Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 129

Thread: what led up to the "Big Bang"?

  1. #1 what led up to the "Big Bang"? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    I ask this question because Creationists tend to believe that "the Big Bang" theory supports the Biblical "Creation" account. To them, it seems like the creation of matter and energy out of nothing.

    I assume the theory actually involves a preceeding concentrating of energy and matter before in order to get it all condensed into the tiny shape and size. Is this correct?

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com


    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    think theology accepts BBT, because it infers and justifies the idea of a creation. surprisingly many theologists, hold fast to some creation 6-8k years ago. the idea something is or has been eternal, is contrary to the anticipation of eternal life. the problem with most BBT does not claim the universe is eternal, will end and question where this eternal life will be lived...

    as to the theory itself; most don't claim what this singularity was or how it was generated to create the universe. with black holes now in the news, some even try to relate this to BHT or that that the two are similar entities. what ever this singularity is thought to be it must have just been there forever. not really mass or energy, much less both. if they claimed this unit in existence forever, held its energy for this period and reached some limit to cause an expansion, i might revisit the issue. however the theory suggest, space itself was contained with in the unit.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: what led up to the "Big Bang"? 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    I ask this question because Creationists tend to believe that "the Big Bang" theory supports the Biblical "Creation" account. To them, it seems like the creation of matter and energy out of nothing.

    I assume the theory actually involves a preceeding concentrating of energy and matter before in order to get it all condensed into the tiny shape and size. Is this correct?

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Actully, if you shove a large amount of energy into a tiny space, particles will be created. That is an inescapable fact and that is why I believe that we are living inside a black-hole, and that it is black-holes all the way up and all the way down.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    we got laws that permit small creation of energy from nothing, so it is possible everything came from nothing
    but it can just aswell be 2 universes bouncing into each other. or something else, its a very open subject
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    we got laws that permit small creation of energy from nothing, so it is possible everything came from nothing
    Yes, but then the universe annihalates the creation to conserve the laws of the conservation of energy and matter. It is ofcourse, entirely possible that at some point during the universes "history" a "glitch" occured and annihalation did not happen.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    or maybe not, the increase of energy by the present of matter and the loss of energy thou to gravity and other forces potensial take each other out so the netto energy is 0
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    we got laws that permit small creation of energy from nothing, so it is possible everything came from nothing
    but it can just aswell be 2 universes bouncing into each other. or something else, its a very open subject
    if the energy of our universe is a small amount of energy created from nothing then the answer is even more open ended than the problem of what caused the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    we got laws that permit small creation of energy from nothing, so it is possible everything came from nothing
    but it can just aswell be 2 universes bouncing into each other. or something else, its a very open subject
    if the energy of our universe is a small amount of energy created from nothing then the answer is even more open ended than the problem of what caused the big bang.
    Wallaby, I would stop thinking that something can be created out of nothing. No scientist knows for sure what "nothing" really is and QM doesn't even allow it. When we look at the very small and pry it open we find something else and when we do we quickly proceed to build a larger tool to pry that something open. Eventually our tools will be too costly or impossible to build to pry that new found something open.

    So, is there a nothing? Was there ever?

    Bee
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Wallaby, I would stop thinking that something can be created out of nothing. No scientist knows for sure what "nothing" really is and QM doesn't even allow it. When we look at the very small and pry it open we find something else and when we do we quickly proceed to build a larger tool to pry that something open. Eventually our tools will be too costly or impossible to build to pry that new found something open.

    So, is there a nothing? Was there ever?

    Bee
    i couldn't imagine something as simple as money appearing in my disparingly empty pockets, let alone an entire universe being derrived from nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Wallaby, I would stop thinking that something can be created out of nothing. No scientist knows for sure what "nothing" really is and QM doesn't even allow it. When we look at the very small and pry it open we find something else and when we do we quickly proceed to build a larger tool to pry that something open. Eventually our tools will be too costly or impossible to build to pry that new found something open.

    So, is there a nothing? Was there ever?

    Bee
    i couldn't imagine something as simple as money appearing in my disparingly empty pockets, let alone an entire universe being derrived from nothing.
    nothing, is not perceived from any universe theory. steady state, simply says what is always was and big bang claims something was there to become BBT.

    in order for something from nothing, with todays technology would infer from energy which is perceived massless. however even here energy is a something and took something to create it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: what led up to the "Big Bang"? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    I ask this question because Creationists tend to believe that "the Big Bang" theory supports the Biblical "Creation" account. To them, it seems like the creation of matter and energy out of nothing.

    I assume the theory actually involves a preceeding concentrating of energy and matter before in order to get it all condensed into the tiny shape and size. Is this correct?

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    The BBU is a fraud. It has NO real science for its support.

    It is based on the observations of Slipher, Hubble and Humason back in the late 20's.
    These observations are interpreted as DOPPLERIAN that deals with the relative motion of an emitting objects effect on sound waves that can also apply to the light waves or photons.

    If interpreted as Dopplerian, the inplications are that the surrounding observed RED SHIFTED galaxies are receding from us. This than portrays us as being in the center of the Universe.
    Naturally, this is a virtual IMPOSSIBILITY.
    So this REAL science had to be scrapped and replaced.

    The result? Doppler was refuted and replaced by an idea of a catholic priest with a PhD that our universe was expanding. He, no doubt, was aware of the observations of the trio and promoted the idea of an expanding universe.

    So the geocentric implications HAD to be replaced and the idea of an expanding space was accepted.
    This creates a new problem. Since the BB is NOT an explosion,
    what is driving the expansion?
    So far, I have not gotten any answers.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Mike, first I apologize to you for the mini-rant.

    But you need to keep your anti-science and anti-BB opinions restricted to threads where that is on-topic.

    Big Bang is mainstream science whether you like it or not and in a lot of discussions about the universe the BB theory is going to come up because it's a fundamental ingredient to these topics.

    We REALLY don't need you intruding on every such thread complaining about why you feel the Big Bang is not accurate.

    Start another thread if you want to discuss the validity of the Big Bang because it is completely off-topic otherwise and I for one and tired of seeing you interrupt every thread with your off-topic complaining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    neutrino please dont encourage him to start more threads.

    but his right mike you should stop it. its based on observations ever since┬┤hubble and more keep coming to support it.

    You are so subjective and unscientific as you can possibly get
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    neutrino please dont encourage him to start more threads.
    I'd much rather the topic be discussed in a thread devoted to it rather than see him argue with you or someone else in just about every other thread where the BB or some other theory comes up that Mike doesn't like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    what would be best for humanity is if he stopped all toghater
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    guess i am treading on thin ice, but i wonder whats wrong with NS reply as pertaining to before BB. quite a few, including myself, question BB and i will continue to, but many others give the idea no credence.

    in my answer to the thread, i explained that a singularity of some unknown content existed at some unknown place surrounded with a total nothing. since whats said by many BBT, i see no difference in an opinion that all this is rubbish and all thats our universe may have simply always been or what we see now. after all its was the accepted scientific theory by most science since science was. BBT is new and has taken root not very many years ago, with continued opposition by MANY and very well may die a logical death...

    mega; yes i know you think the universe does not act in logic. i will disagree, however most accepted laws in science are logical conclusions to whats explained. mathematical equivalents are in fact logical evaluations of an idea or explanation in most cases...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    46
    I suspect a pre-existent dynamics vastly different from our own reality reached a critical point, changed qualitatively, and gave rise to our Universe.

    A good way of visualizing the dynamic properties of a system with a critical point is the cubic differential equation. It exhibits the cusp catastrophe: nudge the system a little and it does a little. Nudge it right to the critical point and it abruptly and qualitatively changes state.
    What led up to the Big Bang? My view is that the pre-existence was somehow "nudged" to a critical point.

    I predict we'll one day be able to model this nicely via "analytic continuation": analytically continue our universe into a larger dynamic system which when pushed pass a critical point, gives rise to a dynamic system having some/many/all of the properties of the standard model of Cosmology. I know, that's a big deal and unbelievable for us today to see how that might be accomplished but that's what they said about . . .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    your giving the singularity a substance, a mass, or at least something to be nudged. remember its said there is nothing around this unit, so the nudge would be from with in. any known change in character of anything requires a change in something. we can easily see change from heat, but heat requires mass to generate heat. additionally if this were in a true nothing the entire area, should be very to extremely cold. as we understand it as absolute zero. no doubt things can exist in absolute zero but no motion or activity should be possible. no nudge or any form of activity.

    to justify an idea some answer need to be applied. what is said are the results are "conclusive" to the idea. the idea itself then must be valid. this is not logic or science and the cause for the controversy.

    sounds silly i guess but if BBT, said space was and one little piece of mass was floating around for ever and just happened to bump into this must have been large object and the end result was a very BB, then i could at least see a reasonable possibility.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Neutrino and zelos

    The BB is cosmology so it belongs in this Cosmology discussion.

    To prove that both of you are wrong, answer the question that I asked.
    What is driving the expansion of space if it was not an explosion?

    Both of you are supporters of the BB so you should know what the BB is all about.

    And do not tell me it is those 'self annihilating virtual particle pairs' that appear and disappear in an instant of time.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    To prove that both of you are wrong, answer the question that I asked.
    What is driving the expansion of space if it was not an explosion?
    1: we are not experts
    2: dark energy

    And do not tell me it is those 'self annihilating virtual particle pairs' that appear and disappear in an instant of time.
    no thats vaccum energy
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    What is driving the expansion of space if it was not an explosion?
    PREASSURE; preassure can lead to an explosion, but it dosn't have too. A slow release of the preassure is causing the universe to expand
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    The answer is momentum, with a little sprinkling of Quantum physics that needs a couple more answers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    How many times do I have to tell people? We are living in a black hole. And its universe's all the way up and all the way down. And yes, conventional black holes create universes too when they collapse !!!
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    How many times do I have to tell people? We are living in a black hole. And its universe's all the way up and all the way down. And yes, conventional black holes create universes too when they collapse !!!
    Look just because you live in Croydon doesn't mean we all do!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Bitch.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    How many times do I have to tell people? We are living in a black hole. And its universe's all the way up and all the way down. And yes, conventional black holes create universes too when they collapse !!!
    you can tell us a billion times, with no proof its not adopted but merly a idea as many is of the big bangs origin, some are more accepted since they got mathematics that support it. thats right mike MATHEMATIC
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    1: we are not experts
    2: dark energy
    #1 - I agree
    #2 - The dark enegy is based on the SN1a's that cause the supposed explosions.
    It is supposed to be caused by 'white dwarf' self detructing but I disagree.
    The WD have mass levels that vary and especially their temperatures that vary fron 3000K to 100,000+K.
    And this is supposed to be reliable distance candles? Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    PREASSURE; preassure can lead to an explosion, but it dosn't have too. A slow release of the preassure is causing the universe to expand
    Where did you get that solution? Ha ha.
    Did the biblical yahweh have a tank of gas that be opened the valve to release the gas slowly? Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    i thought you were the religous fanatic, the bing bang theory states that what we consider to be the universe is began as a singularity (that's something which is under a lot of preassure Mike) this preassure was then released and the universe started to expand, you happy now?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    i thought you were the religous fanatic, the bing bang theory states that what we consider to be the universe is began as a singularity (that's something which is under a lot of preassure Mike) this preassure was then released and the universe started to expand, you happy now?
    Why do you assume a singularity is under pressure?
    A black hole is supposed to be a singularity, floating in space, where is the 'pressure it's under' ? it is self supporting, all the 'pressures' balance and the black hole is stable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    if you get a ball of rubber and compress it in all directions it applies a force back, this preassure will cause the rubber ball to expand back out when the force is released
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Guest
    ok so you are applying an external pressure to a rubber ball, where is the equivalent pressure in the black hole system?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    ok so you are applying an external pressure to a rubber ball, where is the equivalent pressure in the black hole system?
    you mean the one that stops it from expanding? that would be gravity i think
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    The WD have mass levels that vary and especially their temperatures that vary fron 3000K to 100,000+K.
    And this is supposed to be reliable distance candles? Ha ha.
    HAHAHAHAHA YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING
    a white dwarf can never reach such high temperatures it requires huge fusion processes wich they are unable to sustain

    but i guess youre refereing to supernova A1 as their classification if i remember correct. They are trust worth, same size of explosion every time and is therefor reliable

    mike youve once again showed your lack of understanding in physics

    let me laugh once more HAHAHAHAHAHA
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    ok so you are applying an external pressure to a rubber ball, where is the equivalent pressure in the black hole system?
    you mean the one that stops it from expanding? that would be gravity i think
    No, the force that you think squeezed it into a singularity. - there wasn't one, because gravity does NOT squeeze, it pulls!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    what if the energy which was converted into mass, did so at one particular point, then the epansion would occur much like diffusion?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    what if the energy which was converted into mass, did so at one particular point, then the epansion would occur much like diffusion?
    That, I think is the current idea !?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    HAHAHAHAHA YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING
    a white dwarf can never reach such high temperatures it requires huge fusion processes wich they are unable to sustain

    but i guess youre refereing to supernova A1 as their classification if i remember correct. They are trust worth, same size of explosion every time and is therefor reliable

    mike youve once again showed your lack of understanding in physics

    let me laugh once more HAHAHAHAHAHA
    I recalled those temperatures from memory.
    I looked at 3 books, one an encyclopedia and 2 dictionaries and none mentions the temperature range of the WDs.

    One book did say that Sirius's WD has a temperature fron 2 t0 3 times the Suns temperatur. That means from 12,000K to 18,000K.

    So this temperature range would require more research. Probably on the web.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Guest
    The core temperature of the sun is reckoned to be 10-20MK this is where the fusion takes place, a white dwarf is likely to be at least similar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    it has a mass of about 0,5 M<sub>s</sub> wich is not enough to sustain such nuclear reactions required for such high surface temperature
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    See site below. It proves that WD exceed temperatures of over 100,000K.

    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...791000346Guest

    I tried to access this site from this web and it was not allowed. I did access the site from ANOTHER website and had NO difficulty. See if you can acess it from here.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Zelos

    Heres another site for 'High Temperature WD's

    See the paragraph opposite the Rosat image near bottom of article.

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...l1/dwarfs.html

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    White dwarfs can tell us about the age of the universe. If we can estimate the time it takes for a white dwarf to cool into a black dwarf, that would give us a lower limit on the age of the universe and our galaxy.
    notice COOL. it means it doesnt make any energy production ON ITS OWN
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Guest
    But it's initial temperature is super hot, since it has formed from a larger star that contracted, it's more heat in less volume = higher temperature, google 'thermodynamcs' you might find it a whole new chapter you haven't read before!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    But it's initial temperature is super hot, since it has formed from a larger star that contracted, it's more heat in less volume = higher temperature, google 'thermodynamcs' you might find it a whole new chapter you haven't read before!
    yes i know that but they do lose heat and such high temperatures would come from a newly formed white dwarf
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    White dwarfs can tell us about the age of the universe. If we can estimate the time it takes for a white dwarf to cool into a black dwarf, that would give us a lower limit on the age of the universe and our galaxy.
    notice COOL. it means it doesnt make any energy production ON ITS OWN
    You are changing the subject now.
    I said there are WD that reach 100,000K temeratures. You said No. So you are WRONG.

    As far as cooling out, so do all the stars cool out as they age. But this takes periods in excess of the age of the BB.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Guest
    Hmm... Our sun is actually getting hotter as it ages...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Hmm... Our sun is actually getting hotter as it ages...
    correct

    You are changing the subject now.
    once again incorrect mike. its easier to count when your right and thats less than a handfull right now
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    its my understanding, solar masses do cool toward the end of life. they increase in size, there crust thicken and expand becoming giant stars prior to explosion or collapse and forming white dwarfs (in our case) which in time burn down to nothing or are vaporized. the total process taking many billions of years. Sol, is expected to begin this process in 1-2 billion years, if we are lucky...any heating up or increase is when forming, when settled down the generation remains constant to slightly less heat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    its my understanding, solar masses do cool toward the end of life. they increase in size, there crust thicken and expand becoming giant stars prior to explosion or collapse and forming white dwarfs (in our case) which in time burn down to nothing or are vaporized. the total process taking many billions of years. Sol, is expected to begin this process in 1-2 billion years, if we are lucky...any heating up or increase is when forming, when settled down the generation remains constant to slightly less heat.
    At the moment our sun is in it's prime of life, as the hydrogen starts to run out, gravity can no longer contain the core, it starts to expand, since it's the same amount of heat but now in a larger volume, the temperature falls (in line with the laws of thermodynamics). The sun's temperature is curently rising by a rate which will warm the earth by an extra 1c every 100Million years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Guest
    The question is 'What led up to the big bang' such a question assumes something existed before [even if only time] - a dangerous assumption in these times, unless you have a 'priest hole'!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    264
    I don't have a "priest hole" whatsoever, but I do have curiosity so why is that such a dangerous thing? There are many cosmologists, like the two below, that believe something may have led up to the big bang and aren't afraid to pursue that direction of thought.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Turok
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Steinhardt

    I've never been satistifed with scientists who place a limit on how far forward or backward ones ideas are allowed to go. Whenever I read books that claim "there was nothing before the big bang" or... "Our universe isn't expanding into anything"... I shake my head. What cosmologist would ever say that as fact.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Guest
    I am not suggesting there was 'no time' I am suggesting that since most scientists put a stake in the ground as "The big bang was the start of our four dimensional universe" one should tread carefully. Like everbody I am in a 4-d world. I am quite happy to accept that time started at the big bang, just as I am happy to accept that electrons are an entity and 'tied' to atoms, I'll never see electrons with my own eyes' so it's a matter of faith, electrons orbiting an atom indefinitly without fridction is contrary to all my physical experiences yet it all seems logical and fits. The big bang is the same, people far more clever than I agree that t=0=BB. If you cannot imagine that time started with the big bang, how can you imagine that solids are so 'empty' at an atomic level? or grivity extending to infinity without seeing the cord that ties everything to everything else?

    The whole shebang is weird, electricity, magnetism, atomic forces and particles, not just the big bang, that's what makes it fascinating [at least for me].
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    but if there was no time before the BB, then there would be no time for it to emerge from. no time for it to happen and no time for any form of change that would have caused it. hmmm.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Guest
    So you can comprehend all my other examples but not that one eh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Yes.

    Unless we are living inside a black-hole as I have said before. Which would to me, at least explain a lot of things mechanically.

    At some point, one has to surrender to the idea of infinity. I just dont think though that the universe we live in is it.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Guest
    Well if you comprehend the others you ought to be able to comprehend that one then, Time started with this universe at the big bang - simple eh?

    Oh and for my own part, if you could 'reverse' time and travel back you would never get to the big bang, even if you travelled indefinitly ! you would just get closer and closer but never quite there!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Well if you comprehend the others you ought to be able to comprehend that one then, Time started with this universe at the big bang - simple eh?
    Yes. If we live in a black-hole.

    If we dont then, no. As there would be no time for the universe to emerge from.

    Unless the big bang happened AFTER the initial expansion of space ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Guest
    No we don't live in a sodding black hole (At least I don't)
    Is Croydon that bad these days?

    There's space in this universe lots of it! a black hole is infinitely dense!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    No we don't live in a sodding black hole (At least I don't)
    Is Croydon that bad these days?!
    Yes it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    There's space in this universe lots of it! a black hole is infinitely dense!
    I shall refer you to relativity here. To an observer standing outside the black-hole it appears to be of infinate density, yes.

    Can you remember when you were a small child at christmas, gazing up at the christmas tree in awe of how big it was; then over the years when you grew into a teenager, you looked down on it in dissappointment. Thats relativity.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Guest
    LMAO!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    big bang is a theory.
    has any one seen the big bang?
    i would like to ask, what exactly is the proof of the big bang????
    God is one and only.

    God knows the best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    big bang is a theory.
    has any one seen the big bang?
    i would like to ask, what exactly is the proof of the big bang????
    basim; please note, i am not a BB fan. however the idea is currently accepted in science theory. today this is as near to the law as possible. what we were taught as theory is no longer true.

    obviously no one saw the BB and no one saw our sun when formed. we didn't see a lot of things that are considered facts.

    BB has no proof for a beginning. much of what is thought to causes from the event are said to validate the idea, such as universal expansion.

    the best alternative, is called Steady State or the SSU. this idea has been revised over the years as the same things giving credence to BB and entered to SSU.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Guest
    The trouble with steady state is that if things have existed 'forever' why hasn't all the energy already been used up?

    In truth both (and other) theories all have their shortcomings, it is just that the evidence for a 'steady state' has remained static whilst evidence for the BB seems to be mounting each year, I wouldn't mind betting the truth is something else entirely!.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    another problem with steady state is this paradox
    "if the universe has allways existed why doesnt everypoint end with a star making the nightsky as bright as the day?"

    Big bang is thought to be true for
    1: the expansion of space wich is proven beyond doubt
    2: the microwave background radiation fits the predicted one perfectly
    3: if universe allways existed where did this background radiation come from?

    i can go on but thats for now
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Guest
    No it's not a problem with steady state, just that so much dead stuff [stars planets, asteroids gas clouds, alien space ships etc] block out most of the light
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    The trouble with steady state is that if things have existed 'forever' why hasn't all the energy already been used up?

    In truth both (and other) theories all have their shortcomings, it is just that the evidence for a 'steady state' has remained static whilst evidence for the BB seems to be mounting each year, I wouldn't mind betting the truth is something else entirely!.
    energy is constantly being regenerated. we die, turn to dust and eventually become energy in another form. w/o interference this would never cease, as it never ceased before. the new stars we see being formed from old matter are new energy from the dead matter. by the way the energy of the sun is substantially more than the matter which formed this source.

    zelos;

    expansion is accepted science, i concede this. however there are as many that feel those analysis or red/blue shift are flawed. i have my view on this but gets complicated.

    radiation background could come from a number of sources. i find it interesting that space given a temperature of Zerk K, gives this radiation a 3 degree K, for all space and unavoidable. i am going to lose some of whats left of my credibility, but i feel darkness or what we call it, is in fact an entity. since this said radiation and darkness both are unavoidable and have this degree of heat and found in all places, there is a conceivable connection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    radiation background could come from a number of sources. i find it interesting that space given a temperature of Zerk K, gives this radiation a 3 degree K
    its given a temperature cause thats teh temperature the the background radiation reflects

    however there are as many that feel those analysis or red/blue shift are flawed
    yes if a few were made by a few people thats likly but we are talking about humoungus amount of data analyses and alot more. using Ia supernovas is just as releable as you can be sure that it will hurt if i punch you.

    i am going to lose some of whats left of my credibility, but i feel darkness or what we call it, is in fact an entity. since this said radiation and darkness both are unavoidable and have this degree of heat and found in all places, there is a conceivable connection.
    yepp there went any credability you could ever have and had.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    No it's not a problem with steady state, just that so much dead stuff [stars planets, asteroids gas clouds, alien space ships etc] block out most of the light
    light is energy we see as a reflection. reflection is from the source. at some point this is to dim for our eye/brain conception. stars from distant points, have lost the power (not velocity-waves or frequencies), to reflect to these limits. ie, star light effects or if any dispersement in our atmosphere is also below this level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    zelos; as i understand the issue; background radiation as to the given temperature of space is not settled. its presumed possible to the source of yet known, phenomenon. however it is still a simple energy and effects on space dust etc. minimal. i might add the source is supposed as well, or at best no other explanation availably that would support BBT and the apparent goal of all science...

    on the red/blue shifts; what is seen, from 14 BLY away is one thing. however you can adjust conditions on earth to obtain a visual of any color you desire. i have, nor do you or anyone else know what all is between our telescopes and the closer units (going nowhere) much less the distant units.

    much of what i think is controversial, much w/o source and no question borders on science fiction. my credibility is worthless to myself if i rely on supernatural or spiritual reasoning to explore an issue. many times in checking an issue, its not possible to find an opinion which is not based on one of the above. in checking out Ozone, this morning, i found 100 articles on GW and one giving some explanation on my problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    hey thanks guys
    you made me clear about it
    is the earth the middle of the universe?
    if not where is the middle of the universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    hey thanks guys
    you made me clear about it
    is the earth the middle of the universe?
    if not where is the middle of the universe?
    nope
    nowhere

    everypoint seems to be the center of the universe but none is
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    by observing the direction of the motions of galaxies cant we find the middle of our universe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Guest
    Where evre you are in the universe you can easily show that your are at it's centre, - can you get your head around that one?

    (Zelos has but it cost him his sanity...)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    suppose we are at the edge of the universe.
    what will we observe there?
    how will it look like?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    suppose we are at the edge of the universe.
    what will we observe there?
    how will it look like?
    when Hubble looks out, it gives a glimpse of things 14 or so, billion light years in each direction. in general whats seen is near the same. if on the edge, its a mighty big universe.

    many argue over where the center may be and most try to bring in curved space or some exotic principle to explain that no center is possible. in my OPINION, the universe, beyond the known (what we see), is much like we see near by. it really doesn't matter how far it extends and no matter how long life is maintained that answer will never be known. a pure guess; should be over 100 billion light years across, but could be 100 trillion or more. but there should be a center and our planet, solar system or the milky way are probably no where near this center.

    for simplicity reason if you were at the edge and looked out, you would see nothing. at that point however, if another universe existed and regardless of distance you would see some light, if this place was as our universe. this could be any number of spots of light and if countable in the trillions...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Guest
    You might want to note Basim that the above post is Jackson's personal opinion (as he says), so don't quote it to your lecturer if you want to stay on the course.

    "Has anyone seen the big bang you ask" well er no, life apparently had to wait a while.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    (Zelos has but it cost him his sanity...)
    my sanity is fine.

    suppose we are at the edge of the universe.
    what will we observe there?
    how will it look like?
    didnt you read what i said? everypoint of space will seem to be the center of the universe but none is
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Basim

    The BB is nonsense.
    The BB is a two dimensional baloon. So if you look up, you would see nothing and if you look down, you will see a rubber surface. Ha ha.

    If you look sideways, than you could see stars along the surface. Ha ha.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Basim

    The BB is nonsense.
    The BB is a two dimensional baloon. So if you look up, you would see nothing and if you look down, you will see a rubber surface. Ha ha.

    If you look sideways, than you could see stars along the surface. Ha ha.

    NS
    Dear class this is a typical exempel of how a member of homo sapiens stupido reacts when the tiny insignifican brain cant understand. Thats all today dismiss
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Basim

    The BB is nonsense.
    The BB is a two dimensional baloon. So if you look up, you would see nothing and if you look down, you will see a rubber surface. Ha ha.

    If you look sideways, than you could see stars along the surface. Ha ha.

    NS
    Dear class this is a typical exempel of how a member of homo sapiens stupido reacts when the tiny insignifican brain cant understand. Thats all today dismiss
    He must be a PE teacher...
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    (Zelos has but it cost him his sanity...)
    my sanity is fine.

    suppose we are at the edge of the universe.
    what will we observe there?
    how will it look like?
    didnt you read what i said? everypoint of space will seem to be the center of the universe but none is
    The baloon universe is all edge since you look up and see nothing and when you look down, you see the floor.

    The only time you do not see the edge is when you look SIDEWAYS.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Guest
    The balloon explanation is merely a method of explaining partially the concept, it is not meant to indicate the universe is an air filled rubber ball, anymore than the sun is resting on a huge stretched rubber sheet.

    Similarly you may have been taught at school that elecrical current can be appoximated to water in a garden hose - it cannot and does not except for one or two exceptions. FOr example, If you sever a live hose the water flows at it's maximum potential, if you cut the cable to your TV no electricity flows!.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    (Zelos has but it cost him his sanity...)
    my sanity is fine.

    suppose we are at the edge of the universe.
    what will we observe there?
    how will it look like?
    didnt you read what i said? everypoint of space will seem to be the center of the universe but none is
    The baloon universe is all edge since you look up and see nothing and when you look down, you see the floor.

    The only time you do not see the edge is when you look SIDEWAYS.

    NS
    mike i just gotta ask you, did you ever make a test and got the result "mentally retarded" back? cause it would suprice me just as much as the sun goes up any day
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    138
    ok
    i understood it. with help of some books.
    it is like you said a baloon being inflated. but i think we have to say the surface of the baloon is three dimensional. and the baloon is more than three dimensional.
    Am i right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Logically i think there are only three answers.
    1) The universe has always been here.
    2) The universe appeared from nothing.
    3) It something else thats completely outside of our comprehension.

    Number one is simply mind boggling, and doesn't answer the question. Number two doesn't make any sense as going from nothing to something is a process and a process needs time, which wasn't created until/during the big bang. So it has to be number three, I.E: i don't have a clue and don't thnik i ever will as everything that i may know is all based upon laws that exist inside the universe
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    mike i just gotta ask you, did you ever make a test and got the result "mentally retarded" back? cause it would suprice me just as much as the sun goes up any day
    Of course, I am joking here, but to equate a 3 dimensional universe with a baloon is ludicrous.

    And the idea that all real physics did not exist when the BB was created is ludicrous.

    The BB was created in 1926(?) or thereabouts.
    While most all the physics were created years before the years of the 1920's.

    So, the BB is NOT science but a religion.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    Logically i think there are only three answers.
    1) The universe has always been here.
    2) The universe appeared from nothing.
    3) It something else thats completely outside of our comprehension.

    Number one is simply mind boggling, and doesn't answer the question. Number two doesn't make any sense as going from nothing to something is a process and a process needs time, which wasn't created until/during the big bang. So it has to be number three, I.E: i don't have a clue and don't thnik i ever will as everything that i may know is all based upon laws that exist inside the universe
    "logically", your word....means makes sense.

    1- this is logical and all we see infers this probable. matter becomes something, lives a life, falls apart and starts over.

    2-if nothing, it may make sense to theologians, however all BBT suggest a something or some singularity. even the hardiest wont attempt to say how that got there, from where or how it did whatever it did.

    3-yes, very well could be and there are many opinions on this...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    mike i just gotta ask you, did you ever make a test and got the result "mentally retarded" back? cause it would suprice me just as much as the sun goes up any day
    Of course, I am joking here, but to equate a 3 dimensional universe with a baloon is ludicrous.

    And the idea that all real physics did not exist when the BB was created is ludicrous.

    The BB was created in 1926(?) or thereabouts.
    While most all the physics were created years before the years of the 1920's.

    So, the BB is NOT science but a religion.

    NS
    so is your ideas
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Guest
    I think what led up to the big bang was me moving one of Mike_NS's threads to psuedoscience, - if it survives there and becomes accepted by mainstream science then I'll move it back - in the meantime Astronomy and cosmology is the study of the universe and it's dynamics as accepted by the majority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I think what led up to the big bang was me moving one of Mike_NS's threads to psuedoscience, - if it survives there and becomes accepted by mainstream science then I'll move it back - in the meantime Astronomy and cosmology is the study of the universe and it's dynamics as accepted by the majority.
    NASA, has made "exotic" dark matter as issue for discussion. not Mike and i am surprised to find him in compliance with their opinions. others who have been on this issue for some time try to explain the idea to conform to BBT and some to the unexplained nature of universal gravity.

    many folks see the images offered by NASA, COBE and other devices and assume what they see is what is. what is the image, is never the final results submitted to the public and as they say, scientist give the color to explain what they feel are correct.

    having said this and opposed to the idea; the issue is not PS...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Thanks Jackson.

    But trying tp convince these religious fanatics that there is no BB explosion is like trying to convince the Islamic fanatics and the popes that their population explosion is not natural.

    The BB is religion.
    Only religions resort tp censorship.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Guest
    That's crap mike, if you look back most of us say things like the BB is the leading theory, or most credible, or most supported - I for one have said that I am biased towards it but remain open minded. If you want to replace it, go ahead but it must make more sense than BB you must back it with credible maths and obseravtions and it must fit with the rest of knowledge.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    That's crap mike, if you look back most of us say things like the BB is the leading theory, or most credible, or most supported - I for one have said that I am biased towards it but remain open minded. If you want to replace it, go ahead but it must make more sense than BB you must back it with credible maths and obseravtions and it must fit with the rest of knowledge.
    i cant agree anymore
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    there are two things that are said to back up BBT, that are not explained in SSU. expansion and x-ray emissions. the singularity, where it came from, when, to what it expanded into, what was it made of and about 500 other things are not explained or even dealt with.

    expansion, at super C speeds for the lack of words makes no sense. personally i see no reason why its happening and many do not agree it is.
    certainly not at plus C.

    X-ray energy is said to be everywhere and MUST be from the BB, ongoing from the current limits of the universe, where ever it is. NASA has given this additional meaning be saying these x-rays illuminate gas clouds inside a galaxy, where plenty of things could be causing this illumination. disregard that the energies with in the galaxy which are some how held at bay.

    BBT has from its concept been formed to allow a creation. no question then, during its formulation and most admit this today. SSU has no conceivable motive and even the caveman must have felt whats in the sky was always there. Gods then were from earthly objects or maybe the sun. 10k years from now we may be said to have believed in supernatural beings opposed to whatever they feel is.

    my objective is toward those who try and question BBT. they are bombarded with being called everything from stupid to atheist. these young folks, i see everyday question no more or less than Mike or myself, on this issue, but hung out to dry. the problem then is religious, ideology and political, which is not where any science belongs.

    mega; i am aware this is off topic and apologize. however i am not allowed on one forum today (which you are on) and Mike on at least one other. i won't assume reason, but will suggest opinions on an issue are contrary to goals of a person, not the issue being discussed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    mega; i am aware this is off topic and apologize. however i am not allowed on one forum today (which you are on) and Mike on at least one other. i won't assume reason, but will suggest opinions on an issue are contrary to goals of a person, not the issue being discussed.
    Huh? - PM me with details PLS
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The BB is religion.
    Only religions resort tp censorship.

    NS
    Mike,
    How have you been censored? We can still read your rants in this forum (even if they are in pseudoscience...).

    Cheers
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by william
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike NS
    The BB is religion.
    Only religions resort tp censorship.

    NS
    Mike,
    How have you been censored? We can still read your rants in this forum (even if they are in pseudoscience...).

    Cheers
    Removing my posts from a science forum to an imaginary science forum is censorship.

    I give reasons for my post based on real research, experiments and observations.

    My post comparing the expansion of light waves to the expansion of space is based on real observations (HDFN)(Virgo Cluster) rather than opinions like the EoS that is a product of observations of galaxies that a priest interpreted as an EoS and an expanding universe.
    Since Doppler was refuted regarding the implied EoS, than their is no real science to support the EoS and the BBU.
    The CMBR does not support the BB either because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is more applicable here.

    My 'dark matter' solution is based on a NASA observation of a giant solar
    flare that showed the 'stripping' of outer electrons from 3 elements that proves that these electrons are attracted back to the nuclei that they were stripped from to enhance the gravitational effect.

    Einsteins mass/energy formula is based on what kind of mass conversions to form energy.
    I do not know anything about what research or observations his formula is based on.
    Also, the most important factor is that forces are not included in this formula when we should all know that forces create the energies.
    Keplers, Newtons and Plancks work was all a product of observations and experiments in Plancks work.

    These are the reasons why I post what I post.

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    do not know anything about what research or observations his formula is based on
    you dont even know that? geez. Its based on the theory of his that has been proven over and over again to be true

    Also, the most important factor is that forces are not included in this formula when we should all know that forces create the energies.
    Keplers, Newtons and Plancks work was all a product of observations and experiments in Plancks work.
    force dont need to be included. no one said it and no one will. i dont see you use force when you calculate energy. einsteins work was theory but proven by observations. yours are just stupid mad man ideas
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Detroit Metropolitan area
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    do not know anything about what research or observations his formula is based on
    you dont even know that? geez. Its based on the theory of his that has been proven over and over again to be true

    Also, the most important factor is that forces are not included in this formula when we should all know that forces create the energies.
    Keplers, Newtons and Plancks work was all a product of observations and experiments in Plancks work.
    force dont need to be included. no one said it and no one will. i dont see you use force when you calculate energy. einsteins work was theory but proven by observations. yours are just stupid mad man ideas
    You are ignorance gone crazy.

    Regarding Einsteins 'curvature of space' and GR, what research did he do BEFORE his work?

    NS
    Real science is objective, not subjective
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
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
  •