot blue stars were the norm, shouldn't we be able to see them? And in any case wouldn't a deep field appear to be populated only by the brightest stars?
They have very short lives, like as little as 1 million years. Their size is also limited by the Eddington limit to around 130 solar masses. The fact that they have such short lives mean that the super massive ones are very rare, not common. AFAIKIf super massive hot blue stars were the norm, shouldn't we be able to see them?
I meant the first stars, by definition normal in their time. But we can't see quite so far back as 1 million years, yet.
There's nothing like answering your own questions. It's one way of always being right.
Well do you have a source?
Scepticism should examine evidence and not just blandly believe it because it is accepted. There is evidence but the BB is one view of that evidence and ignores little things like:
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html
Dark Energy plays a massive part in the BB, explaining increased speed of expansion but there is ZERO evidence that it exists. They might as well have said pixie dust. There is no explanation how expansion/inflation overcomes near infinite gravity. There is no explanation of how the singularity came about. There is no explanation of how the BB could expand in four physical dimensions, or evidence that a fourth physical dimension can exist. The cold temperature of the CMB is not explained. How does space STRETCH from quantum size to over 158 billion light years across? The blunders made by WMAP need explaining:
http://www.wired.com/science/space/n...07/11/big_bang
There are over a hundred redshifts that expansion cannot explain. It also does not explain two linked objects with vastly different redshifts, of which there are a number of examples.
Show me a professional internet site which backs you up on separations.2. the Andromeda argument. It does not matter that galaxies 10 billion light years and more away cannot be resolved to the degree that we resolve Andromeda. It is the measurement of galactic separations and frequency of galactic collisions that I am quoting.
Evidence of this, that gravity over a long time has no effect?3. On gravitational redshift. This is not a function of time. It is pretty close to instant. Travelling in a gravitational field for billions of years will not increase redshift. The degree of gravitational redshift depends on gravitational force - not time. A thousandth of a second near a neutron star will redshift light far more than billions of years travelling between galaxies. The very, very minor amount of redshift from minute gravitational forces such as distant galaxies is a very tiny fraction of the redshift due to expansion of the universe.
4. The CMB. This was very different in the early years of the universe and was very hot, and very short in wavelength. However, we cannot directly see that, since it has all been stretched by the expansion of the universe. There are no short wavelengths left to directly observe. The actual wavelength of the CMB is exactly what was predicted by the universe expansion. So this supports, not refutes the conventional theory.
We are seeing the CMB as it was shortly after the BB. We see galaxies formed very early and no one says they are -260.C because of their distance. Things do not get colder the further away we look.
We can see clouds of ionised gas at millions of degrees centigrade. The big problem with space lasers in SF was that they cannot lose heat in space. How does the CMB cool down so quickly to the same temperature it is now, 13.7 billion years later?
I checked google to find out if the CMB is exactly what was predicted by the universe expansion and the only one I could get that showed that was your post, so evidence please.
Light travels at 186,282 mps (call it 100% exact for convenience here). If in one second, the distance light has to travel expands by the width of a proton (according to Hubble constant), then light will still travel just 186,282 miles in that second and not a proton width further, because the speed of light is a constant and so a photon does not stretch. What expansion means is that the source is moving further away every second, like a train whistle moving away. The photon is unchanged because it is not a sound wave moving through air.
Nuclear fusion in our sun: 4 atoms of hydrogen produce one atom of helium with EMR and neutrinos as byproducts.
4P + 4e = 2P + 2Pe (neutrons) + 2e
Evidence for Hawking radiation so far is stephenhawkingsaysso!
Example of Hawking radiation. You have a steep incline a thousand miles long. About 3/4 of the way up, you place 2 cricket balls. One rolls up hill and the other rolls down.
Example of an oxymoron: Negative energy.
We have ZERO evidence that virtual particles exist in space. If they existed anywhere other than in very set conditions on Earth, they would mess up pictures from electron and atomic force microscopes. They would mess up results from cyclotrons, and anything else where accuracy does not rely on unexpected particles appearing from nowhere.
Gravity only blueshifts photons when they are coming towards it at speed. If you have a sea of gravity and a photon is dragged by travelling through it, like a boat travelling through water, then it loses energy, so redshifts. We only get a blueshift with something "close up" like the Andromeda galaxy travelling fast towards us. There is a slight difference between two million and two billion light years.
Now, I think you just made this up. In fact, I think you are making all of it up. Do you have a source and am I wrong? Why don't you answer me this time.Gravity only blueshifts photons when they are coming towards it at speed. If you have a sea of gravity and a photon is dragged by travelling through it, like a boat travelling through water, then it loses energy, so redshifts. We only get a blueshift with something "close up" like the Andromeda galaxy travelling fast towards us. There is a slight difference between two million and two billion light years.
Do you believe gravity literally vanishes beyond a certain point, that it ceases to exist? If such happened, would not parts of the universe drift away from other parts where it was out of close gravitational contact?
We know gravity can be homogeneous, when it can balance out. Out in galactic space away from any strong sources, we have gravity pulling from every direction so it becomes homogeneous. Imagine a steel ball bearing rolling along. It travels between 2 rows of low power magnets, 1 either side. They balance out so they do not alter the path of the ball bearing but they do slow it down, even though it might be thought that their pull should cancel out. That is how gravity might work, that there is a continuous drag on a photon at any angle to it's line of travel.
I'm sure you can give me a million sources on dark energy but can you give me one proof?
As you can see, I have been answering other questions (as well as cooking something to eat). Your question was of low importance since it had nothing to say. I do not have proof of what I say (my idea, not copied from any source), but then again, what proof is there of various accepted things in science like: dark energy, negative energy, superstrings, Higg's bosons, supersymmetry, gravitons, other dimensions, singularities, Hawking radiation, branes, etc. You can find all the sources you want on these but where is the evidence? They are castles built on clouds.
We are told that some of the earliest stars after the big bang were just massive stars made only of hydrogen (a sign that the BB is true).
We are also told that the big bang produced virtually 75% hydrogen and 25% helium (with traces of lithium, etc).
So, with 1 part in 4 of the universe being helium, why would some of the first stars be all hydrogen?
The Orion star formation area (a paltry 1300 light years away) is mostly hydrogen so might not some hydrogen giants form there too?
Well, then you have no idea how science works.
Dark energy:
Direct measurements, like WMAP DATA, show that expansion is accelerating. Now, scientists don't know what is causing this. Some kind of energy could explain it and, since they don't know what it is, they call it dark energy. It is only a hypothesis that fits the data, not a theory.
Dark Matter:
Galaxies don't rotate as predicted by relativity. The further you go from the centre, the slower it rotates, but for a short distance from the centre. Then, for some reason, the rotation speed stays more or less constant. One possible way to explain it would be that there is more matter there, but we don't see any. Light goes right through where the extra matter is supposed to be. So, if there is some kind of matter there, it would have to be a weird kind of matter that does react gravitationally, but not in other ways we can detect. We can't see this matter, so they call it dark matter. It is also a hypothesis that fit the data, not a theory.
Your idea of gravity is simply wrong and made up. Conversely, the rest of the things you laugh at have sound grounds between them with years and years of work. They are built from tested theories that have survived the experiments we have been able to throw at them. These theories also make predictions that are not as easily tested and it is these that you have a problem with. They have not been directly observed, but describing them as castles built in the clouds is slippery slope thinking and exhibits no understanding of how the scientific method works. They are popular, because they explain the evidence best or provide avenues for testability. They are, as always, still considered tentative and are by no means final. Your problems with them largely come from incredulity. They don't make sense to you, so they must be wrong.
I understand what you're saying, but it isn't right. Specifically it isn't backed by the math.Gravity only blueshifts photons when they are coming towards it at speed. If you have a sea of gravity and a photon is dragged by travelling through it, like a boat travelling through water, then it loses energy, so redshifts. We only get a blueshift with something "close up" like the Andromeda galaxy travelling fast towards us. There is a slight difference between two million and two billion light years.
But math aside, think of it quite simply: why would a homogenous sea of gravity drag light? Why wouldn't it energize it? Just because? You're thinking in terrestrial terms, like space is something viscous and goopy. But it's not, it's really really empty. Especially in the space between galaxies. Who's to say that with a sea of gravity pulling in every direction away from a photon, it wouldn't energize the light and everything would be blue shifted?
Also, if a sea of gravity was robbing light of its energy, you would expect to see light more red shifted as it passed nearer galaxies, and less red shifted as it passed through vast empty voids (where the sea of gravity would be thinner). But the redshift is remarkably consistent in all directions, dependent only on the distance (not counting any Doppler shift from the source's relative velocity to us).
So the idea just doesn't hold water. I'm not saying you have to accept BBT as some sort of holy writ gospel. There are plenty of areas where it's showing its age as a theory. It will probably be superseded by something else in the next few decades. or at the very least heavily refined. But right now, compared to all alternatives, it does the least terrible job of explaining everything. If you want to think of alternatives, that's fine. But if you aren't going to at least make them plausible don't try convincing others with it.
Well first of all, the really hot light from right after the big bang got absorbed by the early plasma cloud of hot particles. We can't see anything before about 400,000 years after the big bang. See the surface of last scattering. The light from that plasma cloud 400,000 years after the big bang is the CMBR.
Anyway, by the time space was transparent to light, it'd cooled down to a mere 3000K. Then, 14 billion years of space expansion later, its wavelength had expanded so far that it represented a temperature of ~4K.
Or that's the theory anyway. And it's remarkably consistent with facts.
First, keep in mind that we measure distance based on fractions of the speed of light. A yard stick is one yard long because the molecules attract and repel each other with forces which travel at the speed of light.Light travels at 186,282 mps (call it 100% exact for convenience here). If in one second, the distance light has to travel expands by the width of a proton (according to Hubble constant), then light will still travel just 186,282 miles in that second and not a proton width further, because the speed of light is a constant and so a photon does not stretch. What expansion means is that the source is moving further away every second, like a train whistle moving away. The photon is unchanged because it is not a sound wave moving through air.
Now, because of the wave/particle duality of light, light is also a wave. Being a wave means it has a wavelength. Wavelength is the distance between features in the wave. If distance increases because space itself is actually expanding, the wavelength for that wave will also increase. Frequency is the inverse of wavelength, so an expanding wavelength means a shrinking frequency. The energy in a wave is directly proportional to its frequency. So because space is expanding, a beam of light is actually expanding and therefore losing energy as it travels through space. Meaning if we measure the energy in light from a star on Earth, and measure it 1000 years later light years from Earth, the light beam will have lost energy traveling through empty space.
No, it's not that easy. This is only a net equation. There are actually a few processes.Nuclear fusion in our sun: 4 atoms of hydrogen produce one atom of helium with EMR and neutrinos as byproducts.
4P + 4e = 2P + 2Pe (neutrons) + 2e
CNO cycle: This is how high-mass stars do it.
Proton-proton reaction: This is how low-mass stars like our sun or less massive do it.
Triple alpha: This is done by old stars containing lots of helium. A higher temperature is needed to sustain it.
If there are no catalysts like the heavier elements (carbon, oxygen), massive stars really have a hard time sustaining a fusion process.
The primordial stars are very different to coeval stars. There are two problems with having no or only little heavy elements (labelled "metals" in astrophysics). First, the formation of stars very much depends on the presence of heavy elements, dust grains and molecules. They are needed too cool the material before it can become so dense until a star is born. Without them, cooling is very inefficient, and the inherent heat prevents a collapse down to scales we know from coeval stars. Therefore, the first stars were incapable of collapsing down to a few solar radii. The only thing that would have helped, was immensely massive stars, in which the gravity balances the pressure from the inside. This has two consequences: The stars were huge, and their cores must have been very hot. This made the fusion process much more efficient than it is for coeval stars, reducing their lifespan tremendously. Helium was mostly only an inert gas, which is why it is neglected. Hydrogen burning is the dominating fusion process.
Nowadays, the interstellar clouds are well mixed with hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen and other material. There are no pure hydrogen clouds. Although the abundance of heavy elements appears tiny, they play a key role in the cooling, determining the properties of coeval stars and their progenitors. And no, the Orion region does not form pure hydrogen stars exactly for this reason.
They were bright, yes. But given the vast distance, their apparent brightness is still so low that nothing can detect them. Even the currently planned next generation of telescopes are incapable of doing so. There might be a small chance to detect some of the supernovae of those primordial stars with the James-Webb space telescope to be launched in the next decade.
Yet another problem with the big bang was that they suddenly found a major inconsistency, that expansion seemed to have increased seven billion years ago so instead of back to the drawing board, it was fudge time again. A few decades back, it was agreed that anti-gravity was impossible. So what did the scientists come up with? Anti-gravity energy, as in DE. Despite the universe supposedly being 3/4 DE, there is not a shred of evidence for it, any idea where it comes from or anything else involving it. It is just one step from pixie dust.
As to the WMAP:
http://www.wired.com/science/space/n...07/11/big_bang
A respected astronomer with 50 years in the business in the right field has shown that hundreds of H1 sources believed by the WMAP to be at the edge of the universe (in the CMB) are actually in our own galaxy.
Dark Matter:
Galaxies don't rotate as predicted by relativity. The further you go from the centre, the slower it rotates, but for a short distance from the centre. Then, for some reason, the rotation speed stays more or less constant. One possible way to explain it would be that there is more matter there, but we don't see any. Light goes right through where the extra matter is supposed to be. So, if there is some kind of matter there, it would have to be a weird kind of matter that does react gravitationally, but not in other ways we can detect. We can't see this matter, so they call it dark matter. It is also a hypothesis that fit the data, not a theory.
If you use redshift to work out the speed of stars and there is another possibility, as in gravity redshifting photons too, then you will get a too high figure, so believe stars are moving faster than they are, so need to make up something like DM to hold a galaxy together. Some ideas on what DM is: It could be light as an electron or 50x as heavy as a proton. It always moves at 9,000 mph and is several thousand degrees centigrade but does not lose heat. Though it works by gravitation only, it does not clump in small pieces but only in major structures. It is in the halo of the galaxy but despite outweighing all the visible stars by 6x, the galaxy is not a ring doughnut shape because of it. It is in the galaxy, but somehow has not been mopped up by moons, planets, stars and black holes, though it reacts gravitationally.
As to DE and DM, I have a magic amulet which keeps green elephants away. Proof that it works is that there are no green elephants on Earth. An explanation is not necessarily right, especially if it is crazy.
Your idea of gravity is simply wrong and made up. Conversely, the rest of the things you laugh at have sound grounds between them with years and years of work. They are built from tested theories that have survived the experiments we have been able to throw at them. These theories also make predictions that are not as easily tested and it is these that you have a problem with. They have not been directly observed, but describing them as castles built in the clouds is slippery slope thinking and exhibits no understanding of how the scientific method works. They are popular, because they explain the evidence best or provide avenues for testability. They are, as always, still considered tentative and are by no means final. Your problems with them largely come from incredulity. They don't make sense to you, so they must be wrong.
Some years back, many of the top people in the field left string theory because they saw it as a scientific dead end. It was reported in the newspapers in the UK. Why would they do this?
String theory requires seven extra physical dimensions. Evidence for even a fourth physical dimension is....?
Believers keep making predictions for the Higg's bosons but ever newer and more powerful particle accelerators prove them wrong, so the HB becomes ever heavier and ever more energetic in their estimates rather than admit they are wrong.
Decades of searching for supersymmetry and the results are.....missing.
No gravitons or gravity waves have ever been detected. They never will, even from the most violent events in the universe because gravity becomes homogeneous over distance. Or do you have another explanation?
A standard candle of stellar measurement is Type 1A supernovae, except that they are not standard because just make them revolve a little faster and they can hold twice as much mass, as has been proved, so we cannot trust measurements made by them in our galaxy. There are other ways they could be inaccurate too, such as the material being taken from a companion star, the speed of collection of material, the stellar environment they are in, their own mass, etc.
You seem to have a great faith in science which is good in everyday stuff, but once you get to cosmology, a lot of it is guesswork that may not be right. It is sometimes totally without evidence and other times just one interpretation when others are available. Several years back, 27 top people in the field wrote an open letter to New Scientist explaining why they did not believe in the Big Bang theory.
A lack of belief in a theory does not mean a lack of knowledge of said theory.
Dishmaster. Helium was there, wanted or not and would have formed into stars more readily than hydrogen, being denser so there would be no hydrogen only stars (though like our sun, only the hydrogen would have fused).
The Orion nebula is mostly hydrogen so virtually pure hydrogen stars there are possible.
Nuclear fusion in our sun: 4 atoms of hydrogen produce one atom of helium with EMR and neutrinos as byproducts.
4P + 4e = 2P + 2Pe (neutrons) + 2e
No, it's not that easy. This is only a net equation. There are actually a few processes.
We were talking about OUR sun. I am aware of carbon and iron stars.
Believe me, scientists would love to go back to the drawing board every time new facts contradict existing theories. Whoever comes up with a major paradigm shift in science becomes immortal and gets laid. They're the rockstars.
The problem is you can't just pull some new theory out of your ass. Or more specifically, that's just the first step. You then have to demonstrate how the math of your theory works, and it has to be compatible with pretty much all known experimental and observational data. And then you have to get it peer reviewed in science journals. And then you have to defend it against other scientists playing Devil's advocate. Then and only then do you get laid.
There just aren't any theories out there which explain things better than BBT. Even if you manage to explain the cosmological redshift, you still have to explain the CMBR, and the abundance of light elements, and the large scale morphology of the cosmos, and why there aren't any stars older than 14 billion years (there are plenty of stars which should live longer than 14 billion years).
DE and DM are fudges. It's quite obvious. In fact I would be surprised if they both turn out to be real. But there just aren't any competing explanations nearly as good as BBT. On top of that, BBT is so ridiculous in the face of it that there was a lot of resistance to it when it was first proposed. BBT has really been the underdog cosmological theory, and it's earned its place because it fits the data, not because it's a particularly beautiful theory.
You can say that you have a theory which doesn't need BBT, but unless you can present the math to back it up, you're just pulling it out of your ass.
Except that there are parts of the galaxy which are blue shifted, too. You keep forgetting blue shift.If you use redshift to work out the speed of stars and there is another possibility, as in gravity redshifting photons too, then you will get a too high figure, so believe stars are moving faster than they are, so need to make up something like DM to hold a galaxy together.
String theory is not BBT. In fact it's not really science, since it doesn't provide any falsifiable predictions beyond what the standard model provides. String theory is the result of the search for unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces.Some years back, many of the top people in the field left string theory because they saw it as a scientific dead end. It was reported in the newspapers in the UK. Why would they do this?
IMO string theory is indeed a scientific dead end, as are quantum gravity. God made a perfect 1 force universe using gravity, and then the Devil introduced the other 3 forces just to screw with creation. Trying to figure out how the four actually interact is a Chinese finger trap for adolescent intelligent races to keep them busy long enough to see if they'll destroy themselves.
Feel free to disbelieve any or all of string theory. It's not an accepted theory, it's hardly even a hypothesis. It's really more of a mathematical philosophy.
Not directly, but a Nobel prize was awarded to Hulse and Taylor in 1993 for an indirect detection. Direct detection hasn't been possible with technology until very recently. A direct detection will probably occur in the next decade or so.No... gravity waves have ever been detected. They never will, even from the most violent events in the universe because gravity becomes homogeneous over distance. Or do you have another explanation?
No. It was shown by Hawking and Penrose in the 1980's that if the universe is seen to be expanding, then running that back in time results in a singularity i.e. the Big Bang. If the universe is expanding, then it must, obviously, have contracted if you were to go backwards in time. Consequently, the universe must have had a beginning.Could it be possible that the universe have no beginning at all? I think it makes a bit sense because we always want to rationalize things with a origin as a rule. And it could be other-wise
we have ideas about the beginning of the universe with a big bang, but it would seem to be a never-ending questions of what preceded by it. So we should also consider the opposite idea.
That would be inflation you are talking about, which is still just a theory. In no way should you treat it as correct until proven.Yet another problem with the big bang was that they suddenly found a major inconsistency, that expansion seemed to have increased seven billion years ago so instead of back to the drawing board, it was fudge time again.
I fully agree with you. However, the idea of dark matter was invented to explain accelerational discrepancies in stars and then applied to the Big Bang. I personally doubt it exists, but as a theory, I must admit, it makes sense.Despite the universe supposedly being 3/4 DE, there is not a shred of evidence for it, any idea where it comes from or anything else involving it. It is just one step from pixie dust.
Whoever said it had to be spatial? Why not a temporal dimension? That is the thing about dimensions, you can't define them.String theory requires seven extra physical dimensions. Evidence for even a fourth physical dimension is....?
Numsgil. As I pointed out to someone the other day to someone, the CMB was originally down to a billion anti-matter universe and a billion and one matter universes annihilating each other leaving only one matter universe behind. But ridiculous so it became plasma cooling till atoms separated out.
The BB is accepted by most which shows how easy it is to get nonsense through the process if you can get enough people nodding their heads at the same time.
There are other explanations for redshift. The CMB should be hot (3,000.C) and not cold (-271.C). Light elements would obviously be created first being the simplest. Stars make the rest. The cosmos is anything but smooth and even. As to age, we have plenty of red dwarfs of varying brightness as well as brown dwarfs, even black dwarfs. Who is to say how old some are? We also have an 18 billion solar mass black hole. How did that happen in just 13.7 billion years?
If you can show that redshift down to recession is wrong and partly wrong, then you don't need DE or DM.
Maths? Doesn't maths back up the big bang and many other largely discredited and baseless ideas, like strings as you point out?
Redshift due to gravity would happen over great distances. If something is moving towards us at speed, it can overcome a minor redshift due to travelling only a small distance.
Liongold. If you believe that everything is moving away from everything else, then logically if you run it back far enough you end up with everything in one small area. However gravity says if that happens, it stays there.
Inflation I do not accept as it is plainly nonsense, but I was talking of Dark Energy. It is anti-gravity energy which not long before DE come up was deemed to be impossible.
Dark Matter is supposed to be what is holding galaxies together as the stars are moving too fast but if the measurement of their speed is wrong, then it is not needed.
Strings need 10 (down from 25) physical dimensions and one temporal dimension according to dogma.
Scientists are pig headed and ego driven. They don't like to look stupid. BBT sure sounds ridiculous and stupid. That there are any scientists nodding there head at it, let alone a majority, shows you how well if fits the data. If someone comes up with a better explanation you can bet they'll be leaving BBT like rats from a sinking ship.
The CMBR is cold because of the cosmic redshift. That single theory explains why the CMBR is cold, and why distant stars are redshifted. At the beginning of time the CMBR was indeed 3000K.
Exactly, light elements are created first. Meaning at the beginning. Try explaining the abundance of light elements in a steady state universe.Light elements would obviously be created first being the simplest. Stars make the rest.
It's just basic observation combined with a little bit of math and extrapolation. See this link. It doesn't require the BBT, so it's not circular logic. If the universe were steady state, there would still only be young stars around. No older stars have been observed, so you need some mechanism to explain why not.As to age, we have plenty of red dwarfs of varying brightness as well as brown dwarfs, even black dwarfs. Who is to say how old some are?
This is an appeal to a lack of imagination. The fact that you can't imagine that happening in 14 billion years doesn't mean it's impossible. There's certainly no physical law saying that it's impossible.We also have an 18 billion solar mass black hole. How did that happen in just 13.7 billion years?
Sure. You manage that you'll probably get a Nobel prize.If you can show that redshift down to recession is wrong and partly wrong, then you don't need DE or DM.
Too much of a good things is bad. String theory represents too much theorizing and not enough data gathering. But the math I'm talking about here are empirical equations. Meaning it isn't math that's derived, it's math that's observed. Like Kepler's Laws instead of Newton's Laws.Maths? Doesn't maths back up the big bang and many other largely discredited and baseless ideas, like strings as you point out?
The empirical laws have to be explained. BBT explains most of them. DE and DM are exceptions, so hopefully we'll get a new theory which can explain everything BBT can, plus DE and DM without all the fudging.
You mean like light traveling 1 LY won't be redshifted at all? Or traveling at 1 Lighthour? Well, at least that's testable. Not right now, but maybe in the future they'll construct an experiment to detect the redshift of light on the scale of the solar system.Redshift due to gravity would happen over great distances. If something is moving towards us at speed, it can overcome a minor redshift due to travelling only a small distance.
Firstly, Cyberia, I must say I like your avatar's animation. A cat with headphones on swaying to the music is quite brilliant as an avatar.
Now.
Logical. However, Hawking and Penrose used Penrose's earlier work on singularities in black holes, and ran the same argument backwards through time. They found that this situation perfectly described what would happen if you ran the universe backwards in time. I'm sure you're aware of how singularities form in the first place. It is for this reason that their idea is accepted by the mainstream science community.Liongold. If you believe that everything is moving away from everything else, then logically if you run it back far enough you end up with everything in one small area. However gravity says if that happens, it stays there.
Well, inflation is a pretty powerful theory, yet, I agree, it still cannot give perfectly reasonable answers to explain what happened after the universe began. But let us leave that aside.Inflation I do not accept as it is plainly nonsense, but I was talking of Dark Energy. It is anti-gravity energy which not long before DE come up was deemed to be impossible.
Actually, dark energy is proposed to explain why the universe is now expanding, or more approapriately, the cosmological constant is increasing. Certainly, uswing only the present known particles and masses, we cannot create a universe model that is even remotely similar to ours. Extra mass is postulated to solve this problem, which is why dark matter is posited as a likely solution.
Oh, no, madam. The measurements are certainly correct; it is the fact that if they are moving at that speed, they are supposed to have long since left the gravitational field of their host star, because the star isn't massive enough to hold them. That is why dark matter is said to exist, because it explains why these planets are moving too fast and still stable in a gravitational field.Dark Matter is supposed to be what is holding galaxies together as the stars are moving too fast but if the measurement of their speed is wrong, then it is not needed.
Very well. I'll accept that. However, string theory also states that these dimensions are too small to be seen. The same problem bedeviled Kaluza-Klein theory, you see, and the very same explanation was adopted for string theory. That is why you cannot see them: either because they are too small to be seen or too large to be even comprehensible.Strings need 10 (down from 25) physical dimensions and one temporal dimension according to dogma.
It seems like I may be rid of that hacker that has been troubling me for some time.
Yesterday, I managed to be free of this problem and appear to be free so far.
So now I can answer my critics with out interruptions.
So this is a reply from page one.
[quote].......And keep intact in the gravity of a neutron star? This is a puzzle to me.
Photons are created in the ordinary stars and the electrons are surrounded by the electric fields that are the carriers of the photons through space.
As I explained the nature of these fields, they are composed of REAL NEGATIVE CHARGED FIELD PARTICLES that surround the electrons and these fields ACT with each other at distances reaching infinity and diminish in strength inversally with distance. Currently, they are referred to as VIRTUAL, but I refer to them as REAL.
On my article explaining the 'Creation of Photons'
As I described them, photons are
compressed congregates of these field particles and as a result, their similar charges slowly force an expansion of these fields.
So, as I have said and believe, the light pulses expand to create the 'Cosmological RS',
While I was answering this post, that evil HACKER is back but I manage to restore the screen display so far.
WHEW !
Cosmo
Cosmo, it's not a hacker. It's a virus or trojan. Get some AV software. If that doesn't work, reinstall windows.
Wouldn't that mean the electron is constantly trying to move away from its own field, Cosmo? And the proton is attracted to its own field?REAL NEGATIVE CHARGED FIELD PARTICLES that surround the electrons and these fields ACT with each other at distances reaching infinity and diminish in strength inversally with distance.
Which makes no sense. Why does the photon require carrier particles when it is perfectly capable of travelling on its own?electrons are surrounded by the electric fields that are the carriers of the photons through space.
They have to be. If they were real, this would lead to noticeable energy changes in the orbitals of the electrons, violating Bohr's laws. Further, they are virtual because we cannot detect them; they are virtual in the same sense virtual rays are virtual.Currently, they are referred to as VIRTUAL
How slowly? And what would happen if the particle was in motion? And how come these negative carriers have not yet been observed in experiment?As I described them, photons are
compressed congregates of these field particles and as a result, their similar charges slowly force an expansion of these fields.
What is that?So, as I have said and believe, the light pulses expand to create the 'Cosmological RS',
Well, this hacker reads what I write and when he sees something he does not like, he blocks the desktop display.
Cosmo
Do a little experiment: unplug from the internet physically (remove the cord), and see if it happens again. If it does, you know it's not a hacker. If it doesn't, it still doesn't mean it's a hacker, but it's at least a possibility.Well, this hacker reads what I write and when he sees something he does not like, he blocks the desktop display.
Cosmo
The rule with hackers is that their impatient and looking to earn status. No hacker is going to hack into someone's PC and just sit and monitor what they're doing. Not unless that someone is a diplomat or high ranking government official
Liongold
You obviously do not have much of a background knowhedge in physics.
The last time I tried to answer your post by individual paragraphs, I was hacked and lost my work . No more'
The fields surround the electron completely, eo how can the electron runaway from the field?
What is your opinion of what the photon is?
Cosmo
Numsgil
This is a live hacker and his primary goal is to protect the Old Testamernt that I am refuting . He also seems to be protecting Einsteins M/E formula.
Like I said, this is a LIVE hacker.
Cosmo
I certainly believe you think so. Let's say for a moment that your right. Do you want him to stop? A fresh install of Windows with all the security updates is unhackable. Which means if you're being hacked, there's a program running on your computer giving him access. This program is called a Trojan. Most trojans just download adware, but there are trojans that let hackers screw with people.
But there are these great programs called anti virus software which detect these trojans and delete them from the computer. Do you have any anti virus software installed? Have you run it recently?
The other option is that your windows install is suffering from a bit of schizophrenia. Conflicting drivers probably. In which case one of the easiest solutions is to reinstall windows. Meaning deleting the existing install and starting over. The best solution would be to back up any files you want to save, then reformat your whole hard drive (deletes everything) and reinstall windows fresh.
Mods: we're way off topic, could we maybe split to a new thread?
Very interesting to have myself referred to as so. However, the same, I believe, could be said of you.You obviously do not have much of a background knowhedge in physics.
If you read my post again, you will see that was not my contention at all. If what you say is correct, then, very close to the electron, no photons can be transmitted. Why? Because there will be a small gap between the electrons and the negatively charged carriers.The fields surround the electron completely, eo how can the electron runaway from the field?
Obviously, light will not be able to pass through this gap, if what you say is correct, requiring ever more carriers until finally, you have an infinite number of carriers in a single space smaller than the width of an electron. Eventually, even these will be repelled away from the electron and the same difficulty appears. Conseqeuntly, light will never survive in such a situation.
This is another bone of contention with your idea.
Further, I ask you to again imagine the situation of an electron surrounded by negative field carriers. If the electron moves, both it and the negative carrier are repelled, thanks to Newton's Third Law. Consequently, the effect will ripple out to other negative carriers, as any change in the state of one carrier will, naturally, affect other carriers. They will bounce off each other, imparting energy to each other, keeping themselves in motion. Consequently, as this energy will be passed to the electron (it's surrounded by the negative carriers, no?), the electron will be forever bouncing randomly, with an infinite amount of energy generated by a single push.
That would be a ridiculous situation, I'm sure you'll agree.
In my own opinion, the photon is a particle. Light, however, does not behave as such; it is a unification of the discrete and continuous dichotomy, and I personally believe it's properties are caused by it being little more than curved space-time. It's a pet theory of mine, however, but even Einstein believed it; he after all first proposed it.What is your opinion of what the photon is?
Numsgil. When we look at stars and clusters over 13 billion light years away, we are told that their temperatures are thousands of degrees. Not that their temperatures is a few hundred degrees below zero because of the cosmic redshift. We are looking back in time to it as it was, not as it now is. So, the CMB should be near it's original temperature of 3,000.C as far as we can tell. Not the temperature it would be now after 13.7 billion years.
I believe that there is an unknown renewal process, maybe involving black holes. It would flood the surrounding area with elemental particles which would become hydrogen and helium. A steady state universe would have an origin and need not be "infinitely" old. It is just a non-BB beginning billions of years ago.
The diagram does not help that much since most stars in the universe are dwarf stars of varying colours. Giants are exceptions. The current age of the universe would decide the proportion of old and young stars about.
That's like saying fairies might exist and to say they don't is just a lack of imagination. How does something so massive get made from a nearly homogeneous start in a relatively young universe? It's 4,500 times the size of the BH at the centre of our galaxy.
Scientists would fight like cornered rats not to have their pet theories overturned. I can't be bothered.
Redshifting down to gravity would depend on the circumstances. Photons escaping from a neutron star would redshift in just miles. Inside our galaxy where gravitational sources are "close", within maybe hundreds or thousands of light years. Between galaxies, hundreds of millions, billions of light years. It is a cumulative drag. In theory, even photons leaving Earth would be redshifted by gravity but it would be incredibly small.
Liongold. The cat is - http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_6301.gif
Use it anywhere but here.
Run super-nova remnants backwards and they end up as a black hole. But we know black holes can't expand or explode because gravity prevents it happening. But if you do the same with the whole universe, you end up with a density that makes the average black hole look like a balloon, so how is that going to fight against so much more gravity? There is no evidence for singularity and for me, if someone talks rubbish, if his name is Fred Phelps or Stephen Hawking, then it is still rubbish.
5 years ago, 4 independent observatories working independently found evidence that inflation was wrong. Last year, a man with 50 years in the right field gave evidence that the WMAP was measuring literally hundreds of H1 sources in our own galaxy and not at the edge of the universe as believed.
Man, if you don't mind. We are talking the galaxy here rather than solar systems. How can you know speed measurements are correct since they are based on extrapolations? We know that type 1A supernovae are not standard candles and yet they have been used for measurements.
For something with 10 physical dimensions, it needs dimensions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. How can you have something with just dimension 10 existing?
Well, this hacker reads what I write and when he sees something he does not like, he blocks the desktop display.
Cosmo
Check your Internet Options in your Control Panel to see if the Content is restricted in any way.
Do you have a firewall?
Do you have Microsoft Word or similar where you can write a post on then highlight it and drag it across to a box here for posting? Even if you lose the copy, you still have the original so can do it again till it works.
Cyberia
There is a serious lack of understanding in your posts. The microwave background is at a very low temperature because space itself has 'stretched' due to the fact that the universe has expanded. In essense, if you fit a million wavelengths into a metre when the radiation was released, space is now so stretched that a metre contains only a thousand. This changes high temperature radiation into low temperature.
As I said before, the temperature of the cosmic microwave background is exactly what was predicted from the expansion of the universe.
The balance of evidence is drastically tipped towards the Big Bang origin and expansion ever since.
I am trying a new tactic now. Any long post on this forum will be copied and finished on my home page with being off the internet.
Do you have Microsoft Word or similar where you can write a post on then highlight it and drag it across to a box here for posting? Even if you lose the copy, you still have the original so can do it again till it works.
Cosmo
Black holes can explode, I should mention, due to Hawking radiation. However, that is not the point.Run super-nova remnants backwards and they end up as a black hole. But we know black holes can't expand or explode because gravity prevents it happening. But if you do the same with the whole universe, you end up with a density that makes the average black hole look like a balloon, so how is that going to fight against so much more gravity? There is no evidence for singularity and for me, if someone talks rubbish, if his name is Fred Phelps or Stephen Hawking, then it is still rubbish.
You are correct about your observations about the universe dwarfing a black hole as a singularity. However, then we are talking about what happened at the big bang itself, for which the only reasonable way to discuss is using a quantum theory of gravity. Judging from the fact that we approach a singularity as we wander even farther backwards in time and that the universe is currently seen to be expanding, it follows logically from this that the most likely solution is to say that the universe began from a singularity. I am not discounting other theories here; however, none of them can explain or even include the singularity so formed except for the Big Bang theory, unless you can name some.
Could I have the sources for these, please? I would appreciate seeing what they have to say.5 years ago, 4 independent observatories working independently found evidence that inflation was wrong. Last year, a man with 50 years in the right field gave evidence that the WMAP was measuring literally hundreds of H1 sources in our own galaxy and not at the edge of the universe as believed.
Indeed, they aren't. You're correct again on that point (this is getting to be a habit :-D ). Yet if we are going to argue on that point, we may just as well argue that Edward Hubble could not prove that the universe was indeed expanding, as no such standard candle existed, which he used extensively. And even assuming that they are incorrect, they have been observed in more than one galaxy, by many, many astronomers. They refuse to match up with our estimations for the graviational curvature. However, I'm willing to listen if you suggest any other way to improve our understanding of the speed.Man, if you don't mind. We are talking the galaxy here rather than solar systems. How can you know speed measurements are correct since they are based on extrapolations? We know that type 1A supernovae are not standard candles and yet they have been used for measurements.
You're confusing what I say. The current idea of dimensions requires them to be curled up into a very small area of space, small enough to be unnoticeable by current means. Say, for example, you have a plain sheet of paper. You notice instantly that it has three dimensions: height, length and breadth. Yet if we were to assume the fourth spatial dimension existed, it must be as small as a point, or we would notice it. The three dimensions constitute this fourth dimension, there is no doubt of it. All I am saying is that it was necessary to conclude that it is extremely small; too small to be seen.For something with 10 physical dimensions, it needs dimensions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. How can you have something with just dimension 10 existing?
Another example: say you were to takea small piece of papaer again. Now, suppose you magnified it. The greater the magnification, the less smooth it appears to be. go in even more, and you start to observe the interactions between electrons. Even further, you see the strong and weak nuclear forces at play, at which point you have entered a very complex layer. Likewise, imagine the extra dimensions exist like this.
qft
Hawking radiation is unproven nonsense. Imagine a very steep gradient a thousand miles long. About 3/4 of the way up, put 2 cricket balls next to each other. One rolls downhill and the other rolls uphill. There is also negative energy, which I think is what many people feel when it is time to get up.
Suppose we lived on a very hot planet where water did not exist naturally. In our labs we can change steam into water and then cool it down to as low as 10.C and we do a graph and find as we cool it down, it's volume decreases so we can show that somewhere below zero, water shrinks to a point source. Except that at 4.C water starts expanding again and at 0.C changes to ice. It is nonsense to speculate as Hawking has done.You are correct about your observations about the universe dwarfing a black hole as a singularity. However, then we are talking about what happened at the big bang itself, for which the only reasonable way to discuss is using a quantum theory of gravity. Judging from the fact that we approach a singularity as we wander even farther backwards in time and that the universe is currently seen to be expanding, it follows logically from this that the most likely solution is to say that the universe began from a singularity. I am not discounting other theories here; however, none of them can explain or even include the singularity so formed except for the Big Bang theory, unless you can name some.
New Scientist 28 Feb 2004, page 9. Two of the teams: One led by Dick Bond of the University of Toronto (Canada) and the other used the Very Small Array in the Canary islands. Fourth team was led by Uros Seljak of Princeton University. As to the H1 sources:Could I have the sources for these, please? I would appreciate seeing what they have to say.
http://www.wired.com/science/space/n...07/11/big_bang
Until we are 100% certain on expansion, we should consider other ideas. Even if expansion is real, no one will see any movement in the galaxies in a thousand lifetimes, so we can have no real proof.Indeed, they aren't. You're correct again on that point (this is getting to be a habit :-D ). Yet if we are going to argue on that point, we may just as well argue that Edward Hubble could not prove that the universe was indeed expanding, as no such standard candle existed, which he used extensively. And even assuming that they are incorrect, they have been observed in more than one galaxy, by many, many astronomers. They refuse to match up with our estimations for the gravitational curvature. However, I'm willing to listen if you suggest any other way to improve our understanding of the speed.
Dimensions build up on the lower dimensions. If you have a 3D table of normal size, then it's 4D self will be house sized, even though all we can see is the 3D aspect. If you have a 10D thing that is quantum sized, then it's 3D aspect will be a zillion times smaller.You're confusing what I say. The current idea of dimensions requires them to be curled up into a very small area of space, small enough to be unnoticeable by current means. Say, for example, you have a plain sheet of paper. You notice instantly that it has three dimensions: height, length and breadth. Yet if we were to assume the fourth spatial dimension existed, it must be as small as a point, or we would notice it. The three dimensions constitute this fourth dimension, there is no doubt of it. All I am saying is that it was necessary to conclude that it is extremely small; too small to be seen.
It doesn't work like that. Each dimension added, adds in size. A simplistic example:Another example: say you were to take a small piece of paper again. Now, suppose you magnified it. The greater the magnification, the less smooth it appears to be. go in even more, and you start to observe the interactions between electrons. Even further, you see the strong and weak nuclear forces at play, at which point you have entered a very complex layer. Likewise, imagine the extra dimensions exist like this.
1D = 10 (a line ten atoms long), 2D = 100 (a square of 10x10 atoms), 3D = 1,000 (a cube of 10x10x10 atoms). 10D is going to be 10,000,000,000 atoms, so ten million times bigger than 3D.
Imagine a flat 2D polygon. Imagine taking that 2D polygon and cutting it out of paper. The 2D polygon is actually a 3D polyhedron now, but that third dimension is measured in micrometers compared to the centimeters of the regular 2 dimensions.
Adding dimensions does not automatically lead to exponentially larger objects.
Let's see how much you understand.
If what you claim is true, then the CMB as measured by WMAP should be an even 3000.C across the board. But as you start measuring CM background radiation at lesser distances, the temperature should continually drop till you reach our area of the universe where it should read 2.75.K because the closer you look, the more the universe has expanded, so there is a continued predictable temperature drop.
Your evidence for this is........?
Check the timeline of the CMB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ound_radiation
You will note they had the answer in 1941 though the microwave background is not mentioned till 1948. Or is it 1957? Radar in WWII had to be zero calibrated because it detected emissions coming from every direction. Now what could that be? It's odd that Hubble made no mention of the CMB in 1929.
I like the way you come to a conclusion while only looking at the small amount of evidence that suits your bias and ignoring all that doesn't.
So you have a 3D object of one cubic meter. You add 2cms in a fourth dimension, then 2 cms in a fifth dimension, etc upto 10D. It will always be larger, with each dimension building on the one that has gone before. I didn't use micrometers because even 2 cms seems ridiculous when you start with a cubic meter.
Compared to no thickness, even micrometers is a huge increase (as in 2D to 3D)[/tex]
But that's an increase in hypervolume. If you take my example of a 2D polygon, and limit yourself to strictly 2D volume (eg: surface area), the polygon does not increase in 2D volume as you add additional dimensions.
[quote]Hawking radiation is unproven nonsense.quote]
That is a matter of opinion. Certainly, our ideas of thermodynamics, if correct, require it.
You confuse the negative energy of the gravitational field with negative energy of a particle, which does not exist. Both are different; negative energy in the graviational sense is actually positive. To explain it better, imagine an object orbiting a body with a certain amount of energy. Now, move this back by any amount you desire. Now here is the rub: because the body is now orbiting much more slowly than it was, this implies that the energy it used to have has actually gone down. Consequently, in a sense, you can call this type of energy change negative energy. That is why people sometimes treat a gravitational field as a reserve of negative energy.Imagine a very steep gradient a thousand miles long. About 3/4 of the way up, put 2 cricket balls next to each other. One rolls downhill and the other rolls uphill. There is also negative energy, which I think is what many people feel when it is time to get up.
I understand why you used your example; however, then we would require additional knowledge of water in the first place to explain that it will indeed expand at 4 degrees. Suppose, for one moment, that we did not know of this property of water, but, based on other experiments on liquids/substances, we know it should indeed contract. Also suppose that we know water exists but cannot experiment on it. Do you think there is a way, based on our knowledge of other substances, to predict, precisely and correctly, that water will contract at 4 degres celsius? To do that, you require information currently beyond your reach; you must rely on theory and speculation to understand water.Suppose we lived on a very hot planet where water did not exist naturally. In our labs we can change steam into water and then cool it down to as low as 10.C and we do a graph and find as we cool it down, it's volume decreases so we can show that somewhere below zero, water shrinks to a point source. Except that at 4.C water starts expanding again and at 0.C changes to ice. It is nonsense to speculate as Hawking has done.
The same situation exists; our own knowledge of the conditions of the Big Bang is limited so far to at the very least a few billion years after the Big Bang; before that is mere speculation. Indeed, speculation becomes our only tool when dealing with events before that which is currently explainable.
I assure you it is indeed real. Unless you can explain the redshift of the light of receding galaxies? There is incontrovertible evidence that each and every galaxy is moving away from us, as can be inferred from their redshifts.Until we are 100% certain on expansion, we should consider other ideas. Even if expansion is real, no one will see any movement in the galaxies in a thousand lifetimes, so we can have no real proof
A good point, but not necessarily. Say I have a very long line , stretching out till infinity. Now suppose I told you that at some points the line curves, forming a wave crest. Now, it is obvious that a wave crest is two-dimensional. Similarly, this small wave crest (too small to be seen, by the way) sometimes rises a little above the line, again too small to be noticeable, a lot less frequent and the rise in height a lot smaller than the deviation of the crest from the line. This new kind of curve is three-dimensional.Dimensions build up on the lower dimensions. If you have a 3D table of normal size, then it's 4D self will be house sized, even though all we can see is the 3D aspect. If you have a 10D thing that is quantum sized, then it's 3D aspect will be a zillion times smaller.
From this example, it can be seen that it is possible to form small three-dimensional lines from only a single dimension. You are, if you'll pardon me, imagining a Cartesian space with three axes and joining the axes together. You may claim that this will form a bigger object in different dimensions; this is true only if the object itself is increasing completely in dimensions. However, this is only a possibility; it is just as easy to imagine a very small house on a vastly huge square.
However, I will grant you that your model of dimensions is equally applicable. Indeed, two ideas of dimensions include the one where the dimensions are smaller than the original three, so that we notice only the three, and the one where the extra dimensions are so huge, we notice only localised constituent dimensions.
For example, let me take an enormous sphere, with us living on just a point on the sphere. Any mathematician will tell you that if you enlarge a curved space to a certain extent, it will be indistinguishable from Euclidean geometry; we have Riemann and Newton to thank for this. In much the same way, according to this idea, because the dimensions are so large, the only dimensions we will comprehend are the three dimensions we are familiar with.
Again, your idea of added dimensions resulting in an increase of size is a matter of opinion. The rest I've already answered to.It doesn't work like that. Each dimension added, adds in size. A simplistic example:
1D = 10 (a line ten atoms long), 2D = 100 (a square of 10x10 atoms), 3D = 1,000 (a cube of 10x10x10 atoms). 10D is going to be 10,000,000,000 atoms, so ten million times bigger than 3D
This is an intelligent discussion, I must say. Thank you for it.
Cyberia
Where are you getting your spurious arguments from? Some anti-Big Bang group? Reminds me of the arguments of creationists - superficially convincing to those whithout knowledge.
You quoted Wiki at me on the cosmic microwave background. Can I suggest you read your own reference? For example, it says "
"Two of the greatest successes of the big bang theory are its prediction of its almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background"
It also says :
"In particular, the spatial power spectrum (how much difference is observed versus how far apart the regions are on the sky) contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match to within experimental error what would be expected if small thermal fluctuations had expanded to the size of the observable space we can detect today."
In other words, it reflects what I have been saying, and the current microwave radiation is what we expect from the expansion of the universe since the Big Band.
| « Today's universe | Problem with galaxy formation model. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
They're Made Out Of Meat, 
