Notices
Results 1 to 70 of 70

Thread: Is it posible!

  1. #1 Is it posible! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts [/img]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts [/img]
    The universe is not expanding into anything. It is just expanding.

    The universe is the whole enchilada. There is no "elsewhere".


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Is it posible! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts [/img]
    The universe is not expanding into anything. It is just expanding.

    The universe is the whole enchilada. There is no "elsewhere".
    it is impossible to expand without having in what to expand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Is it posible! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts [/img]

    It was suggested some years ago that the universe has sufficient mass to be one big black hole. If such were possible, then the universe would currently be expanding towards an unseen event horizon and I suppose it would rebound when it hit it and start contracting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    it is impossible to expand without having in what to expand
    No, it is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    It was suggested some years ago that the universe has sufficient mass to be one big black hole. If such were possible, then the universe would currently be expanding towards an unseen event horizon and I suppose it would rebound when it hit it and start contracting.
    Rubbish.

    Even were the nonsensical premisze correct, your even more nonsensical conclusion would not hold.

    This is just word salad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Is it posible! 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts [/img]

    It was suggested some years ago that the universe has sufficient mass to be one big black hole. If such were possible, then the universe would currently be expanding towards an unseen event horizon and I suppose it would rebound when it hit it and start contracting.
    It is interesting how you deny a theory for which a lot of evidence has been found during the recent decades, while you put up one hypothesis after another without even the tiniest trace of evidence and with assumptions that are grabbed out of thin air.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts [/img]

    It was suggested some years ago that the universe has sufficient mass to be one big black hole. If such were possible, then the universe would currently be expanding towards an unseen event horizon and I suppose it would rebound when it hit it and start contracting.
    It is interesting how you deny a theory for which a lot of evidence has been found during the recent decades, while you put up one hypothesis after another without even the tiniest trace of evidence and with assumptions that are grabbed out of thin air.
    The hallmark of a crackpot. There is no surprise involved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19
    the universe is full of misters i just said what i think about it :-D

    And by the way DrRocket if we don't ask questions we will never manage to solve the miseries of the univers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    the universe is full of misters i just said what i think about it :-D

    And by the way DrRocket if we don't ask questions we will never manage to solve the miseries of the univers
    And some of those mysteries have been revealed. Would you prefer that we hide these facts from you and pretend that your understanding actually makes sense? What is more important for you, to be right, or to learn something new?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19
    normally to learn something new but i just asked if it could be possible not if it is true or not
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    the universe is full of misters i just said what i think about it :-D

    And by the way DrRocket if we don't ask questions we will never manage to solve the miseries of the univers
    Your question was answered.

    Your incorrect assertion was corrected.

    If you don't learn when your mistakes are identified and corrected, you will not learn at all.

    You are not likely to solve the mysteries of the universe -- but if you apply yourself diligently you might learn to use a spell checker.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    14
    I suppose the expansion is the actual constant manufacture of space-time.

    Is it true to say that it's just the space between galaxies that is expanding, the space in an atom is not expanding?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by human1
    I suppose the expansion is the actual constant manufacture of space-time.

    Is it true to say that it's just the space between galaxies that is expanding, the space in an atom is not expanding?
    Space is expanding everywhere, but according to general relativity.

    In regions in which there is a significant amount of matter the growth is constrained by gravity. So even within galaxies, and within local groups of galaxies, so-called "gravitationally bound" systems the expansion is very small, negligible. Basically what is going on is that the expansion creates a tension that is resisted by the attractive forces of nature, in the case of galaxies that force being gravity.

    In the case of objects like atoms, and your body for that matter, there are other forces at work in addition to gravity, much stronger forces. In those cases the expansion is resisted by the electromagnetic force, and the strong force in the case of nuclei, and the effect of expansion of space is swamped by those forces. That could change in the extremely distant future.

    Spacetime is not being manufactured. Spacetime is static. What is expanding is space. See the discussion here http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=27896&start=0
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    England
    Posts
    14
    Thanks for that Dr.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dishmaster.

    It is interesting how you deny a theory for which a lot of evidence has been found during the recent decades, while you put up one hypothesis after another without even the tiniest trace of evidence and with assumptions that are grabbed out of thin air.
    The big bang idea has many serious defects, some of which I have posted elsewhere here. Perhaps you can use all this evidence that has been found to explain the points I raised?

    What he BB idea has is one interpretation of evidence which fits so all other possibilities are dismissed immediately. Isn't science supposed o be about investigating all possibilities, then ruling out the wrong ones?

    It must be difficult for some posters here, when I post something and they immediately refer to the wiki but then find nothing there so rather than using their brain to consider it, they quickly dismiss it in the hope that it will vanish without trace.

    I did not say that I believed that he whole universe is in a black hole. I consider it doubtful (though not impossible), but pointed it out in passing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    the universe is full of misters i just said what i think about it :-D

    And by the way DrRocket if we don't ask questions we will never manage to solve the miseries of the univers
    By all means continue to ask questions. As you say, that is the way we learn things. Even for those who know, such questions can cause them to think about things in a different way, even if only to explain why the questioner's point was wrong.

    You will note that DrRocket does not post any science, because he does not know any. He is what is called a troll. He just badgers and insults people so ignore him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Rubbish.

    Even were the nonsensical premisze correct, your even more nonsensical conclusion would not hold.

    This is just word salad.

    Another science free post from DrR. Do you have anything but denial and insults? You could at least quote the wiki like I suspect some others here do to pretend that you know something.
    Go look around. I only use Wiki as a matter of convenience.


    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...er=asc&start=0

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...27896&start=15

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/great...sor-13852t.php

    I wiil be happy to discuss hard science if you would post something with enough substance for a meaningful discussion. The next time you do that will be the first time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Spacetime is not being manufactured. Spacetime is static. What is expanding is space.
    Space we are told is something that has real existence, so can be warped, bent, whatever.

    How can space expand infinitely (from quantum to present size) but not change in any way? Anything else we know of; solids, gases, forms of energy, gravity, etc do change to the point where they cannot be detected as they spread over ever wider areas.

    I ran a long discussion (hundreds of posts) on another site "What is space?" and got no answers. It quickly became clear that even people who claimed degrees had just accepted space as doing what is necessary of it and never given the mechanics of it any thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Is it posible! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I wiil be happy to discuss hard science if you would post something with enough substance for a meaningful discussion. The next time you do that will be the first time.
    If all someone does is post "accepted science", then what point in being here since anyone with a search engine also get any answer they will provide? I know your every answer as in insults or rarely, a quote since like so many on science forums you are literally incapable of thinking of anything new.

    Hard science as in......"You're an idiot so there. Yah boo sucks!"

    That would indeed be a first time for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by human1
    I suppose the expansion is the actual constant manufacture of space-time.

    Is it true to say that it's just the space between galaxies that is expanding, the space in an atom is not expanding?
    Some do believe that space is being "manufactured" as infinite expansion without change is nonsense.

    in our local group (image quarter way down)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

    we have some small and remote clusters which given the distances involved, one might think that our galaxy could not hold onto them if expansion worked. The point about expansion is that it comes into it's own over massive distances so local gravity aside, it can be pretty much ignored over even scales such as our solar system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    For goodness sake Cyberia, the only person to ever think you had anything of value to add to this forum from the beginning has been you. You have been arrogantly spouting the purest nonsense with a pompous air of authority ever since your first post. You are a joke. There are few things in this world as irritating as arrogant fools. Go post your crap on some fringe sites where someone might actually think you are anything more than a bag full of hot air.
    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  
     

  24. #23 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I wiil be happy to discuss hard science if you would post something with enough substance for a meaningful discussion. The next time you do that will be the first time.
    If all someone does is post "accepted science", then what point in being here since anyone with a search engine also get any answer they will provide? I know your every answer as in insults or rarely, a quote since like so many on science forums you are literally incapable of thinking of anything new.

    Hard science as in......"You're an idiot so there. Yah boo sucks!"

    That would indeed be a first time for you.
    wrong

    As usual.

    You confuse an open mind with an empty head.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19
    i posted this because i thought that it can be a rational explanation to the energy that caused the big bang in the first place and in the second place to the rapid expansion of the universe...
    I don't say that this is the way the universe was created it might be a possibility... you cannot deny it completely because we just started to study the nature of black holes...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    For goodness sake Cyberia, the only person to ever think you had anything of value to add to this forum from the beginning has been you. You have been arrogantly spouting the purest nonsense with a pompous air of authority ever since your first post. You are a joke. There are few things in this world as irritating as arrogant fools. Go post your crap on some fringe sites where someone might actually think you are anything more than a bag full of hot air.
    If all you want posted here is accepted science, what point this forum since anyone with a search engine can find the accepted answers for themselves? It is like two text books debating.

    Purest nonsense as in I have to put up with people's insults because they have no answers, or worse, may even have to think for themselves.

    I started off a thread asking what is space on another forum and after hundreds of posts, still had no credible answers. Spacetime is just a mathematical convenience which has no place in the real world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dishmaster.

    It is interesting how you deny a theory for which a lot of evidence has been found during the recent decades, while you put up one hypothesis after another without even the tiniest trace of evidence and with assumptions that are grabbed out of thin air.
    The big bang idea has many serious defects, some of which I have posted elsewhere here. Perhaps you can use all this evidence that has been found to explain the points I raised?

    What he BB idea has is one interpretation of evidence which fits so all other possibilities are dismissed immediately. Isn't science supposed o be about investigating all possibilities, then ruling out the wrong ones?

    It must be difficult for some posters here, when I post something and they immediately refer to the wiki but then find nothing there so rather than using their brain to consider it, they quickly dismiss it in the hope that it will vanish without trace.

    I did not say that I believed that he whole universe is in a black hole. I consider it doubtful (though not impossible), but pointed it out in passing.
    I have no problem with alternative ways of explaining the universe. The central point I raised was that you seem to follow double standards. You do not seem to apply the same scepticism and criticism to your own hypotheses that you use to undermine established knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    If all you want posted here is accepted science, what point this forum since anyone with a search engine can find the accepted answers for themselves? It is like two text books debating.

    Purest nonsense as in I have to put up with people's insults because they have no answers, or worse, may even have to think for themselves.
    Similar to Dishmaster, I have no problem with speculation, informed or not. I love speculation. It is fun. But the way you are conducting it is not acceptable and offensive to those that really know what they are talking about (not that I am an expert; see my signature). You conduct yourself with an air of authority that is not warranted, not nearly. Speculate away (preferably in the appropriate subforum for speculation), but dial down the air of authority with which you are doing it. Those that might not be able to tell idle speculation from accepted science or speculation rooted in the scientific method and with a solid knowledge base might not be able to tell the difference. People most often simply need an explanation of the state of current knowledge and are looking to get their questions answered by people that really know what they are talking about.

    Accepted science is not the only thing that is acceptable. Areas of active research are abundant, but those involved in that research and others that can display the appropriate amount of tentativeness know not to quote these as fact. You on the other hand are waving aside huge swaths of active research and well established scientific theories with little more than a wave of a hand amidst a mist of misunderstanding and idle speculation. That is not on.
    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  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Go post your crap on some fringe sites where someone might actually think you are anything more than a bag full of hot air.
    Kalster, I really must protest. It is this sort of thoughtless post that gives hot air balloons a bad name.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Go post your crap on some fringe sites where someone might actually think you are anything more than a bag full of hot air.
    Kalster, I really must protest. It is this sort of thoughtless post that gives hot air balloons a bad name.
    Granted. :wink: (though I did go a bit overboard there)
    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 Re: Is it posible! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts
    Hello, I like to go back to topic.

    Your graph is very nice and after thinking about It; It's not completely wrong It's much like a Friedmann-model of the universe, which begins with the big bang and ends with the big crunch. The whole process could repeat over and over again, maybe. Your black hole in the graph is just the maximum size of the universe. Matter will not expand and become a black hole, a black hole is a place of very high density, an expanding universe has a much lower density.

    BTW: according to A.Einstein's general theory of relativity, the black hole and the big bang are both singularities and therefore equal.

    Do you mean what is outside of our universe? If so;
    I think the question in what kind of thing the universe is expanding cannot be answered at the moment. Maybe it is the false kind of question. The more complicated theories try to explain it. The picture could be very different from your picture. Most probably It will be not the case that our universe is expanding in some kind of matter.

    greetings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian_P
    BTW: according to A.Einstein's general theory of relativity, the black hole and the big bang are both singularities and therefore equal.

    greetings
    rubbish

    1. Singularities are not even part of spacetime.

    3. Black hole singularities and the big bang singularity are different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    Einstein's general theory of relativity, on its own, predicted that space-time began at the big bang singularity and would come to an end either at the big crunch singularity (if the whole universe recollapsed), or at a singularity inside a black hole (if a local region, such as a star, were to collapse).
    (Hawking, 1988:115).
    It is not my idea
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Is it posible! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    rubbish

    1. Singularities are not even part of spacetime.
    Right. They are a mathsworld idea that has no equivalent in the real world.

    3. Black hole singularities and the big bang singularity are different.

    1, 3.... the all knowing DrRocket seems to be having a little trouble with his maths.

    We have no evidence that fundamental particles can be crushed. At an escape velocity of 2/3 c, we have neutrons as in a neutron star. Greater pressure and these break down, and more, protons break down, but no evidence that quarks, electrons, etc can break down. At least not in any black hole we know of.

    As to the BB, how would such a singularity form and how would it, unless by magic, inflate and expand? A singularity would be permanently inert.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Go post your crap on some fringe sites where someone might actually think you are anything more than a bag full of hot air.
    Kalster, I really must protest. It is this sort of thoughtless post that gives hot air balloons a bad name.
    Granted. :wink: (though I did go a bit overboard there)
    A moderator is supposed to moderate others in their behaviour here. Not tell them what they can and cannot post like some infallible deity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Go post your crap on some fringe sites where someone might actually think you are anything more than a bag full of hot air.
    Kalster, I really must protest. It is this sort of thoughtless post that gives hot air balloons a bad name.
    Granted. :wink: (though I did go a bit overboard there)
    A moderator is supposed to moderate others in their behaviour here. Not tell them what they can and cannot post like some infallible deity.
    I don't moderate this section, but moderators are supposed to enforce the ethos of this forum, which entails telling members what they can and cannot post. I don't have any powers of a deity. Did you read my last post? Should have known that you wouldn't pay any attention to something that would require you to admit a flaw of character though.
    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  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    20
    I am just pointing out: when you use the general theory of relativity, which is a classical and fully accepted theory, you will find that there must be a singularity, in the past and in any black hole. That is what S.Hawking and Roger Penrose worked out in the late 1960s at Cambridge. They applied a new model, created from Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. There will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where time has a beginning; that is what this theory predicted, nothing more. That why I see no point in discussing this fact. Nevertheless, Hawking and Jim Hartle have showed that this could be not correct, which is found in the "no boundary proposal", published in the year 1983.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dishmaster.

    It is interesting how you deny a theory for which a lot of evidence has been found during the recent decades, while you put up one hypothesis after another without even the tiniest trace of evidence and with assumptions that are grabbed out of thin air.
    The big bang idea has many serious defects, some of which I have posted elsewhere here. Perhaps you can use all this evidence that has been found to explain the points I raised?

    What he BB idea has is one interpretation of evidence which fits so all other possibilities are dismissed immediately. Isn't science supposed o be about investigating all possibilities, then ruling out the wrong ones?
    This is exactly the reason why the BB model is still so successful in surviving among the scientific community. There is no better explanation so far. Everybody is well aware of the problems it has. This is science. We don't have the final answer yet. How about you start pointing out all the defincies of the pet ideas you are posting ever so often? Will any of those survive under your rigorous scrutiny?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dishmaster.

    It is interesting how you deny a theory for which a lot of evidence has been found during the recent decades, while you put up one hypothesis after another without even the tiniest trace of evidence and with assumptions that are grabbed out of thin air.
    The big bang idea has many serious defects, some of which I have posted elsewhere here. Perhaps you can use all this evidence that has been found to explain the points I raised?

    What he BB idea has is one interpretation of evidence which fits so all other possibilities are dismissed immediately. Isn't science supposed o be about investigating all possibilities, then ruling out the wrong ones?
    This is exactly the reason why the BB model is still so successful in surviving among the scientific community. There is no better explanation so far. Everybody is well aware of the problems it has. This is science. We don't have the final answer yet. How about you start pointing out all the defincies of the pet ideas you are posting ever so often? Will any of those survive under your rigorous scrutiny?
    The big bang has no serious problems until the issues arise as to what was going on in the first fraction of a second. It is solid so long as one can rely on general relativity -- so the hypothesis that the universe was once very small is solid. Once combined gravitational and quantum effects become important things are pretty murky. But that is inly the first fraction of a second.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This is exactly the reason why the BB model is still so successful in surviving among the scientific community. There is no better explanation so far. Everybody is well aware of the problems it has. This is science. We don't have the final answer yet. How about you start pointing out all the defincies of the pet ideas you are posting ever so often? Will any of those survive under your rigorous scrutiny?
    The original idea was god did it and it survived so long because it provided all the answers so no one bothered to question it.

    All my ideas are works in progress and should something new come up which contradicts them or improves them, they will change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The big bang has no serious problems until the issues arise as to what was going on in the first fraction of a second. It is solid so long as one can rely on general relativity -- so the hypothesis that the universe was once very small is solid. Once combined gravitational and quantum effects become important things are pretty murky. But that is inly the first fraction of a second.
    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K which as we edge away from it should go down over distance to 2.7K. Yet the highest temperatures we have found I believe is still less than 10.K.

    Quasars from six to ten billion light years away show no sign of time dilation as in caused by the universe expanding.

    A look at the afterglow of the BB some years ago showed as I remember, just 1 in 4 cases showed the BB behind large distant structures. How could this be?

    Linked quasars with hugely different redshifts.

    etc.

    There are too many people in astronomy who just nod their heads when the big bang is mentioned and have never questioned it which is how it survives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I don't moderate this section, but moderators are supposed to enforce the ethos of this forum, which entails telling members what they can and cannot post. I don't have any powers of a deity. Did you read my last post? Should have known that you wouldn't pay any attention to something that would require you to admit a flaw of character though.
    I did read your post.

    Most cosmology is just unproven IDEAS and not hard science. There are some facts, but it uses just one of a number of possible interpretations of those facts.

    If I question unproven ideas like singularities, inflation, what goes on inside a black hole, etc then I am questioning the subject and going off of the ethos of this section of the MB?

    How can I debate without questioning something? If I say it is wrong and nothing more, then it just an opinion which does not even need an iota of knowledge on the subject. I offer alternate IDEAS on a subject of which there are few certainties.

    The subject is such that we cannot have proofs like a YouTube image of all galaxies actually moving away from each other (ignoring local gravity), and may even be unknowable in some cases like where did the material for the BB come from and how did it happen to be in such a concentrated for and why did it happen, etc?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K which as we edge away from it should go down over distance to 2.7K. Yet the highest temperatures we have found I believe is still less than 10.K.
    wrong

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    The big bang has no serious problems until the issues arise as to what was going on in the first fraction of a second. It is solid so long as one can rely on general relativity -- so the hypothesis that the universe was once very small is solid. Once combined gravitational and quantum effects become important things are pretty murky. But that is inly the first fraction of a second.
    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K which as we edge away from it should go down over distance to 2.7K. Yet the highest temperatures we have found I believe is still less than 10.K.
    And 2.7 K is less than 10 K, right? The plasma that emitted the radiation that we now measure as the CMB redshifted to a Black Body temperature of 2.75 K had once around 3000 K. Correct. What are you trying to say? Are you referring to intrinsic temperatures of distant quasar host galaxies? Of course, they have higher intrinsic temperatures. Many of them contain a large amount of warm dust and gas around 50 K from which new stars are forming that of course have temperatures beyond 1000 K. Or are you referring to the primordial matter that was around, when the opaque plasma of 3000 K became transparent. This matter of course cooled down, because there was no other energy source around.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quasars from six to ten billion light years away show no sign of time dilation as in caused by the universe expanding.
    Evidence please!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    wrong
    As I pointed out elsewhere, a five year old child can make such an answer since it necessitates not an iota of knowledge on the subject.

    Do you know ANYTHING about cosmology that you must continue emulating a five year old child on the subject?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dishmaster. We have various temperature ranges, allowing for anomalies I suppose, from maybe 8K to under 3K. A little short of 3000K.

    Yet we are told this is a redshifted temperature while when we look at stellar bodies at that distance, no one says the stars are at maybe 10K but give real temperatures. Either the CMB is something like 3,300K or it is under 3K. If the former, then the BB could be proved by ever cooler temperatures shown as you move away from it, so to later time periods when it did cool according to the BB.

    Inflation as I understand it stopped when the universe was about the size of a cricket ball. Even present expansion which is faster than originally is based on size. It isn't noticed over the size of our solar system yet is over the distance between galaxies (ignoring local gravity).

    Yet expansion for a cricket ball sized object of say 14 mps per million light years means after 13.7 billion years, the universe would be about the size of your house.

    But we are told that within seconds it was solar system sized. This sounds like FTL inflation to me rather than expansion. It would have had to continue inflating to a good part of today's size before settling back to leisurely expansion to make it as big as it is believed to be.

    The idea I think is that each tiny section of the new universe, call it atom sized bites, expanded at 14 mps but this is just craziness. It would mean a "sectioned universe" which is nonsense.

    There is also the problem of cooling down. Considering with the BB, all space is contained within it so heat has nowhere else to go, gas and dust in space is notoriously slow to cool down as in this example where even very distant gas from the source is still very hot:

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/as...y_cluster.html


    A simple search with Google picked up 20,400 sites on the subject of quasars 6 to 10 billion light years away don't show time dilation. This was the first. It was big news earlier this year and I think I started a thread on it at the time.


    http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html

    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Either the CMB is something like 3,300K or it is under 3K.
    If the CMB were anything like 3300 K, the Earth would be a cinder, you idiot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Either the CMB is something like 3,300K or it is under 3K.
    If the CMB were anything like 3300 K, the Earth would be a cinder, you idiot.
    If you read the posts (I know they have some long words), you would find that I was talking about the CMB after the BB where matter was first created, so well over 13 billion light years distant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    were anything like 3300 K, the Earth would be a cinder, you idiot.
    If you read the posts (I know they have some long words), you would find that I was talking about the CMB after the BB where matter was first created, so well over 13 billion light years distant.[/quote]

    This is an even more ludicrous statement than the original one. The CMB is a universal radiation and it makes no sense to talk about it as well over 13 billion light years distant." That is like talking about the distance to the light emitted by the sun, not the distance to the sun itself. But in this case the CMB is from the surface of last scattering which is all around us.

    Your ignorance and stupidity are boundless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    This is an even more ludicrous statement than the original one. The CMB is a universal radiation and it makes no sense to talk about it as well over 13 billion light years distant." That is like talking about the distance to the light emitted by the sun, not the distance to the sun itself. But in this case the CMB is from the surface of last scattering which is all around us.

    Your ignorance and stupidity are boundless.

    To quote from the previous page:

    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K which as we edge away from it should go down over distance to 2.7K. Yet the highest temperatures we have found I believe is still less than 10.K.
    How does this equate to the CMB in Earth's immediate vicinity?

    If we look at something over 13 billion light years away, we are seeing it as it was over 13 billion years ago, so expect it to back up the BB.

    Perhaps you might like to withdraw all that silly hand waving and your usual crop of insults and admit that you did not even read my posts?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    This is an even more ludicrous statement than the original one. The CMB is a universal radiation and it makes no sense to talk about it as well over 13 billion light years distant." That is like talking about the distance to the light emitted by the sun, not the distance to the sun itself. But in this case the CMB is from the surface of last scattering which is all around us.

    Your ignorance and stupidity are boundless.

    To quote from the previous page:

    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K which as we edge away from it should go down over distance to 2.7K. Yet the highest temperatures we have found I believe is still less than 10.K.
    How does this equate to the CMB in Earth's immediate vicinity?

    If we look at something over 13 billion light years away, we are seeing it as it was over 13 billion years ago, so expect it to back up the BB.

    Perhaps you might like to withdraw all that silly hand waving and your usual crop of insults and admit that you did not even read my posts?
    nope

    I read your posts, including this one.

    I am simply amazed that any single person could have misunderstood so much.

    For instance THE CMB IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE. To speak of "the CMB in Earth's immediate vicinity" is to demonstrate complete ignorance of what the CMB is, not to mention total ignorance of thermodynamics.

    Your ignorance of elementary physics is simply astounding. You spout non sequitur after non sequitur. A more intelligent person would be red with embarassment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    I said:

    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K.
    DrRocket said (ignoring the rest of his garbage):

    THE CMB IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE.
    DrRocket obviously does not believe that the big bang happened, so there was no temperature of 3,000.C as matter first appeared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    I said:

    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K.
    DrRocket said (ignoring the rest of his garbage):

    THE CMB IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE.
    DrRocket obviously does not believe that the big bang happened, so there was no temperature of 3,000.C as matter first appeared.
    No, huge misunderstanding from your side! What we see is the red-shifted radiation of the 3000 K plasma that once was the universe. We can only see something after the photons that it emitted reaches our eyes. Therefore, the CMBR is a bath of red-shifted photons that fills the entire universe. The redshift moved the peak of the Black Body energy distribution into the microwave part of the EM spectrum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    I said:

    If the BB happened and we look at the CMB at the edge of the observable universe, we should find a temperature of maybe 3000K.
    DrRocket said (ignoring the rest of his garbage):

    THE CMB IS THE SAME EVERYWHERE.
    DrRocket obviously does not believe that the big bang happened, so there was no temperature of 3,000.C as matter first appeared.
    Idiot

    The CMB temperature of about 3K is not only as predicted by the big bang hypothesis, it was the first strong piece of observational evidence for the big bang.

    The CMB is indeed the same everywhere, and you have simply added to the evidence that you understand absolutely nothing of the relevant physics.

    Go read a physics book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    No, huge misunderstanding from your side! What we see is the red-shifted radiation of the 3000 K plasma that once was the universe. We can only see something after the photons that it emitted reaches our eyes. Therefore, the CMBR is a bath of red-shifted photons that fills the entire universe. The redshift moved the peak of the Black Body energy distribution into the microwave part of the EM spectrum.
    When look at objects over 13 billion light years away (in visible light and not in the microwave or even infra red spectrum as you seem to claim is a property of distance), no one talks of stars and galaxies at maybe thirty degrees above absolute. There is no need for compensation for their distance. So when we see the highest CMB readings at that distance and more at under 10.K, that means that their temperature is under 10.K and not adjusted in any way for distance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Idiot

    The CMB temperature of about 3K is not only as predicted by the big bang hypothesis, it was the first strong piece of observational evidence for the big bang.

    The CMB is indeed the same everywhere, and you have simply added to the evidence that you understand absolutely nothing of the relevant physics.

    Go read a physics book.
    In 1926, Arthur Eddington predicted that a normal radiation of a temperature of about 3.2K was being emitted by interstellar dust particles. Later this radiation was discovered, and was found to have a temperature of 2.7 K, which was fairly close. Eddington's prediction was made prior to and totally separate from Big Bang idea. It was a prediction about stars and had nothing to do with the Big Bang idea.

    As starlight is everywhere, backing up what Eddington said was hardly evidence for an idea.

    Stop lying that you have read any books. Clod.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Idiot

    The CMB temperature of about 3K is not only as predicted by the big bang hypothesis, it was the first strong piece of observational evidence for the big bang.

    The CMB is indeed the same everywhere, and you have simply added to the evidence that you understand absolutely nothing of the relevant physics.

    Go read a physics book.
    In 1926, Arthur Eddington predicted that a normal radiation of a temperature of about 3.2K was being emitted by interstellar dust particles. Later this radiation was discovered, and was found to have a temperature of 2.7 K, which was fairly close. Eddington's prediction was made prior to and totally separate from Big Bang idea. It was a prediction about stars and had nothing to do with the Big Bang idea.

    As starlight is everywhere, backing up what Eddington said was hardly evidence for an idea.

    Stop lying that you have read any books. Clod.
    I suggest that you reconsider bthe word "lying', particularly when you have no idea what you are talking about.

    The modern interpretation of the CMB began, not with Eddington but rather with Dicke and Peebles. They accurately predicted what Penzias and Wilson saw.

    Now go read any of the books that I have suggested --= fool.

    The book by Peebles would be a good start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    No, huge misunderstanding from your side! What we see is the red-shifted radiation of the 3000 K plasma that once was the universe. We can only see something after the photons that it emitted reaches our eyes. Therefore, the CMBR is a bath of red-shifted photons that fills the entire universe. The redshift moved the peak of the Black Body energy distribution into the microwave part of the EM spectrum.
    When look at objects over 13 billion light years away (in visible light and not in the microwave or even infra red spectrum as you seem to claim is a property of distance), no one talks of stars and galaxies at maybe thirty degrees above absolute.
    Neither does anyone when talking about the plasma that emitted the radiation. But the radiation that we measure from the CMB has a continuous spectrum of a Black Body of 2.75 K. This does not mean that the plasma had this temeparture. One is matter, the other is radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I suggest that you reconsider bthe word "lying', particularly when you have no idea what you are talking about.

    The modern interpretation of the CMB began, not with Eddington but rather with Dicke and Peebles. They accurately predicted what Penzias and Wilson saw.

    Now go read any of the books that I have suggested --= fool.

    The book by Peebles would be a good start.
    I have explained to you a number of times that as I am in Thailand I have no access to those books and as my internet connection is about as safe as posting the information on a billboard, I dare not use it to buy anything online.

    What do you not understand about that?

    You CLAIM to have read these books but can post nothing from them. That makes you a liar in my book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dishmaster. To quote:

    As the temperature of a black body increases, it emits electromagnetic radiation at higher intensities and shorter wavelengths. Around 1000 K black-body radiation is red, from 2000 K to 4000 K, the radiation is orange, then begins to turn white at temperatures past 4000 K, at which all typical substances are in a liquid form.
    Blackbody radiation emitted at 3,270.K and even higher before matter formed, is different from BBR emitted at 2.7K.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dishmaster. To quote:

    As the temperature of a black body increases, it emits electromagnetic radiation at higher intensities and shorter wavelengths. Around 1000 K black-body radiation is red, from 2000 K to 4000 K, the radiation is orange, then begins to turn white at temperatures past 4000 K, at which all typical substances are in a liquid form.
    Blackbody radiation emitted at 3,270.K and even higher before matter formed, is different from BBR emitted at 2.7K.
    Indeed it is. The peak of the energy distribution shifts to larger wavelengths for lower temperatures (Wien shift). But the general shape does not change, since it is only defined by the temperature (after M. Planck). The redshift alters the energy distribution of the original radiation emitted by a hot BB to one that looks like a spectrum of a BB at 2.75 K.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dishmaster. To quote:

    As the temperature of a black body increases, it emits electromagnetic radiation at higher intensities and shorter wavelengths. Around 1000 K black-body radiation is red, from 2000 K to 4000 K, the radiation is orange, then begins to turn white at temperatures past 4000 K, at which all typical substances are in a liquid form.
    Blackbody radiation emitted at 3,270.K and even higher before matter formed, is different from BBR emitted at 2.7K.
    Indeed it is. The peak of the energy distribution shifts to larger wavelengths for lower temperatures (Wien shift). But the general shape does not change, since it is only defined by the temperature (after M. Planck). The redshift alters the energy distribution of the original radiation emitted by a hot BB to one that looks like a spectrum of a BB at 2.75 K.

    Which is as predicted by the big bang -- which is why the CMB is strong evidence in favor of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Indeed it is. The peak of the energy distribution shifts to larger wavelengths for lower temperatures (Wien shift). But the general shape does not change, since it is only defined by the temperature (after M. Planck). The redshift alters the energy distribution of the original radiation emitted by a hot BB to one that looks like a spectrum of a BB at 2.75 K.
    But stellar objects at such distances and of even higher temperatures still look like stellar objects of higher temperatures and not red shifted to 2.75 K. No one points to a very distant galaxy and says it is only 10 K, due to red shifting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    But stellar objects at such distances and of even higher temperatures still look like stellar objects of higher temperatures and not red shifted to 2.75 K. No one points to a very distant galaxy and says it is only 10 K, due to red shifting.
    Of course not.

    You continue to misrepresent elementary physics.

    The OBSERVED cosmic microwave background radiation is what one expects form a black body with a temperature of appproximately 2.75 K. This has NOTHING to do with stars, galaxies or other localized objects.

    No one with even a rudimentary knowledge of physics would expect such a low temperature from a star or a galaxy, or raise such an inane issue.. That of course leaves you out of the mix.

    Go learn some basic physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64 Re: Is it posible! 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1
    Hello!

    I have been thinking these days about the big bang and i have come up with a idea but i don't think that it is even possible so i seek the answer here.

    Think about this the universe is continually expanding but where or in what is it expanding...what if it is expanding to a giant black hole and at the end of that black hole boom the big bang happens again and so on for those that have not understood i have made a little drawing (pleas forgive for the horrible design but i suck at arts)

    http://www.picz.ro/show-image.php?id...c4d7f99dfc496c
    Thank you and i am waiting for your posts [/img]
    I am one who believes everything that expands has to expand into a space that is already there. Nothing can't expanding into nothing. Everything is in a space. I am in a space (house, office, etc), that space is in a space, that space is in a space and so forth. If not, then the universe is creating it's own space as it expands? I don't buy it. If physics breaks down at the singularity, then it must break down at the end of the expanding universe as well. Therefore, scientist don't know what it's expanding into. I can absorb this better than scientists saying the universe is everything, and there was nothing before or after it.

    I'm ready for my punishment. You may hammer away at me now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65 Re: Is it posible! 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Uniburst
    I am one who believes everything that expands has to expand into a space that is already there. Nothing can't expanding into nothing. Everything is in a space. I am in a space (house, office, etc), that space is in a space, that space is in a space and so forth. If not, then the universe is creating it's own space as it expands? I don't buy it. If physics breaks down at the singularity, then it must break down at the end of the expanding universe as well. Therefore, scientist don't know what it's expanding into. I can absorb this better than scientists saying the universe is everything, and there was nothing before or after it.

    I'm ready for my punishment. You may hammer away at me now.
    If the universe were expanding into something, then events in that something could in principle affect events in the universe. But the universe, by definition, includes everything that can effect events in it. The universe is the whole enchilada. There is no "elsewhere"

    You are being limited by your everyday experience and that experience is limited to a very small part of the universe. Truth is stranger than you think.

    Physics does not break down. Our understanding of physics breaks down. But there is no "edge" of the universe, only of the observable universe which is quite a different thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19
    OK we do not have the slightest clue what black holes actually are and i posted that theory thinking what if the matter in a black hole accumulates till a maximum point when it explodes and creates a another big bang and so on.
    DrRocket...out of pure curiosity where did the energy that started the big bang come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    OK we do not have the slightest clue what black holes actually are and i posted that theory thinking what if the matter in a black hole accumulates till a maximum point when it explodes and creates a another big bang and so on.
    DrRocket...out of pure curiosity where did the energy that started the big bang come from?
    1. We have a very good idea from general relativity, the application of which predicted their existence well in anticipation of empirical evidence, of what black holes are. In fact that analysis defines what a black hole is. They don't "explode".

    2. No one knows the mechanism behind the big bang itself. Our best theories merely describe the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the "bang" until now.

    3. There is some speculation, not established yet not completely fanciful, that the total energy content of the universe is zero. There are lots of technical difficulties in making this notion precise and even more in supporting a precise statement, but it is one possibility.

    4. Even "started" when used in conjunction with the big bang is problematical. The model of the big bang based on general relativity has both time and space originating at the spacetme event called the "big bang". There is no "before" so one cannot really say that the big bang "started". Ordinary language fails when used to describe the big bang and one must use mathematics to be precise.

    You can find a reasonably good description, for a general audience, of the big bang and black holes in The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose. Much of the theory of black holes and the big bang is due to work of Penrose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    19
    thx a lot i will read the book i am really fascinated of the origin of the universe..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by razvanone
    thx a lot i will read the book i am really fascinated of the origin of the universe..
    You might also want to read The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg. It is a little out of date because it was written before the acceleerated expansion of space was known, but is otherwise excelleny.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    If we assume the universe ( space/time ) started as a vacuum fluctuation and we also assume Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle applied at that point, ie dTxdE has to be greater than a finite constant ( Plank's ), then even after inflation and expansion, it must still apply.
    Now if dT is, so far , 13.7 Billion years, and may be infinite, then the only way the relation would be satisfied, is if dE is effectively zero, ie the total energy of the universe has to add to zero.

    The universe is very strict about its energy lending and would not have let it go on so long without repayment.
    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
  •