# Thread: Big Bang or no Bang?

1. I have a nagging doubt about the age of the universe - it goes something like this:

If I set my clock (on Earth to say Midnight) and a second clock also to midnight but send the second clock to a black hole for say a week (earth time) and then retrieve the second clock and compare the times. The Earth clock will of course have advanced 168 hours, BUT I am told the second clock may only have moved a second or so depending upon the 'mass' of the black hole plus whatever time it took me to read it).

This is (I understand) a consequence of Einstein's theories. I am also told
this has (to an extent) been proven by putting a Caesium? clock into a plane, flying around for a while and then comparing it to an identical clock left on the ground - so on the face of it, so far so good.

At the briefest possible instant after the big bang all the mass of the universe (say contained in the area of a baseball) would have been so massive (approaching infinity) that time in that universe would have been
so slow (relative to a clock outside) that it would take forever to achieve it's current size. From this, my poor little brain can only reason that it is 15 billion years old (as we perceive time today) but in reality is really infinitely old. and has therefore existed forever.

Now I did send this question to Prof Stephen Hawking Emiritus prof of etc etc at Cambridge about 7 years ago, but have only to date received a reply from his secretary about the large amount of mail he receives and the 'specail difficulty' he has in replying. Far be it from me to upset the universe according to Einstein et al. Anybody care to comment?

Addenda, I now know why I have not received a reply there is an obvious flaw in my conclusion This thread should be removed.

2.

3. At the briefest possible instant after the big bang all the mass of the universe (say contained in the area of a baseball) would have been so massive (approaching infinity) that time in that universe would have been
so slow (relative to a clock outside)
What does it mean to say "relative to a clock outside" in this context? We live in this universe, and time in this universe is the only thing that matters. To conclude that "in reality, the universe has existed forever" or some such doesn't make sense. If time is slower throughout the whole universe is doesn't make a difference - there is no absolute clock against which to measure. Who is to say which particular length for 1 second is the "correct" one?

4. I like this question.............so much so that it gets my first ever post on the forum! :-D (So no one flame me!)

At the rate the universe is expanding at the moment we perceive that its physical age is 15 billion years old.

So isn't billco right?

Time as we perceive would pass more slowly relative to 'todays' timeframe the further back towards the big bang you travelled.

If it happens in a black hole, then surely the same thing can be applied to the instant of the big bang at ~infinite mass?

And in that case, the age of the universe is infinite?

5. But in a black hole example, time is only slowed down for an object closer to it relative to an outside observer. In the case of the big bang, the entire universe is subject to this effect. From what reference frame is it possible for time to be slowed down, in comparison?
Do you see what I'm saying? Pretend you and I are the only people in the universe. Now pretend that everything in the universe slows down by 50%.
Has anything really changed? From all reference frames, everything is exactly the same. It only makes sense to draw conclusions based on other reference frames.

6. Originally Posted by Its All Relative
I like this question.............so much so that it gets my first ever post on the forum! :-D (So no one flame me!)

At the rate the universe is expanding at the moment we perceive that its physical age is 15 billion years old.

So isn't billco right?

Time as we perceive would pass more slowly relative to 'todays' timeframe the further back towards the big bang you travelled.

If it happens in a black hole, then surely the same thing can be applied to the instant of the big bang at ~infinite mass?

And in that case, the age of the universe is infinite?
Welcome relative, you might like to look at my hammer and feather thread, if you do, read it all before you opt to vote. have a 'nice stay'
yes I did mean nice stay!

My only point is that if it proves time is 'non-linear' for a clock within the universe when compared to one 'outside' then 15billion may be right at the 'rate' we experience time now, but infinitley older if were possible to observe from outside meaning the 15billion is/maybe a 'trick' of nature.
I do not really want to alter anyone's belief's here just get people thinking about it - so I won't be doing any arguing or persuading, just clarifying the doubt I have or perhaps explaining it in a different way.

7. As I've suggested in a previous thread, the planes didn't "prove" it. I know numerous people who agree that it doesn't, and gave a much more detailed explanation on why than I did unfortunately. However I believe the issue that should be targeted here is that, plus the big bang in general. Using relativity, or alternatives, it all suggests the big bang was one SUPERMASSIVE (or ultramassive?) black hole. Much more massive than anything in existence within the current observable universe today. That being said, how did it explode? Black holes have this nasty habit, y'see, of not even allowing light to escape due to their gravity. So how did any amount of matter escape? Or anything? Hawking radiation is about the only answer, but implementing hawking radiation means that the big bang didn't *bang* at all. Especially moreso since hawking radiation is still listed as controversial in numerous circles.

This being said, along with your observation of time in general, pretty much suggests relativity is anti-big bang. Especially since black holes, according to relativity, are beyond the speed of light since they are massive enough to draw light in. This creates a "rip" in the theory of spacetime and, well, you know the rest. The problem with this is, black holes would never die by that explanation. Thus the big bang *never happened* according to relativity. If all matter in the universe did converge to such a massive point in space, I doubt we'd be having this conversation right now assuming relativity is correct.

Another point to add to the above: The big bang was so massive that it most likely would have created a large vent in spacetime. As such, most matter would have been thrown to the other end (aka: a "white hole" assuming relativity). There is also a major question of how *FAR* the big bang moved from the original location of the universe and its matter before it..well...banged.

However I should also add in a more neutral standpoint for time. Time, being a mental concept, would suggest that if the universe did slow down to a near-infinite degree, none of the matter would show it. Since the interaction was halted. Yet according to the perception on the matters part, it never slowed down at all. Heck, we could still be almost infinitely slowed down, but we'd never know it. In fact, just typing this could have taken a few billion years if the slowing effect still exists. I believe Neutrino covered this point in a much more simple manner, but I wanted to add in a more lengthy explanation.

For a final part, if the big bang drew in all matter in the known universe, then it was quite possibly infinite in almost every conceivable way. Especially using spacetime.

I'm fairly certain I'll be flamed for this, but this was too interesting to pass up.

8. The confusion has cleared,

My conclusion was incorrect.

Looking again at my original post I see it was
Clearly a Really Awful Post. or C.R.A.P for short.

9. Ah, but there's a flaw to this. Let's say this technology was made 50 trillion years into the future, when the last few black holes are dying, and the universe will fade into total darkness. If they do this bubble thing you speak of, and go back in time, it might take an infinite amount of time to get to our frame of refrence, even though only 50 trillion years actually happened.
But, if they went back in time and would experience time the way everyone else does, it would only take 50 trillion, 15 billion years to get there.
And of course, going into the future in this bubble is more interesting, as everyone starts moving faster and faster until you aren't moving through time at all compared to them, and they're going at infinite speeds.

Imposing our point of view over the entire universe doesn't work, because everyone's POV, at all times, is what matters.

10. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
I'm fairly certain I'll be flamed for this, but this was too interesting to pass up.
It may be that you would be deserving of flaming for the following transgression. This site is visited by persons with a wide range of understanding of science, but probably by more with a limited understanding, rather than a deep grasp and a participative role.
It is therefore your responsibility to make it clear that a statement such as "the Big Bang is against relativity" is an opinion that differs radically from the mainstream of scientific thought.
Failure to do so is unscientific; it is presumptuous; it is ethically questionable.

11. Ah but see, I gave an explanation as to why. If you want more of one then request it, I wont waste typing on blinde eyes. Aside from that, I know it differs from what "mainstream" people think, but oh well. Mainstream people also think evolution is false. I've not exactly been disproven, nor been confronted by anyone who doesn't use the bible to prove god (or in this case relativity to prove itself).

Aside from that, I understand a lot about Einstein and the theory of reletivity. What I don't get is that, if I understand so little, why is nobody pointing out APPARENT serious flaws in my claims?

12. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Ah but see, I gave an explanation as to why. If you want more of one then request it,
OK. I am requesting it, since I saw nothing in your post that qualifies as an explanation.
Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Aside from that, I know it differs from what "mainstream" people think, but oh well. Mainstream people also think evolution is false.
Get real Jeremy. That is so logically flawed I could take the Queen Mary through it sideways.

Mainstream people think evolution is false.
Mainstream physicists would not think that relativity is "anti big bang".

You have asserted that scientists and the variably educated general public are one and the same thing.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Aside from that, I understand a lot about Einstein and the theory of reletivity. What I don't get is that, if I understand so little, why is nobody pointing out APPARENT serious flaws in my claims?
Two points:
Point 1: I find it difficult to work up much of a sweat contesting flaky ideas from someone who thinks there is a theory of relativity. That smacks of how one of the variably educated general public we encountered a paragraph or two back would describe things. There are two theories of relvativity. Perhaps you would like to clarify which one flies in the face of the Big Bang.
Point 2: None of your objections appeared to be of sufficient substance to allow one to point out flaws. To do so there would need to be enough meat on them to see them. Perhaps you could restate them in a clear, systematic manner in your next post. Don't be afraid to use maths to make your point.

13. I am told that if I could chuck a clock into a blackhole yet be able to see it I would find that as the clock got closer to the 'centre' it would almost stop.

Now pardon me for being a senile old git* but from that I draw the conclusion that if I could 'watch' the universe go back to the big bang as it's mass became super dense the clock would slow down, and to an external observer it would stop and never get to the big bang.

The universe if ONLY 15 billion old if you could travel back in it. If you could observe it at today's rate (of time passage) it is infinitely old.

Now please, NO Plancks constant, no 'you haven't taken into effect the strength of the local brew' and all the other weird and wonderful things, just think about Einstein's independant observer but in respect of time not light.

14. I have just moved, and the house I am currently in wont have internet for a month. I wont be able to reply much, as the library computers are highly in use in this town. I shall formulate the reply you want at a later date, until then don't expect me on the forums much ^^;

15. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
I have just moved, and the house I am currently in wont have internet for a month. I wont be able to reply much, as the library computers are highly in use in this town. I shall formulate the reply you want at a later date, until then don't expect me on the forums much ^^;
Hope to see you back soon -

16. Originally Posted by billco
I am told that if I could chuck a clock into a blackhole yet be able to see it I would find that as the clock got closer to the 'centre' it would almost stop.

Now pardon me for being a senile old git* but from that I draw the conclusion that if I could 'watch' the universe go back to the big bang as it's mass became super dense the clock would slow down, and to an external observer it would stop and never get to the big bang.

The universe if ONLY 15 billion old if you could travel back in it. If you could observe it at today's rate (of time passage) it is infinitely old.

Now please, NO Plancks constant, no 'you haven't taken into effect the strength of the local brew' and all the other weird and wonderful things, just think about Einstein's independant observer but in respect of time not light.
To an external observer the time slows down, but to the clock there is no change (you still cross the event horizon in finite time).

How can an observer be external to the universe?

The age of the universe is defined via the epoch constuction (i.e. when all observers see the same background radiation temp for example) and as such im not sure how your percieved time slowing down would be observable to us observers trapped in the universe (like all observers that GR is concerned with)

17. Originally Posted by river_rat
Originally Posted by billco
I am told that if I could chuck a clock into a blackhole yet be able to see it I would find that as the clock got closer to the 'centre' it would almost stop.

Now pardon me for being a senile old git* but from that I draw the conclusion that if I could 'watch' the universe go back to the big bang as it's mass became super dense the clock would slow down, and to an external observer it would stop and never get to the big bang.

The universe if ONLY 15 billion old if you could travel back in it. If you could observe it at today's rate (of time passage) it is infinitely old.

Now please, NO Plancks constant, no 'you haven't taken into effect the strength of the local brew' and all the other weird and wonderful things, just think about Einstein's independant observer but in respect of time not light.
To an external observer the time slows down, but to the clock there is no change (you still cross the event horizon in finite time).

How can an observer be external to the universe?

The age of the universe is defined via the epoch constuction (i.e. when all observers see the same background radiation temp for example) and as such im not sure how your percieved time slowing down would be observable to us observers trapped in the universe (like all observers that GR is concerned with)

WELL bloody done at last! Now apply the same logic to space as well as time (ie NO external) observer and you have a universe which is NOT expanding - before you reply think about it for a while - NOT just a few seconds.

18. Except expansion is observable at the cosmic scale (redshifting of quasars and supernova for example which is because the light waves have been stretched as the metric stretched) - though expansion is very misleading as what is expanding is the metric and not the space itself.

19. since the universe is expanding at a constant speed, we can trace this back to say that all matter was in the same place at one point. This is what the big bang was, the creation of all matter in the universe at the same point. Since all matter was created at this point in 'time' the universe was created at that point in 'time'. In effect space/time did not exist before the big bang.

So billco is correct in one sense that the universe has 'always' existed, but only in the sense that it wasn't possible for anything to exist as such 'before' the big bang. This doesn't change the fact that this event occured 13-16 billion or so years ago.

20. If you wish to accept the first and only the first cock-eyed half baked ill thought explanation that's fine. I have chosen to think past this as I believe it does not fit. Just because it is supported by Stephen Hawking does not meant it is any more credible than Homer Simpson.

Think of it this way - how is it possible to see light from galaxies 12 billion light years away? If you do the maths it suggests we have been moving away from that other galaxy at some 80% of the speed of light!

Don't get it?

OK I'll put it simpler, suppose you could see back to the big bang + 1 second, it would mean you would "see it" 16 billion light years away, howver since our galaxy was part of the event we would have had to have moved away at almost the speed of light! - Still don't get it?
Draw it out on a piece of paper.

They will not tell you this because because it dumps the expanding universe theory. what they will do is come up with another shit explanation that you guys will swallow without question.

Look at the case of the 5000 year old body found in the Alps - the historians and anthropologists painted a lovely serene picture which fitted SOME of the facts but so what - nobody could argue with them could they?

Then along comes a forensic pathologist who looks at the x-rays and says " er guy's what's this arrow head doing in his back?" So all their crap was wrong.

so show me a mathematical model of a linearly expanding universe where one galaxy can see another after 15.755 Billion years apparently 12Billion light years away. If you can do it I'll accept it, but I have been unable to.

If you can't do it then let's explore the other posibilities.

21. Originally Posted by billco
If you wish to accept the first and only the first cock-eyed half baked ill thought explanation that's fine. I have chosen to think past this as I believe it does not fit. Just because it is supported by Stephen Hawking does not meant it is any more credible than Homer Simpson.

Think of it this way - how is it possible to see light from galaxies 12 billion light years away? If you do the maths it suggests we have been moving away from that other galaxy at some 80% of the speed of light!

Don't get it?

OK I'll put it simpler, suppose you could see back to the big bang + 1 second, it would mean you would "see it" 16 billion light years away, howver since our galaxy was part of the event we would have had to have moved away at almost the speed of light! - Still don't get it?
Draw it out on a piece of paper.

They will not tell you this because because it dumps the expanding universe theory. what they will do is come up with another shit explanation that you guys will swallow without question.
So what if a galaxy is moving away from us at 80% the speed of light? Its a metric effect, so i fail to see your point. The space between the us and them has been stretched (cue balloon analogy) and anyway the light from those galaxies is traveling at c, so if the galaxy is 12 billion light years away, a pulse of light would take 12 billion years to reach us no matter what the kinematics of that galaxy were.

22. As I said you are welcome to accept without question what you are told.
I try to get people to think for themselves and question it.

23. Billco, I agree that science can be dogmatic and often struggles to accept evidence that conflicts with established theories. However, it was my understanding that the big bang theory is supported by some observational evidence (microwave echoes?).

Are you open-minded enough to accept that you (presumably as a person with only an amateurs grasp of physics, like most of us) may not have a watertight grasp of this theory? Physics is a notoriously hard subject for the layperson to understand, so through necessity I put my faith in the process of peer review by qualified physicists.

The theory may be wrong, but I guarantee that they are more qualified than you in this field. My money is with the PhDs

24. Originally Posted by electricant
Billco, I agree that science can be dogmatic and often struggles to accept evidence that conflicts with established theories. However, it was my understanding that the big bang theory is supported by some observational evidence (microwave echoes?).

Are you open-minded enough to accept that you (presumably as a person with only an amateurs grasp of physics, like most of us) may not have a watertight grasp of this theory? Physics is a notoriously hard subject for the layperson to understand, so through necessity I put my faith in the process of peer review by qualified physicists.

The theory may be wrong, but I guarantee that they are more qualified than you in this field. My money is with the PhDs

Ok let me put it this way.

As I have said from my simple caculations of looking at galaxies [supposedly] 12 billion years ago, I reckon (and I may be wrong) that our galaxy must be moving at around 80% of the speed of light.

I am told that cerne and other particle accelerators have the ability to accelerate particles to "a significant proportion of the speed of light"

Now my aged brain looks at the above two 'facts' and says 'bollocks' not because I'm 70 and senile but because the few working neurones I have say "Ah - now since the earth is moving at 80% of the speed of light, you should NOT (depending on which way your particle accelerator is pointing) be able to shoot a particle at more than 20% of the speed of light - because if you did the velocity sum would equal or exceed the speed of light - which Einstein(I think) said was impossible. If however the particle accelerator was 'pointing' away from direction of travel of our galaxy we would easily be able to attain speeds close to 'c' - my contention is that this phenomina would have been noticed, it would play havoc with PA results.

Also it should be possible to ascertaoin the speed at which our own galaxy is moving by equating the energy difference (at input) to a linear accelerator vs which way it is pointing.

Something does NOT add up. I was able to spot that the hammer will hit the moon's surface first (albeit by miniscule amount of time). Because I think laterally. I do not automatically accept hairbrained theories - I do not give a toss for people with PH'd's (Yes I have worked with them) - not one of them could fix a broken doorbell. They ARE valuable they are not Gods, they have all come through the SAME training, think the SAME way and will therefore all [more or less] agree how thing's work.

If you are suggesting that only Ph d's are able to solve the mysteries and should not be questioned I disagree - For so many centuries people were told the same thing about the teachings of the church.

25. Originally Posted by billco
Now my aged brain looks at the above two 'facts' and says 'bollocks' not because I'm 70 and senile but because the few working neurones I have say "Ah - now since the earth is moving at 80% of the speed of light, you should NOT (depending on which way your particle accelerator is pointing) be able to shoot a particle at more than 20% of the speed of light - because if you did the velocity sum would equal or exceed the speed of light - which Einstein(I think) said was impossible. If however the particle accelerator was 'pointing' away from direction of travel of our galaxy we would easily be able to attain speeds close to 'c' - my contention is that this phenomina would have been noticed, it would play havoc with PA results.

Also it should be possible to ascertaoin the speed at which our own galaxy is moving by equating the energy difference (at input) to a linear accelerator vs which way it is pointing.
Firstly what velocity formula are you using? Lets say im floating around in space and you fly past me at the 0.8c and launch a photon torpedo towards me at 0.9c then i would measure that photon torpedoes velocity towards me at 0.988c so we have not exceeded c (infact its impossible to take two velocites which are less then c and add them to obtain a velocity which is greater then c). To see this look at the relativistic velocity addition formula

So v1, v2 <= 1 => v_rel <= 1 (where the velocity of light is measured in units so that it is 1)

It seems as if you have some global background which is at rest to which you want to find our relative motion - this idea was thrown out by newton and galileo. You cant work out your relative velocity by doing some local experiment (like you are trying). Your velocity only makes sense if it is stated relative to some frame of reference.

26. You were ok till you said "photon torpedo" at that point I decided I have no wish to argue with 'hollywood physics' for which there is a section. This thread however, is one of the serious ones.

27. Billco: now I understand what your problem is, you do not understand the nature of light. The speed of light is not RELATIVE it is ABSOLUTE.

Lets put it this way. You have an archer firing arrows, an observer stands still next to the archer and measures the speed of the arrow at 100 km/h. A second observer is in a car travelling 40 km/h alongside and measures the arrow at 60 km/h. These different measurements are due to the different frames of reference of the two observers.

However, if you repeat the experiment and the archer fires a single photon, both observers will measure its speed at 300,000 km/s. the speed of light is ABSOLUTE. It is the SAME regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

Even if a photon gun itself is moving at 0.8 x c, the photon it produces will move away from that gun at 1 x c. A static observor will also measure it as 1 x c (NOT 1.8 x c).

This may seem counterintuitive but it is what einsteins theory predicts

28. Originally Posted by electricant
Billco: now I understand what your problem is, you do not understand the nature of light. The speed of light is not RELATIVE it is ABSOLUTE.

Lets put it this way. You have an archer firing arrows, an observer stands still next to the archer and measures the speed of the arrow at 100 km/h. A second observer is in a car travelling 40 km/h alongside and measures the arrow at 60 km/h. These different measurements are due to the different frames of reference of the two observers.

However, if you repeat the experiment and the archer fires a single photon, both observers will measure its speed at 300,000 km/s. the speed of light is ABSOLUTE. It is the SAME regardless of the frame of reference of the observer.

Even if a photon gun itself is moving at 0.8 x c, the photon it produces will move away from that gun at 1 x c. A static observor will also measure it as 1 x c (NOT 1.8 x c).
This may seem counterintuitive but it is what einsteins theory predicts

Could I just ask how you came to the conclusion that I believe the speed of light is relative?

I said if our galaxy is moving at 80% of C then particle accelerators should not [if pointing forwards] be able to fire particles at speeds above 20% of C That should indicate to you I beleive c is absolute and a limit.

Here is a reprint
Originally Posted by billco
now since the earth is moving at 80% of the speed of light, you should NOT (depending on which way your particle accelerator is pointing) be able to shoot a particle at more than 20% of the speed of light - because if you did the velocity sum would equal or exceed the speed of light - which Einstein(I think) said was impossible.

29. Billco wrote:
"Could I just ask how you came to the conclusion that I believe the speed of light is relative?"
Exactly the same paragraph which you chose to requote:

Billco wrote:
"now since the earth is moving at 80% of the speed of light, you should NOT (depending on which way your particle accelerator is pointing) be able to shoot a particle at more than 20% of the speed of light - because if you did the velocity sum would equal or exceed the speed of light - which Einstein(I think) said was impossible."
Firsly, you say a particle on earth should not move faster than 20% the speed of light because earth itself is moving 80% the speed of light. A photon is a particle, by you're logic we should repeatedly measure the speed of light at 20% it's real value. Therefore you suggest that the speed of light IN OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE should be 0.2 x c.

but the speed of light is ABSOLUTE, the frame of reference is irrelevent. we measure it at exactly 300,000 km/s despite the fact that we happen to be moving at 80% this speed. If it was possible for an observer to be 'still' relative to this movement of the earth at 80%c they would still measure the speed of that photon at 100%c.

Both observers, despite their different frames of reference measure the speed of light as the same value. ie it is ABSOLUTE.

30. Er,

I am talking about mass. I am Not talking about photons. Other people are continually trying to tell me that I am talking about the speed of light - I AM NOT. I am talking about a PARTICLE accelerator, these DO NOT fire photons, these fire PARTICLES - Pieces of MATTER - in fact electrons.

31. I am not trying to cause an argument Billco, i understand why you think that the universe is much older than 13.7 Myears (infinite even) from the calculations that you have given.

All I am saying is that it is through a misunderstanding of einsteins theory of relativity that you have come to these conclusions.

Seriously, look up 'special relativity' on wikipedia (or if you don't trust this source, use any reputable physics textbook). Let me highlight a few statements from the wikipedia article:
POSTULATES: Second postulate - Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c) which is INDEPENDENT of the motion of the light source.
An observer attempting to measure the speed of light's propagation will get the same answer no matter how the observer or the system's components are moving.
the speed of light in a vacuum is always measured to be c, even when measured by multiple systems that are moving at different (but constant) velocities.
CONSEQUENCES: Composition of velocities - velocities (and speeds) do not simply 'add', for example if a rocket is moving at ⅔ the speed of light relative to an observer, and the rocket fires a missile at ⅔ of the speed of light relative to the rocket, the missile does not exceed the speed of light relative to the observer. (In this example, the observer would see the missile travel with a speed of 12/13 the speed of light
[/quote]

32. OK, since you still seem determined to quote the speed of light[photons] where as I have patiently stated I am referring to mass, let me put it another way.

Here we are in a galaxy travelling at the speed of light minus 1 Metre per second. This is all quite acceptable to Einstein (and I hope you).
Now the galaxy, I and everything is travelling at this speed. (so there is no observer watching us go past - and we are not watching any observer).

Now I pick up a brick and I attempt [note the word attempt] to throw it forward at 5 Metres per second...

Just tell me what happens, you are standing beside me, what will we see?

33. it will fly forawrd with a speed of 5 m/s relative to you. while relative to someone outside it would go with v=((c-1)+5)/(1+(c-1)*5/cÂ²)
relativistic velocity addition. you must know it billco

34. Billco (as zelos says): we will see the brick fly away from us at 5 meters/s

I think what you are struggling with I quoted above from wikipedia:

Composition of velocities - velocities (and speeds) do not simply 'add', for example if a rocket is moving at ⅔ the speed of light relative to an observer, and the rocket fires a missile at ⅔ of the speed of light relative to the rocket, the missile does not exceed the speed of light relative to the observer. (In this example, the observer would see the missile travel with a speed of 12/13 the speed of light
It is NOT a straight addition like this:

(c - 1m/s) + 5m/s = c + 4m/s

Is this what you are trying to communicate?

The Universe is NOT expanding!

All the atoms are just slowing down and shrinking as they lose energy so it looks like it's expanding be in fact everything is just getting smaller.
Oh and red/blue shift is also accounted for in this model.

36. Originally Posted by billco

The Universe is NOT expanding!

All the atoms are just slowing down and shrinking as they lose energy so it looks like it's expanding be in fact everything is just getting smaller.
Oh and red/blue shift is also accounted for in this model.
What difference does it make ?
If we get smaller, we will have the feeling that everything is becoming bigger ?

BTW the expansing concept is very difficult to understand. I dont think it's correct to assume that the universe was a point (a singularity) and now a giant and inflating baloon.
This concept is based by an observer outside the universe, and we know that this concept mean nothing (there is nothing outside universe by definition)
The universe is a whole and is not spheric, because there is no outside. Following this logic there is no size of the universe (it will mean that there is a limit) : it's just that inside the universe there is more space between the differents componements.
In a sense you are correct to say that things get smaller. Assuming there is no external size (because the universe has no outside) we can't know if things inflate, or if we are getting smaller.
I will say simply that the universe is not expanding, it dilute.

So here come the dilution theory : flame me now

37. Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Originally Posted by billco

The Universe is NOT expanding!

All the atoms are just slowing down and shrinking as they lose energy so it looks like it's expanding be in fact everything is just getting smaller.
Oh and red/blue shift is also accounted for in this model.
What difference does it make ?
If we get smaller, we will have the feeling that everything is becoming bigger ?

BTW the expansing concept is very difficult to understand. I dont think it's correct to assume that the universe was a point (a singularity) and now a giant and inflating baloon.
This concept is based by an observer outside the universe, and we know that this concept mean nothing (there is nothing outside universe by definition)
The universe is a whole and is not spheric, because there is no outside. Following this logic there is no size of the universe (it will mean that there is a limit) : it's just that inside the universe there is more space between the differents componements.
In a sense you are correct to say that things get smaller. Assuming there is no external size (because the universe has no outside) we can't know if things inflate, or if we are getting smaller.
I will say simply that the universe is not expanding, it dilute.

So here come the dilution theory : flame me now
And it's all cos the atoms are slowing down, as they slow their orboits get less, and shrink! time speeds up, so you get galaxy dopler shift!
One day all atoms will dissappear at exactly the same moment as they were all formed together, It's actually happening now, Why, just the other day I put down my glasses, and... no sign of them anywhere!.

I refuse to call it a singularity, there is however evidence to support the Malteaser theory.

38. bilco, this is similar to a brain-fart i've been working with for some time. Infact my inflation hypothesis was born out of this - im just rying to reconsile the two ideas.

In short - I believe we look at the universe and the solution to it in the wrong perspective. We are looking at from the perspective 'we' experience things - but I have wondered IF, infact the ultimate solution to the universe will come, when we perceive what the universe 'sees' about itself.

For instance - we perceive time and distance from our perspective - We experience time - and we experience distance. And so, we are looking for a solution that explains what we perceive - But what would a photon perceive?

If my (and i'll admit this - I am not in the scientific field at all, and Im not capable of doing the math to prove or disprove it) understanding of the established theories are correct, then a photon/ or basic unit of energy does not percieve any time or distance when travelling at c.

So how would a photon experience the size and flow of time in the universe.

For a start, as there is no time, from a photons perspective, the universe popped into existance exactly 0 seconds ago - and yet the entire age of the universe will be exactly 0 seconds long.

Then from a photons perspective, the size of the universe is exactly 0 as well.

Therefore I conclude, that for anything to perceive a time and distance then it must not be moving at c. However, when you deconstruct any matter to its most basic element - energy, the universe ceases to have time or distance - infact, I'd go as far to say, that its possible, that the universe doesn't exist. As everything can be deconstructed into pure energy, then from the absolute POV, it is still a singularity.

So perhaps the solution of the bigbang is not to explain how the universe became massive and exists, but to find out the reason why something within the universe caused energy to group into mass, and decellerate from c, to give an illusion of a universe of time and dimensions to beings, made of matter to be capable of contemplating it.

Infact, from the point of view of energy, the universe still exists as a singularity - but certain groupings of energy slowed down from c, and it is only from the POV of matter that the universe exists with time and dimension - so the existance of the universe is a relativistic effect.

And this idea might solve the mystery of Quantum Entanglement. Affecting one of the pair of entangled particles effects the other immediately - because as far as they are concerned, there is no time or space between them anyhow. For matter, we would experience something spooky, because we are composed of stuff travelling slower than c.

39. Our human perception do not really help when it come to try to imagine what is really the universe.
If we follow the Big Bang theory, the universe is a sphere where the outside limit is defined by the current time, and the inner one the time T0. When we look at the center of the sphere we just see the past. Do we know if there is something currently in the center ?

Is there a giant black hole in the center of the universe assuming that not all atoms escaped after the big bang and that they created a giant black hole ?

Can the human brain understand the concept of no outside ? At a certain point of science, science is an abstraction. You can't understand it by the analogical way (the one guided by our perception) but only in a more abstract way, like the mathematical one.

So speaking of the expansion, I don't think that we can say that the universe is bigger, but we can say without a doubt that we are more at large than 15 billions years ago

40. Well this is just...just...GAH! And I thought MY hypothesis's were wrong! Billco takes the damn cake! so much so he deserves a long winded reply.
I do commend him for the attempts, and his intelligence despite his age and neuron loss, but old people rarely if ever change their minds once they are onto something (or think they are). It's like convincing grandma theist evolution is true, not happening!

>>
If you wish to accept the first and only the first cock-eyed half baked ill thought explanation that's fine. I have chosen to think past this as I believe it does not fit. Just because it is supported by Stephen Hawking does not meant it is any more credible than Homer Simpson.
<<

You've yet to DISPROVE either of them in any way shape or form. As Oph basically said: I want mathematical proof.

>>
Think of it this way - how is it possible to see light from galaxies 12 billion light years away? If you do the maths it suggests we have been moving away from that other galaxy at some 80% of the speed of light!
<<

I think you are confused. This galaxy was only formed *RECENTLY* on an astronomical scale. So with our luck this matter was collaberatively blasted around all hell as stars exploded, galaxies collided, etc. No matter in space is a fixed constant speed. Energy, gravity, atoms, etc, will see to that. So it's very likely it was a long process, and the other galaxy went in the OPPOSITE direction.

To put it simply: Have two people walk away, both in opposite directions of the other. To each of them (each would be the observer) the other would be very far away. Yet would take less energy than having one stand still and you walk the distance by yourself.
Hmm...I think I confused myself. Ah well, better luck next time.

However, do the math now. You'd each be moving away from eachother at...*drum roll* 40% the speed of light!

>>
OK I'll put it simpler, suppose you could see back to the big bang + 1 second, it would mean you would "see it" 16 billion light years away, howver since our galaxy was part of the event we would have had to have moved away at almost the speed of light! - Still don't get it?
<<

Learn better grammar. It's something I've failed at since the dawn of time, but you should try. Also, light was NOT emitted from the big bang until..let me look this up to be sure...it was on the science channel about the big bang but I'll be damned if I can't remember that one figure. I can't find the link either.

Ah well, at first with how much energy was thrown about within the first seconds of the big bang, you have protons, electrons, etc flying about at such high speeds that, according to current theory, was damn near the speed of light. The bang pretty much acted like a super charged particle accelerator. Which, according to Einstein, would have made time slow to a crawl for an observer outside. If you are like Oph, and wish to be PRECISE about it: GENERAL RELATIVITY. You'd think the context would make it obvious in my earlier post which I was talking about, but oh well.

>>
They will not tell you this because because it dumps the expanding universe theory. what they will do is come up with another shit explanation that you guys will swallow without question.
<<

Cute, but I hate swollowing dirty data (that sounds bad...). Otherwise I wouldn't make a fool out of myself wildly speculating. Some do, most do not. Either way, your assumptions lead me to believe you are a Theist, since you assume a lot of things like they do.

>>
so show me a mathematical model of a linearly expanding universe where one galaxy can see another after 15.755 Billion years apparently 12Billion light years away. If you can do it I'll accept it, but I have been unable to.
<<

lets expand my other explanation! The updates on the visual of the galaxy would take *longer* as they blasted further appart, so we could be seeing a billion year old image (or longer). I think A lot of people forget this when they look for habitable planets too far away. Either way, the only way this would be harder to explain is if the galaxy was farther to begin with, then you have to take into account how long it's been there, etc, before you can start to say "hey...what the hell!"

PART 2:

>>
Ok let me put it this way.

As I have said from my simple caculations of looking at galaxies [supposedly] 12 billion years ago, I reckon (and I may be wrong) that our galaxy must be moving at around 80% of the speed of light.
<<

No. 40%. So there. Or shall I pull up every possible instance for galaxy movement and give myself carpal tunnel by typing the list out?

>>
I am told that cerne and other particle accelerators have the ability to accelerate particles to "a significant proportion of the speed of light"
<<

It was gold, and it was a few digets from light.

>>
Now my aged brain looks at the above two 'facts' and says 'bollocks' not because I'm 70 and senile but because the few working neurones I have say "Ah - now since the earth is moving at 80% of the speed of light, you should NOT (depending on which way your particle accelerator is pointing) be able to shoot a particle at more than 20% of the speed of light - because if you did the velocity sum would equal or exceed the speed of light - which Einstein(I think) said was impossible.
<<

I don't think he directly called it impossible, but no. Lets turn to WIKI! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_frames

To expand on the link: OUR speed of light would be different than an observers outside the effected area, unless it appeared the same under the same energy conditions. It gets even more confusing from here on out. Since the current speed of planetary movement would prevent higher numbers. Question though: Why would galaxy speed affect atom or particle speed, when particle speed is *seperate* from galaxy movement?

I think I found a flaw with what you've said. Galaxy speed would bean all matter moving in one direction for an amount of speed. A particle accelorator in that speed would take the average moving atom, redirect it from where it originally was speed wise, then speed it up.

If you take two objects and drop them under equal gravity, yet divert them in any way, does it not effect their speed? They lose speed! Unless something hits it with more force than the original speed, it will stay at the same speed. Similar to accelerating a particle, it loses its original speed since something "hit it" and then increases its speed. But does that exceed the speed of light? Hell no! Same with attempting to accelerate the entire galaxy to that speed, you wouldn't be able to hit anything hard enough to increase said speed inside the galaxy.

I think I need to work on making sense...bah! Damn my limited vocabulary!

>>
If however the particle accelerator was 'pointing' away from direction of travel of our galaxy we would easily be able to attain speeds close to 'c' - my contention is that this phenomina would have been noticed, it would play havoc with PA results.
<<

this assumes that you'd be able to even notice that speed (and you don't without watching other things move), and that the galaxy acts like a super gigantic planet (To my knowledge, it doesn't). However, if you fully *stopped* and allowed the galaxy to fly out from under you (assuming you know which way is up in space) it wouldn't affect the particle accelorator. The gravity would HELP but you may end up with just more decimal points (some call this a flaw in math) or no change at all.

>>
You were ok till you said "photon torpedo" at that point I decided I have no wish to argue with 'hollywood physics' for which there is a section. This thread however, is one of the serious ones.
<<
Don't be that mean, a photon torpedo is a viable unit of measurement. It's like making up a situation (as I keep doing!), but it's still APPLICABLE with current physics (that's the beauty of it!). Er, or so I think it's hypothetically possible. I don't know, I never read up on a Photon Torpedo (who has?).

>>
OK, since you still seem determined to quote the speed of light[photons] where as I have patiently stated I am referring to mass, let me put it another way.

Here we are in a galaxy travelling at the speed of light minus 1 Metre per second. This is all quite acceptable to Einstein (and I hope you).
Now the galaxy, I and everything is travelling at this speed. (so there is no observer watching us go past - and we are not watching any observer).

Now I pick up a brick and I attempt [note the word attempt] to throw it forward at 5 Metres per second...

Just tell me what happens, you are standing beside me, what will we see?
<<

travelling at those speeds, particles would fly appart Big Bang style.

>>
The Universe is NOT expanding!

All the atoms are just slowing down and shrinking as they lose energy so it looks like it's expanding be in fact everything is just getting smaller.
Oh and red/blue shift is also accounted for in this model.
<<

as the universe expands, energy and mass will not. The distances will just become greater. Even assuming the universe has an unfixed infinite size, the siple *mass spread* of these particles isn't viable. Unless everything in all area's of the universe are connected it the initial starting point and inevitably it's tugged back for ANOTHER "big bang" in a continual process.

>>

And it's all cos the atoms are slowing down, as they slow their orboits get less, and shrink! time speeds up, so you get galaxy dopler shift!
One day all atoms will dissappear at exactly the same moment as they were all formed together, It's actually happening now, Why, just the other day I put down my glasses, and... no sign of them anywhere!.
<<

That's one theory. I prefer a more sane one. Why would the energy become weaker if all matter in the universe was the same? It'd have to lose matter to somewhere *outside* the universe. Of course, since the theories in this sector can go a billion different ways, NEVERMIND!

to end it and answer the last poster PowerDoc: The first one would mean time, itself, is limited! *GASP* I should also note that I don't think you can really PROVE that we currently know the speed of light. What if it moves faster than instruments can detect? Or the physics is wrong? Bah! I've beeen out of the reseach circulation too long, DAMN MOVING!

41. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

to end it and answer the last poster PowerDoc: The first one would mean time, itself, is limited! *GASP* I should also note that I don't think you can really PROVE that we currently know the speed of light. What if it moves faster than instruments can detect? Or the physics is wrong? Bah! I've beeen out of the reseach circulation too long, DAMN MOVING!
What do you call the fist one ?
Could you elaborate.

42. I take many of your points, at my age though by the time I got to the end of your document I could not remember even what part of the forum I was in.

Let me simplify it, at the tender age of seventy I am confronted with a choice:

Either the universe began with a singularity or a God.

All I say is "Please find a third alternative" - It's so difficult as a committed atheist to choose between them.

If the third alternative was that the Universe condensed out of a giant cloud of malteasers(candy balls) - it would make the choice so much easier.

43. i got a big ballong. I banged it. there were a big bang

44. >>
Our human perception do not really help when it come to try to imagine what is really the universe.
If we follow the Big Bang theory, the universe is a sphere where the outside limit is defined by the current time, and the inner one the time T0. When we look at the center of the sphere we just see the past. Do we know if there is something currently in the center ?
<<

that one. Sorry for not elaborating. And haha Zelos

45. BIG BANG?

If it came from an infinitesimal thing it was hardly BIG
and since there was no one to hear it there was no BANG.

I simply propose that there MUST be a third, credible alternative and that until it is found the 'space' for it should cellad '"The Malteaser Theory'",

46. I simply propose that there MUST be a third, credible alternative and that until it is found the 'space' for it should cellad '"The Malteaser Theory'",
iuts called big since no explosion will ever be bigger than that. and it was a BANG wich can still be ehard today its just very very hard

Come with that third alternetive and give us mathematics

47. Originally Posted by Zelos
I simply propose that there MUST be a third, credible alternative and that until it is found the 'space' for it should cellad '"The Malteaser Theory'",
iuts called big since no explosion will ever be bigger than that. and it was a BANG wich can still be ehard today its just very very hard

Come with that third alternetive and give us mathematics
Look I just say If I have to choose between GOD and a BIG BANG - I Can't choose - I think there should be a third way, until it is invented it should be called the "Malteaser theory"

Why should that need maths?

48. why not? a theory need math. else remove theory and say idea
why are you against big bang acctualy?

49. Originally Posted by Zelos
why not? a theory need math. else remove theory and say idea
why are you against big bang acctualy?

OK,

The First Law of my Malteaser Theory states;

"In any situation where conflicting theories exist, 1 at least, is false."

The Second Law of my Malteaser Theory states;

"Where a False theory exists and is accepted, any other theory however outrageous is at least as valid"

And the third Law of my Malteaser Theory states:

"Anywhere that NO law or theory exists to explain a phenomina, A Malteaser theory may be considered valid until disproven"

One simply does NOT need maths to accept a theory. One uses maths to explain any laws applied to a phenomina.

Zelos I am afraid is wrong on this very rare occasion!

50. on psykological and biological and maybe chemical theories it doesnt need it. but pysic does

51. Originally Posted by Zelos
on psykological and biological and maybe chemical theories it doesnt need it. but pysic does
Sorry, you are confusing "The Laws of Physics" which use mathematics, with "Theories associated with physics" which do not need mathematics.

I suggest you are saying that you do not believe in a theory unless it is supported by maths. - that's different, it's a closed mind characteristic.

52. Originally Posted by Zelos
Why not? A theory need math. else remove theory and say idea.
Plate tectonics requires no maths.

Plate tectonics is a theory.

53. read further down ohpo. physics do need math. that kind dont

54. Originally Posted by Zelos
read further down ohpo. physics do need math. that kind dont
The Greeks had a theory that matter could not be broken down indefinitely, that there was a particle called an atom which was the smallest amount of matter. I don't recall seeing maths to accompany this.

Hawking radiation is a theory which has no observed phenomina, and no mathematics which can be demonstrated.

55. Hawking radiation is a theory which has no observed phenomina,
its a bit hard to study the most destructive force in the universe

The Greeks had a theory that matter could not be broken down indefinitely, that there was a particle called an atom which was the smallest amount of matter. I don't recall seeing maths to accompany this.
the need for math of this at that time wasent demanded

and no mathematics which can be demonstrated.
it got math predicting the rate

56. Originally Posted by Zelos
Hawking radiation is a theory which has no observed phenomina,
its a bit hard to study the most destructive force in the universe

The Greeks had a theory that matter could not be broken down indefinitely, that there was a particle called an atom which was the smallest amount of matter. I don't recall seeing maths to accompany this.
the need for math of this at that time wasent demanded

and no mathematics which can be demonstrated.
it got math predicting the rate
The big bang is also a theory - where's the math's for that?

57. there is plenty of it. thats why they have graphs of the microwave background radiation. that is predicted and all observations follow the graphs perfectly what ive seen

58. There is more than enough evidence to shoot down the big bang universe of limited age!

59. explain what you mean

60. I am not quite ready yet, I am still collecting data.

61. then dont open your mouth in the first place if you are not ready to explain what comes out of it

62. but, what would replace the big bang theory?

Theories tend to only fall, when a theory emerges that better explains the perceived phenomena. Until that day, the big bang theory best explains what we are observing, even if ultimately it is wrong, a new theory would have to explain everything the big-bang theory does, and reveal a bit more.

Isn't this what you and I are working on?

Im a bit concerned though, i've read 'relations' of your ideas in Creationist literature. You're not a closet fundie by any chance?

63. the only thing i know is that he is old enough to have meet julius ceasar. But i say if he cant come with a better theory right here right now he should just shut up.
No one have any right to disclaim any theory until they understand everypart of it perfectly and can come with a better one. but of course working on another theory is allways welcome

64. Zelos,

The First Law of my Malteaser Theory states;

"In any situation where conflicting theories exist, 1 at least, is false."

The Second Law of my Malteaser Theory states;

"Where a False theory exists and is accepted, any other theory however outrageous is at least as valid"

And the third Law of my Malteaser Theory states:

"Anywhere that NO law or theory exists to explain a phenomina, A Malteaser theory may be considered valid until disproven,modified or replaced".

In the case of the universe there are two theories; A singularity, divine intervention. They cannot both be true therefore under the second law of my malteaser theory I claim I can produce another theory.

Remember that Sir Isaac Newton believed light was made of particles, after another century had passed the wave theory replaced completely the particle theory, it was not until the early 20th century that the particle theory re-emerged and gained a foothold in all the places where the wave theory failed. You will know there are unanswered questions in the big bang theory which you may go and study at;

Originally Posted by http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html
Problems with the Uniformity
The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for the big bang theory.
First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals travelling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem.
Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure.
I shall in due course have my theory published in a place where it can be discussed objectively, in the meantime it requires further work.

To the other voice I have only this to say;
I do not wish to discuss any matters [in this forum] with a person who, in another forum[which I do not to subscribe to] has ridiculed me.

65. Originally Posted by billco
Zelos,

And the third Law of my Malteaser Theory states:

"Anywhere that NO law or theory exists to explain a phenomina, A Malteaser theory may be considered valid until disproven,modified or replaced".

.
I don't accept your third law of your malteaser theory. In order to be accepted a new theory, even no other theory exist have to be proved. I don't accept your " innocent until proved guilty" here.
If it was the case it will be the open door for hundreds of theories. Following this logic, Hawking theory is valid.
For me a theory without proofs is nothing but conjectures and wild guess.

66. Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Originally Posted by billco
Zelos,

And the third Law of my Malteaser Theory states:

"Anywhere that NO law or theory exists to explain a phenomina, A Malteaser theory may be considered valid until disproven,modified or replaced".

.
I don't accept your third law of your malteaser theory. In order to be accepted a new theory, even no other theory exist have to be proved. I don't accept your " innocent until proved guilty" here.
If it was the case it will be the open door for hundreds of theories. Following this logic, Hawking theory is valid.
For me a theory without proofs is nothing but conjectures and wild guess.
Two out of three isn't bad for a new theory, would you accept the addition of "provided it seems reasonable" ?

If not, I could change it to what I had originally intended the third law to be;

"The higher the number of theories in existence to explain a phenomina, the higher the probability the truth has been reached"

Remember a new theory does not have to be supported initially - though I accept it does help.

Think about it, Einstein was a patent clerk. If you are saying that any new theory must immediately be supported by 'concrete' evidence then no-one except the best institutes would be able to have their theories considered.

67. Originally Posted by billco
Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Originally Posted by billco
Zelos,

And the third Law of my Malteaser Theory states:

"Anywhere that NO law or theory exists to explain a phenomina, A Malteaser theory may be considered valid until disproven,modified or replaced".

.
I don't accept your third law of your malteaser theory. In order to be accepted a new theory, even no other theory exist have to be proved. I don't accept your " innocent until proved guilty" here.
If it was the case it will be the open door for hundreds of theories. Following this logic, Hawking theory is valid.
For me a theory without proofs is nothing but conjectures and wild guess.
Two out of three isn't bad for a new theory, would you accept the addition of "provided it seems reasonable" ?

If not, I could change it to what I had originally intended the third law to be;

"The higher the number of theories in existence to explain a phenomina, the higher the probability the truth has been reached"

Remember a new theory does not have to be supported initially - though I accept it does help.

Think about it, Einstein was a patent clerk. If you are saying that any new theory must immediately be supported by 'concrete' evidence then no-one except the best institutes would be able to have their theories considered.
reasonable is better. For the alternative " the higher ..." it may be true, but remember we are in the aera of internet, and the number of theory might explose, because everybody should be tempted to write his own theory.

For Einstein, his theory was not immedialty supported, but Einstein was also a fine experimentator and some of his famous experiences suceeded to back up some importants points of the relativity theory later. He became famous in 1919 when he predicted the deviation of the light during a solar eclipse.

68. Ok,

I ruled out the original third as it can be infered/implied from the second.
So we'll change the third to reasonable[which is of course subjective].

Incidentally the basic idea behind the malteaser theory is to pop up as many ideas as possible, like brainstorming, you all put up ideas, the good ones outlive the ridiculous. One of the other laws I considered was something along the lines of: "where a phenomina exists, a limitless number of theories will always have among them the correct theory"
However this (although true) is an impractical proposition and thus was discarded.

69. Originally Posted by billco
Ok,

I ruled out the original third as it can be infered/implied from the second.
So we'll change the third to reasonable[which is of course subjective].
That's ok for me.

Is there a fourth law in your malteaser theory ? :
Whom who believe in the malteaser theory will recieve a malteaser.

70. Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Originally Posted by billco
Ok,

I ruled out the original third as it can be infered/implied from the second.
So we'll change the third to reasonable[which is of course subjective].
That's ok for me.

Is there a fourth law in your malteaser theory ? :
Whom who believe in the malteaser theory will recieve a malteaser.

No, I er... ate it!

71. Originally Posted by billco
Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Originally Posted by billco
Ok,

I ruled out the original third as it can be infered/implied from the second.
So we'll change the third to reasonable[which is of course subjective].
That's ok for me.

Is there a fourth law in your malteaser theory ? :
Whom who believe in the malteaser theory will recieve a malteaser.

No, I er... ate it!
That's terrible I will never know how a malteaser cake taste ?
Such is life : disapointing :wink:

72. Tell you what, here is a new theory, just for you.

"Everytime a malteaser is eaten a new star appears in the night sky"

Now where's my tissues... choke.. choke...

73. Question: Wasn't it EINSTEIN and not Newton that suggested it was a particle?

74. Originally Posted by billco
Tell you what, here is a new theory, just for you.

"Everytime a malteaser is eaten a new star appears in the night sky"

Now where's my tissues... choke.. choke...
How many Bilco stars there is in the sky ?

I fear that there isn't any Powerdoc star in the sky

75. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Question: Wasn't it EINSTEIN and not Newton that suggested it was a particle?
Newton described light as "Pulsating Particles". Newton dismissed the theory that light consisted of waves. (the debate was on in his life-time)
around 100 years later Maxwell convinced the world light was composed of waves.

In 1921 Albert Einstein received the Nobel Prize for - Not as is popularly believed for his theory of relativity but for his services to physics in general. A significant part of this was due to his theory of the photo-electric effect. This effect clearly showed that in all places where wave theory failed, particle theory succeeded.

Hope that clears it up.

76. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Question: Wasn't it EINSTEIN and not Newton that suggested it was a particle?
Einstein winned the nobel prize for the Photoelectric article. He is the one who said that the light was both wave and particle altogether.
This article stopped the contreversy between people claimed that light was a particle, and the other people who said it was wave. This contreversy lasted more than one centurie

77. Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Question: Wasn't it EINSTEIN and not Newton that suggested it was a particle?
Einstein winned the nobel prize for the Photoelectric article. He is the one who said that the light was both wave and particle altogether.
This article stopped the contreversy between people claimed that light was a particle, and the other people who said it was wave. This contreversy lasted more than one centurie
I guess we both hit enter together!

78. Originally Posted by billco
Originally Posted by Powerdoc
Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Question: Wasn't it EINSTEIN and not Newton that suggested it was a particle?
Einstein winned the nobel prize for the Photoelectric article. He is the one who said that the light was both wave and particle altogether.
This article stopped the contreversy between people claimed that light was a particle, and the other people who said it was wave. This contreversy lasted more than one centurie
I guess we both hit enter together!
Good guess. But you beat me to it.
Time to sleep for me

79. Ah, I see. I never heard that the debate raged aon all the way back to Newtons time (possibly before). Apparently TV and internet articles decided to wipe that bit of information from existence.

I find it hilarious you both hit enter like that

80. Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
Ah, I see. I never heard that the debate raged aon all the way back to Newtons time (possibly before). Apparently TV and internet articles decided to wipe that bit of information from existence.

I find it hilarious you both hit enter like that

81. Originally Posted by billco
I have a nagging doubt about the age of the universe - it goes something like this:

If I set my clock (on Earth to say Midnight) and a second clock also to midnight but send the second clock to a black hole for say a week (earth time) and then retrieve the second clock and compare the times. The Earth clock will of course have advanced 168 hours, BUT I am told the second clock may only have moved a second or so depending upon the 'mass' of the black hole plus whatever time it took me to read it).

This is (I understand) a consequence of Einstein's theories. I am also told
this has (to an extent) been proven by putting a Caesium? clock into a plane, flying around for a while and then comparing it to an identical clock left on the ground - so on the face of it, so far so good.

At the briefest possible instant after the big bang all the mass of the universe (say contained in the area of a baseball) would have been so massive (approaching infinity) that time in that universe would have been
so slow (relative to a clock outside) that it would take forever to achieve it's current size. From this, my poor little brain can only reason that it is 15 billion years old (as we perceive time today) but in reality is really infinitely old. and has therefore existed forever.

Now I did send this question to Prof Stephen Hawking Emiritus prof of etc etc at Cambridge about 7 years ago, but have only to date received a reply from his secretary about the large amount of mail he receives and the 'specail difficulty' he has in replying. Far be it from me to upset the universe according to Einstein et al. Anybody care to comment?

Addenda, I now know why I have not received a reply there is an obvious flaw in my conclusion This thread should be removed.
Einstein told us, that time is slowing down under massive gravitation field. The big bang is one hell of massive gravitionnal field. So the more you move to the instant t0 the more gravitation increase. It's very possible that at the instant t0 if the gravitation is infinite (not because of the weight of the universe, but at the ponctual size of it) and thus the time was stopped. So in a linear scale the universe is 15 billions old, but that in a perceptive point of vue, it's almost infinite. What appear to us like an explosion was very slow for an hypothetical observer of the event.

Like you mentionned in physic, infinite is a function describing things tending toward infinite and not an absolute. If it was an absolute, there will be no universe as we know today, because time will still be stopped at T0 forever. If we are not stuck at T0 it's because one fonction tend quicker to infinite than the other.

From within the universe which is the only reference we have time would NOT appear to slow down, only an external observer would have to wait for an infinite time to see the singularity - result I shot down my own theory.

83. Originally Posted by billco

From within the universe which is the only reference we have time would NOT appear to slow down, only an external observer would have to wait for an infinite time to see the singularity - result I shot down my own theory.

84. No problem, I'd hate to think you'd go 'home' thinking I was only a half-baked idiot.... 8)

85. No...too easy...

86. The big bang was a consequense of the heisenberg relations. the mass of the proton was 0, hence it missed the electrostatic field and had only a magnetic one. If big bang was 15 billion years ago for instance, there would be only 5.20 million years left to the next big bang. Given the relation between the mass when the proton and the electron had the same mass (half time) and that of the electron today (y-values of a sinus wave function) you can see were on the wave function we are. The relation is 1 to 0.00108864 (The relation between the middle y-value and today). With my calculator I get that the distance left is the relation between
0.06237455 and 180-0.06237455 (x-values of 0.00108864 and what's left of the distance between 2 big bangs). because a half lap is 180 degrees and thereby the length between 2 big bangs. So if 180-0.06237455 is 15 billion years then 0.06237455 is 5.20 million years.

And given that repelling motions are pain and accelerating motions are joy then it will be painfull.

One of my sources is that the electron is shrinking in mass if you look at messaurements over time.

87. Is that you Dwayne?

88. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
One of my sources is that the electron is shrinking in mass if you look at messaurements over time.
Hi...

I tried looking that up in several places and can't find it. Its interesting and I want to know more about it. Could you send me a link?

Bettina

89. Hi Bettina,

I tried looking that up in several places and can't find it. Its interesting and I want to know more about it. Could you send me a link?
He may be referring to this:

http://www.physorg.com/news68967509.html

Best regards,

90. Subject: Yes I can

Look on the mass of the electron in wikipedia. Then look at the old messaurements back in 1997.

I'll link you to wikipedia, and I'll show you the mass in my formulae book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron =
9.109 3826(16) Ã— 10−31 kg

(CODATA 2002 electron mass)

"Tabeller och formler fÃ¶r NV-programmet" =
9.109 3897 Ã— 10−31 kg

(1997)

If the change is linear as the end of a sinus curve, the mass will be gone in 6.6 million years.

Close to my aproximation.

91. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Subject: Yes I can

Look on the mass of the electron in wikipedia. Then look at the old messaurements back in 1997.

I'll link you to wikipedia, and I'll show you the mass in my formulae book

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron =
9.109 3826(16) Ã— 10−31 kg

(CODATA 2002 electron mass)

"Tabeller och formler fÃ¶r NV-programmet" =
9.109 3897 Ã— 10−31 kg

(1997)
Wikipaedia should not be trusted on it's own, you MUST check off-line.
anybody can add/edit wiki entries. I suggest that 'the dissappearing electron' is utter rubbish. as seems [to me] to be the rest of your article.

You should be compelled to confine your ideas to the SCI-FI section to mislead young minds with your crap is inexcusable.

92.

93. wiki is good billco. since if its a wrong edit to qurrent knowledge the edit is undone

94.

95. Originally Posted by Zelos
wiki is good billco. since if its a wrong edit to qurrent knowledge the edit is undone
I do not dispute that Wiki can be used I say it should be verified off-line.

As to that Idiot, I can refer to books as far back as 1953. In 1967 the mass of an electron is put at 9.109x10^-31 with charge at -1.602x10^-19. THe differences you point to can be accounted for by better experimentation, measurement apparatus and a greater understanding of the atom. I demand you retract your rubbish or remove it to science fiction.

96. They only had 4 digits then. Perhaps they didn't even need more. Back in 1967. puh. Rounded definitely.

I'm LeavingQuietly.

97. Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
They only had 4 digits then. Perhaps they didn't even need more. Back in 1967. puh. Rounded definitely.

I'm LeavingQuietly.
There's no need to leave, just make it make it very clear when you are expressing an opinion rather than stating that which is generally accepted as fact.

98. Yes, Im sorry.

the mass if it change like a wave must surely be a squared sinus wave and the mass value today must be compared with the maximum mass value which is electron mass + proton mass, so actually the equation would be

electron max mass: eM
electron mass: M
x degrees = xd

find xd value for y = sin(xd)^2 = M/eM

xd is to 180 degrees - xd as:
time left to the next big bang is to current age of the universe.

xd/(180-xd)*"current age of the universe" = time left to big bang.

And in my calculator given that "current age of the universe" is 15000000000 years, I get time left is 112239501.1 years (with my formulae book)

So I admit my research wasn't the best and if you feel like it I am sure that you can count the same thing and come to the same conclusion after all it is pretty simple math. If you have one of those advanced calculators.
Do it yourself, you can make a better aproximation. I'm sure of it.

99. You seem to be saying that all the elctrons 'dissapper' every 12Million years or so. Optical teleoscopy shows otherwise.

100. No, definitely not.

every, very long time. How long depends on how old it is now and how much time there is left.

Do you have one of those calculators.... high school calculators. Thing is, there is a y= button and you print sin(x)^2 there and there should be a tableset button and a table button, in tableset choose a start value and a clever value jump and then you go to table and use the arrows.

Ahundred and twelve years from now. And the latest was 15 billion years ago or so. adjust it yourself. You know math, right?

Every 180 degrees the universe explodes. Because of the mass and the charge.

180 degrees is the total age of the universe, like 13.6 billion years or something

the time left depends on how the electron mass change over time, I say it change similar to a wave, but that the mass definitely is preserved. If there were only 2 kinds of mass the algebra would be simple, sin(x)^2 + cos(x)^2 = 1. But do you think it is that simple?

If you know how it change, you know when it ends. So if we would make regular measurements we would soon know.

 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement