|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What are Quasars made of?
What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea?
Paul Hollister at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Hollister" wrote in message ... What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea? Paul Hollister at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in the universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came about in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation unsatisfactory? Bill |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ... "Paul Hollister" wrote in message ... What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea? Paul Hollister at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in the universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came about in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation unsatisfactory? I found the following nice link about it - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...tro/bbang.html. Now exactly what part do you consider a mystery? Bill |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
............ ...For the time being, Quasars are the most distant as the most brightest objects in the universe. However, the brightest Quasar usually shines 1.5 quadrillion times what does the brightness of the Sun. ............ ...Therefore, Quasars are Quasi-Stellar Radio Sources as are the most mysterious objects. However, they are not a stars, whether they can be the cores of a Young Galaxies, definitely as a matter a fact!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.............. ... -- Ahmed Ouahi, Architect Best Regards! "Paul Hollister" kirjoitti viestissä ... What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea? Paul Hollister at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Hollister wrote: The widespread acceptance of the single Big Bang theory has profoundly affected the sequencing of events in the evolution of the universe. The apriori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen woa horsey! where did you get this? sounds like a rush to imagine to speed to proclamation to me. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Hollister" wrote in message ... "Bill Hobba" wrote in message ... "Bill Hobba" wrote in message ... Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in the universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came about in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation unsatisfactory? I found the following nice link about it - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...tro/bbang.html. Now exactly what part do you consider a mystery? The widespread acceptance of the single Big Bang theory has profoundly affected the sequencing of events in the evolution of the universe. The a priori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen has also had a profound affect on scientific perceptions about galaxy evolution, such as the relative ages of elliptical and spiral galaxies. Although hydrogen in plasma, ionic, atomic and molecular form is clearly visible throughout all space-time regions of the universe, scientists have stopped asking, and stopped thinking, about where hydrogen comes from. Protons and electrons will naturally produce hydrogen due to the opposing electrical charges, that part is trivial. Other species are also produced in the BB: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html http://aether.lbl.gov/WWW/tour/eleme...y/early_a.html What remains a mystery is where the protons, neutrons and electrons came from. Search the term "baryogenesis" for current research. Are you sure they have "stopped asking and thinking': http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/events/ba...kschedule.html George |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Hollister" wrote in message ... "Bill Hobba" wrote in message ... "Bill Hobba" wrote in message ... "Paul Hollister" wrote in message ... What are isolated quasars made of? Do you have any idea? Paul Hollister at http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com Checked out your link. It stated: 'One of the greatest mysteries in the universe is the Origin of Hydrogen.'. Weinberg describes how it came about in his classic The First 3 Minutes. In what way is his explanation unsatisfactory? I found the following nice link about it - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...tro/bbang.html. Now exactly what part do you consider a mystery? Bill The widespread acceptance of the single Big Bang theory has profoundly affected the sequencing of events in the evolution of the universe. The a priori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen has also had a profound affect on scientific perceptions about galaxy evolution, such as the relative ages of elliptical and spiral galaxies. I have carefully gone over the linked timeline. Exactly where is the preexistence of hydrogen assumed? - indeed it is not until the second last phase than hydrogen actually forms - 7 earlier phases occurred. And if one accepts inflation even earlier phases existed. The question would seem why is there a slight excess of electrons over positrons. Modern theory points to some kind of broken symmetry - http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/.../weinberg.html 'The present gaps in our knowledge of the laws of nature stand in the way of explaining the initial conditions of the universe, at 10-12 second after the nominal beginning, in terms of the history of the universe at earlier times. Calculations in the past few years have made it seem likely that the tiny excess of quarks and electrons over antiquarks and antielectrons at this time was produced a little earlier, at a temperature of about 1016 degrees. At that moment the universe went through a phase transition, something like the freezing of water, in which the known elementary particles for the first time acquired mass. But we cannot explain why the excess produced in this way should be one part in 1010, or calculate its precise value, until we understand the details of the mass- producing mechanism' Rest snipped Bill |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I'm thinking of you as a really smart hight school kid who thinks about
this stuff intensely and (as Master Yoda put it) "Never pays attention to WHERE--HE--IS". I was actually following you for a while, mapping crude convcepts into something more likely to be real. Then I bumped into: This is a-Wakeup-bell! The whole physics of that region needs to be reworked. Even Master Feynman didn't talk like that, and he really did rework physics. Look kid, I had lots and lots of formal training in astronomy. There are no big bangs inside black holes or quasars or active galactic nuclei. But modulo the ego-outburst above , you have the right attitude for a Scientist: intense. But there's one other attitude just as important! The only thing that seperates someone who's trying to figure things out from a crackpot is that the crackpot can't say "Oops, I was wrong". God knows, I've said it to myself enough in MY life! (see the PS for an example). But you need to learn all about your field before you can "rework physics"! Go to college and use the intensity to understand what other intense people have figured out already. THEN, maybe in 2030, people will call YOU Master Hollister! Good luck, =[ d PS Put down the keyboard and books, and **** girls now, or I promise you, you'll wish you had. PPS if you're actually an angry old crank: Blow me! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I'm thinking of you as a really smart
high school kid who thinks about this stuff intensely and (as Master Yoda put it) "Never pays attention to WHERE--HE--IS". I was actually following you for a while, mapping crude convcepts into something more likely to be real. Then I bumped into: This is a-Wakeup-bell! The whole physics of that region needs to be reworked. Even Master Feynman didn't talk like that, and he really DID rework physics! Look kid, I had lots of formal training in astronomy. There are no big bangs inside black holes or quasars, and the plasms jets emitted from active galactic nuclei are not other universes, negative universes, inside-out universes, new universes, ior whatever it was you were trying to say. But modulo your minor ego-outburst , you have the right attitude for a Scientist: intense! But there's one other attitude just as important! The only thing that seperates someone who's trying to figure things out from a crackpot is that the crackpot can't say "Oops, I was wrong". God knows, I've said it to myself enough in MY life! (see the PS for an example). But you need to learn all about your field before you can "rework physics"! Go to college and use the intensity to understand what other intense people have figured out already. Good luck, =[ d PS Put down the keyboard and books, and **** girls now, or I promise you, you'll wish you had. You want to be Master Hollister, not Master Bates. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, I'm thinking of you as a really smart
high school kid who thinks about this stuff intensely but (as Master Yoda put it) "never pays attention to WHERE--HE--IS". I was actually following your rap for a while, mapping interesting concepts into something more likely to be real. Then I bumped into: This is a-Wakeup-bell! The whole physics of that region needs to be reworked. Even Master Feynman didn't talk like that, and he really DID rework physics! Look kid, I took LOTS of astronomy classes. There are no big bangs inside black holes or quasars, and the plasms jets emitted from active galactic nuclei are not other universes, negative universes, inside-out universes, new universes, or whatever it was you were trying to say. But modulo your minor ego-outburst , you have the right attitude for a Scientist: intense! But there's one other attitude just as important! The only thing that seperates someone who's trying to figure things out from a crackpot is that the crackpot can't say "Oops, I was wrong". God knows, I've said it to myself enough in MY life! (see the PS for an example). But you need to learn all about your field before you can "rework physics"! Go to college and use the intensity to understand what other intense people have figured out already. Good luck, =[ d PS Put down the keyboard and books, and **** girls now, or I promise you,you'll wish you had. You want to be Master Hollister, not Master Bates. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ted Taylor autobiography, CHANGES OF HEART | Eric Erpelding | Policy | 3 | November 14th 04 11:32 PM |
Could a bullet be made any something that could go from orbit to Earth's surface? | Scott T. Jensen | Space Science Misc | 20 | July 31st 04 02:19 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
How Old Are Our Atoms – How Many Stars Made Them? | eric | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | December 14th 03 01:44 AM |
News: Astronaut; Russian space agency made many mistakes - Pravda | Rusty B | Policy | 1 | August 1st 03 02:12 AM |