|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Feb 22, 7:48*am, Painius wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:06:14 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2" wrote: On Feb 20, 2:49*pm, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, HVAC wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. *So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. *Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. *So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. *The Big Bang was an impossibility. *Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. 96% of the universe is missing. Universes at humankinds time (Now) are impossible . Might as well go with the hocus pocus of Gods. *LET THERE BE LIGHT * *TreBert That's close enough, Bert. *The figures are 4.5% known matter, and 95.5% space. *The present model figures that the 95.5% is made up of "dark matter" and "dark energy". *It is much more likely that there is no need to postulate dark energy, and dark matter is just space itself. *There is a lot of matter in space, matter that comes from stars and other celestial bodies. *Matter that is pretty much all free particles, so since these free particles are rather small, "dark matter" cannot be observed. *In addition, there are the so-called "virtual particles" that pop in and pop out of existence. *The quantum foamy-like structure of space makes up for the amount of matter that stellar winds and such cannot account for. *Spacetime = dark matter. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." Exactly, because space is chock full of rogue electrons, protons, neutrons and perhaps 1e100 photons per atom. The universe is supposedly worth 1e84 atoms, so that makes 1e184 photons thus far. http://groups.google.com/groups/search http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:23:54 -0800, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" wrote: On 2012-Feb-21 09:23, Raymond Yohros wrote: On Feb 21, 8:13 am, wrote: On 2/20/2012 10:57 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: this 20 century idea violates conservation laws. our observational perspective dont let us see anything before the bb but that doesn't mean It came from nothing just as it makes no sense to say a BH is nothing because you can't see it. the 'before' was the cause of the bb aftermath just as we can understand what a BH is by observing it's effects on space-time. No offense, Ray, but you appear to be a retard. maybe I am for thinking that someone like you who is trapped in a boring, ordinary and noisy world of violence could understand higher matters Where does violence fit into any of that? Or are you somehow implying that The Big Bang is a violent theory? Ah, Fidem, 'tis a violent world, a violent Universe, all supposedly set forth by the violent expansion of a singularity. And what a theory (actually still just a hypothesis) that violent Big Bang really is, eh? After more than 80 years since its proposal, one would think that science would be able to tell us how the singularity got there and what caused it to begin to expand. But alas, only the Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang fully knows the answer to those questions. For at the precise moment that the singularity began to expand, the Catholic priest will tell you that that moment coincides with the precise moment that God said, "Let there be light!" But ever since that moment, if there really *was* such a moment, there has not been much light. There has been only darkness and violence and the sheepish following of unreasonable and illogical paradigms. The bright side is that if we continue to think, to question and to try to reason things out, there may actually come a time when we can correctly handle the darkness and the violence. That is why there is a place for all of us. Each one of us can use our own personal talents to reason it out. Some of us are dreamers, and some of us are true scientists. It is the combination of imagination and scientific method that may end the violence... ....end the darkness. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:24:52 -0800, DanielSan
wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:10 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:10:02 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. I no see how, Daniel San. As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE!g Again, this is all conjecture, but could the 'velocity' be sufficient to 'escape' the gravitational field? Perhaps, unlike some 'round here, you'll be able to grasp the validity of this analogy: Many years ago, when scientists were contemplating the origin of the asteroid belt, one hypothesis was that a fully formed planet had traversed that Solar orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Then for some reason, that planet broke up, exploded, and wound up as a bunch of loose rocks - the asteroids. Now, try as they might, not those scientists, nor none since, have been able to come up with a viable or reasonable way or mechanism for a fully formed planet to break up like that, to explode like that. No way. So the conclusion was that the asteroids had never had the chance to form into a planet due mainly to the influence of planet Jupiter. Jupiter's gravitational field just wouldn't allow a bunch of rocks that near to it to accrete into a larger body. Now, picture in your mind a black hole. At its center is believed to be a singularity. The density of a singularity is said to be infinite and the volume is said to be zero. And it was just such a singularity that, about 13.7 billion years ago, is believed to have somehow popped into existence and began to expand into the Universe we see today. That was the moment of the so-called "Big Bang". Now, just like the mechanism that would result in an exploding planet, scientists are unable to come up with any mechanism that would result in the singularity of a black hole to begin to expand. There is no known way for this to happen. And yet scientists readily accept that it happened "back in the beginning". In the beginning, a singularity began to expand into the Universe we see today. The origin of that singularity is still unknown, and the reason it began to expand is still unknown, and yet there it was, and off it went. As that singularity began to expand, it would have instantly generated a gravitational field the likes of which are hardly imaginable, certainly nothing like we see today, even among the quasars. That field would have been like billions and trillions of Solar masses strong. That singularity, from a reasonable standpoint, would have collapsed "under its own weight" almost as quickly as it had begun to expand. So "reasonably", the Big Bang was and is an impossibility. Just as there is no known way for a planet to explode under the weight of its own gravitational field, just as there is no known way for the singularity of a black hole to expand under the weight of its own gravitational field, there can be no known way for the Big Bang to have happened. It did not happen. It was a contrived hypothesis set forth by a God-fearing Catholic priest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ...who in his mind turned back the hands of time. He took a Universe that appeared to be expanding, stopped time, and then watched as in his mind the Universe began to contract as he went backward in time. For some reason, scientists even today accept that it was okay to do this. It was okay for the Universe to just keep on contracting as we went farther back in time. There was never really any reason to believe that, if the Universe actually were expanding, it had *always* been in that state of expansion. And yet, there it was, laid down by a religious man. The Universe kept contracting and contracting until it was this tiny point. All the matter, all the energy, all the space and time neatly rolled up in what he called a "primeval atom". The God-fearing priest was very careful when he proposed his idea to science not to mention the "Let there be light" part. He gave no explanation at all as to how the primeval atom got there nor what caused it to begin to expand. To this day, over eighty years later, and the contemplations of countless scientists and others with heads on their shoulders, there is still no reasonable explanation for these two crucial points. No not one. A hundred years from now, or hopefully much sooner, these times will be looked back upon and called "The Age of Absurd Astronomy", or "A Case for Colossally Comedic Cosmology". It is, I sincerely believe, the Baddest and Blindest of Big Bang Bummer Beliefs we, as human beings, must share until scientists come 'round to their senses. They are blinded by this cosmology paradigm so much so, that every single piece of evidence that could support any number of different hypotheses is "worked in" to support the present paradigm. Even the mighty concept of the redshifts of faraway galaxies and their "obvious" meaning that the Universe is expanding can be crushed under the clarity of reason. But when *you* are *crushed* under the magnificent weight of the existing paradigm, then you become blind to facts, and thereby, blind to reality. This post has become long, too long for even me. Einstein told us many great things. Among the greatest was his light warning to always question, to never stop with the questions. Question all of it, question everything. And never stop. When the questioning stops, the thinking stops also. There is no reason to think further on the Big Bang, there is no reason to question it. Scientists have made their choice about it, they have made their decision about it, and when a decision is made, thinking stops. Only our youth continue to think, continue to question. Only they follow the good advice of Einstein. Well, they and a very few of us old farts.g I think the biggest problem here is that there is evidence for the Big Bang and the Big Bang fits all the available evidence. You bring up black holes which is a decent analogy, but not a great one. A black hole would not contain all the energy/matter of the universe. Nor would two black holes. Or a dozen. Or a thousand. Or a million. The singularity proposed in the Big Bang was apparently different from a mere black hole. Yes, and there are smaller black holes and larger black holes. The larger ones, like those at the centers of galaxies, have larger masses, and yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and zero volume. The black hole is the best analogy because of this. When the very first singularity came to be (how? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious people)), it would have been the mother of all singularities in terms of the massiveness within. And yet it still would have had infinite density and zero volume. And similar to a black hole, it would have generated the mother of all gravitational fields. It is then believed that the initial singularity began to expand (what made it begin to expand? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious people)). However, surrounded by the mother of all gravitational fields, what mechanism could possibly make the singularity begin to expand? This is a reasonable impossibility. It is highly illogical that such an event could have ever taken place. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/22/2012 10:40 AM, Painius wrote:
It means that if gravity propagated at c, then the orbits of all the planets in the Solar system would decay, very quickly in fact. This was worked out long ago. LOL It's the old, "What would happen if the Sun just disappeared?" idea. And if monkeys flew out of your ass? What speed would THEY fly at? These "what if" scenario are pointless. If the Sun's gravity were to completely and instantly disappear, Newton has it that everything in the Solar system would immediately head out on a tangential straight line from their Solar orbits. Einstein, on the other hand, proposed that Newton was wrong, and that gravitation propagated at c. So, for example, since Earth is about 8 light minutes from the Sun, then Earth would, if the Sun disappeared, continue orbiting for 8 minutes, and only then would it head out on a straight line out of the Solar system. Einstein was wrong in this case, because gravitation does not "propagate". Gravitation is an instant phenomenon. Newton, in this case, appears to have been correct. It only appears that way to the uninformed. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/22/2012 8:52 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:24:52 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:10 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:10:02 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. I no see how, Daniel San. As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE!g Again, this is all conjecture, but could the 'velocity' be sufficient to 'escape' the gravitational field? Perhaps, unlike some 'round here, you'll be able to grasp the validity of this analogy: Many years ago, when scientists were contemplating the origin of the asteroid belt, one hypothesis was that a fully formed planet had traversed that Solar orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Then for some reason, that planet broke up, exploded, and wound up as a bunch of loose rocks - the asteroids. Now, try as they might, not those scientists, nor none since, have been able to come up with a viable or reasonable way or mechanism for a fully formed planet to break up like that, to explode like that. No way. So the conclusion was that the asteroids had never had the chance to form into a planet due mainly to the influence of planet Jupiter. Jupiter's gravitational field just wouldn't allow a bunch of rocks that near to it to accrete into a larger body. Now, picture in your mind a black hole. At its center is believed to be a singularity. The density of a singularity is said to be infinite and the volume is said to be zero. And it was just such a singularity that, about 13.7 billion years ago, is believed to have somehow popped into existence and began to expand into the Universe we see today. That was the moment of the so-called "Big Bang". Now, just like the mechanism that would result in an exploding planet, scientists are unable to come up with any mechanism that would result in the singularity of a black hole to begin to expand. There is no known way for this to happen. And yet scientists readily accept that it happened "back in the beginning". In the beginning, a singularity began to expand into the Universe we see today. The origin of that singularity is still unknown, and the reason it began to expand is still unknown, and yet there it was, and off it went. As that singularity began to expand, it would have instantly generated a gravitational field the likes of which are hardly imaginable, certainly nothing like we see today, even among the quasars. That field would have been like billions and trillions of Solar masses strong. That singularity, from a reasonable standpoint, would have collapsed "under its own weight" almost as quickly as it had begun to expand. So "reasonably", the Big Bang was and is an impossibility. Just as there is no known way for a planet to explode under the weight of its own gravitational field, just as there is no known way for the singularity of a black hole to expand under the weight of its own gravitational field, there can be no known way for the Big Bang to have happened. It did not happen. It was a contrived hypothesis set forth by a God-fearing Catholic priest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ...who in his mind turned back the hands of time. He took a Universe that appeared to be expanding, stopped time, and then watched as in his mind the Universe began to contract as he went backward in time. For some reason, scientists even today accept that it was okay to do this. It was okay for the Universe to just keep on contracting as we went farther back in time. There was never really any reason to believe that, if the Universe actually were expanding, it had *always* been in that state of expansion. And yet, there it was, laid down by a religious man. The Universe kept contracting and contracting until it was this tiny point. All the matter, all the energy, all the space and time neatly rolled up in what he called a "primeval atom". The God-fearing priest was very careful when he proposed his idea to science not to mention the "Let there be light" part. He gave no explanation at all as to how the primeval atom got there nor what caused it to begin to expand. To this day, over eighty years later, and the contemplations of countless scientists and others with heads on their shoulders, there is still no reasonable explanation for these two crucial points. No not one. A hundred years from now, or hopefully much sooner, these times will be looked back upon and called "The Age of Absurd Astronomy", or "A Case for Colossally Comedic Cosmology". It is, I sincerely believe, the Baddest and Blindest of Big Bang Bummer Beliefs we, as human beings, must share until scientists come 'round to their senses. They are blinded by this cosmology paradigm so much so, that every single piece of evidence that could support any number of different hypotheses is "worked in" to support the present paradigm. Even the mighty concept of the redshifts of faraway galaxies and their "obvious" meaning that the Universe is expanding can be crushed under the clarity of reason. But when *you* are *crushed* under the magnificent weight of the existing paradigm, then you become blind to facts, and thereby, blind to reality. This post has become long, too long for even me. Einstein told us many great things. Among the greatest was his light warning to always question, to never stop with the questions. Question all of it, question everything. And never stop. When the questioning stops, the thinking stops also. There is no reason to think further on the Big Bang, there is no reason to question it. Scientists have made their choice about it, they have made their decision about it, and when a decision is made, thinking stops. Only our youth continue to think, continue to question. Only they follow the good advice of Einstein. Well, they and a very few of us old farts.g I think the biggest problem here is that there is evidence for the Big Bang and the Big Bang fits all the available evidence. You bring up black holes which is a decent analogy, but not a great one. A black hole would not contain all the energy/matter of the universe. Nor would two black holes. Or a dozen. Or a thousand. Or a million. The singularity proposed in the Big Bang was apparently different from a mere black hole. Yes, and there are smaller black holes and larger black holes. The larger ones, like those at the centers of galaxies, have larger masses, and yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and zero volume. Black holes do not have zero volume. Nor do they have infinite density. The black hole is the best analogy because of this. When the very first singularity came to be (how? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious people)), it would have been the mother of all singularities in terms of the massiveness within. And yet it still would have had infinite density and zero volume. And similar to a black hole, it would have generated the mother of all gravitational fields. It is then believed that the initial singularity began to expand (what made it begin to expand? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious people)). However, surrounded by the mother of all gravitational fields, what mechanism could possibly make the singularity begin to expand? Does gravity exist at the quantum state? This is a reasonable impossibility. So, with all the energy of the universe, it couldn't expand at escape speeds to escape the gravity of the singularity? It is highly illogical that such an event could have ever taken place. Not really, no. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/22/2012 10:48 AM, Painius wrote:
That's close enough, Bert. The figures are 4.5% known matter, and 95.5% space. The present model figures that the 95.5% is made up of "dark matter" and "dark energy". It is much more likely that there is no need to postulate dark energy That's right, Bert...Don't listen to the entire scientific community...Listen to Painus. He once read something about dark energy and he didn't like it. and dark matter is just space itself. There is a lot of matter in space, matter that comes from stars and other celestial bodies. Matter that is pretty much all free particles, so since these free particles are rather small, "dark matter" cannot be observed. And Painus has ascertained that no astronomers have given this a moments thought. In addition, there are the so-called "virtual particles" that pop in and pop out of existence. The quantum foamy-like structure of space makes up for the amount of matter that stellar winds and such cannot account for. Spacetime = dark matter. Spacetime = spacetime. Dark matter = Dark matter. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/22/2012 11:13 AM, Painius wrote:
Where does violence fit into any of that? Or are you somehow implying that The Big Bang is a violent theory? Ah, Fidem, 'tis a violent world, a violent Universe, all supposedly set forth by the violent expansion of a singularity. And what a theory (actually still just a hypothesis) that violent Big Bang really is, eh? Of course, 'violence' is a human construct. It has zero basis in reality. After more than 80 years since its proposal, one would think that science would be able to tell us how the singularity got there and what caused it to begin to expand. But alas, only the Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang First of all, Painus is a believer. He hates the big bang because it has no room for his god. Funny how he uses Lemaitre to scoff at the big bang, yet I've never heard him bitch about Gregor Mendel and the laws of heredity. But ever since that moment, if there really *was* such a moment, there has not been much light. There has been only darkness and violence and the sheepish following of unreasonable and illogical paradigms. Painus' universe is just lovely. It's eternal, god's eternal....Forever and ever, amen. Anything else just doesn't make sense to him. -- "OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:47:24 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
wrote: On Feb 20, 7:33*am, Painius wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:55 -0800, "Mike Painter" wrote: Painius wrote: Harlow soliloquied... To me, since observations end at the event horizon, this amounts to mental masturbation. An opinion you're entitled to, of course. *Now please do tell... If gravity contains BH singularities from expanding, and since OUR initial singularity had to be dense enough to contain all that we see and... perhaps even more, then how did that initial singularity expand under the containment of what must have been a whole s___load of gravity? Perhaps for the same reason that a piece of straw broke the camels back. Interesting gravitational analogy, there, Mike. Raises questions such as, "What exactly served as the 'straw' in the case of the initial singularity (the camel)?" and, "How precisely did this allow the singularity to begin to expand instead of being even more thoroughly crushed (broken) than it had been (like the camel's back)?" So it would appear by this line of questioning that the Big Bang was impossible to pull off, wouldn't it? There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. *So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? *They don't believe that the asteroids in the asteroid belt were the result of a fully formed planet blowing up, because there is no known way for a fully formed planet to explode. *So if there is no known way for a singularity to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field, then wouldn't it be unreasonable to continue to support the Big Bang hypothesis? Painius my critical mass density theory has the singularity formed at the exact time the critical mass density is reached. TreBert So if the singularity is at critical mass the moment it is formed, wouldn't this result in an explosion rather than an expansion? It would have been an explosion of immense proportion, but then anything of mass would have fallen back down to the point of origin because of the immense gravitational field. The Big Bang calls for an expansion, not for an explosion. According to Alan Guth's Inflation theory, the super-quick inflationary expansion lasted from 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds. The Universe grew quite huge in an extremely short time. That inflation was supposedly driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density. The value of the vacuum energy in free space here in the present time is believed to be 10^113 Joules per cubic meter, and may have been much higher in the past. However, even that magnificent value for the driving vacuum energy density would not have been able to overcome the mother of all gravitational fields, which would have been in place in the same instant that the singularity, with its critical mass, came to be. It would have been impossible for the singularity to even begin to expand. And if it had instead exploded, then it would have not continued to expand into a Universe, but instead the out-rushing parts of the explosion would have risen to great level, slowed their ascent, turned around and dropped back to the origin point. No matter how you look at it, the Big Bang is unreasonable and illogical. It is an impossibility and not a part of reality. -- Indelibly yours, Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/ "History is extremely kind to those who write it." |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2/22/2012 9:14 AM, Painius wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:47:24 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2" wrote: On Feb 20, 7:33 am, wrote: On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:44:55 -0800, "Mike Painter" wrote: Painius wrote: Harlow soliloquied... To me, since observations end at the event horizon, this amounts to mental masturbation. An opinion you're entitled to, of course. Now please do tell... If gravity contains BH singularities from expanding, and since OUR initial singularity had to be dense enough to contain all that we see and... perhaps even more, then how did that initial singularity expand under the containment of what must have been a whole s___load of gravity? Perhaps for the same reason that a piece of straw broke the camels back. Interesting gravitational analogy, there, Mike. Raises questions such as, "What exactly served as the 'straw' in the case of the initial singularity (the camel)?" and, "How precisely did this allow the singularity to begin to expand instead of being even more thoroughly crushed (broken) than it had been (like the camel's back)?" So it would appear by this line of questioning that the Big Bang was impossible to pull off, wouldn't it? There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? They don't believe that the asteroids in the asteroid belt were the result of a fully formed planet blowing up, because there is no known way for a fully formed planet to explode. So if there is no known way for a singularity to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field, then wouldn't it be unreasonable to continue to support the Big Bang hypothesis? Painius my critical mass density theory has the singularity formed at the exact time the critical mass density is reached. TreBert So if the singularity is at critical mass the moment it is formed, wouldn't this result in an explosion rather than an expansion? It would have been an explosion of immense proportion, but then anything of mass would have fallen back down to the point of origin because of the immense gravitational field. Why would it have fallen back down to the point of origin? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Aether Foreshortning at c
On 2012-Feb-22 08:57, DanielSan wrote:
On 2/22/2012 8:52 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:24:52 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:10 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:10:02 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 2:46 PM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:53:37 -0800, DanielSan wrote: On 2/20/2012 11:49 AM, Painius wrote: On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:14:04 -0500, wrote: On 2/20/2012 7:33 AM, Painius wrote: There is no known way for any singularity to begin to expand under the crushing weight of its own gravitational field. So why would any reasonable scientist continue to believe that it were possible? I'd call 'strawman' on this, but a strawman implies a knowledge that the OP understands the lies he is fostering. In your case, Painus, it's simple ignorance. Gravity was born when the big bang started expanding. All matter, all forces, all time, all EVERYTHING came into existence with the big bang. There was no 'before'. So, you seem to say that everything, to include the singularity, was "born" with the Big Bang. So, that mother of all singularities was able to expand simply because any gravitational field it would have generated was evidently not yet "in place". Actually, on the surface, that's not an exceedingly implausible argument. Are you actually learning things by reading this newsgroup? NaHHHHHHHHhhhh ! You're still an ignorant slut, HoVAC. Gravitation is an instant phenomenon as shown by what would happen to the orbits of the planets in our Solar system if it weren't an instant phenomenon. So even if the singularity and its gravitation were both "born" in the same instant, the gravitational field of the singularity would be "in place" too quickly to allow any expansion of the singularity. The Big Bang was an impossibility. Face it, and stop your pronounced lack of civility. One can, if one has enough energy, achieve escape velocity. It's possible (again, this is all conjecture, at least, from me) that the Big Bang "exploded" with such force that it achieved its own escape velocity and the rate of "explosion" surpassed any recollapse....at least, for the time being. I no see how, Daniel San. As soon as singularity is "there", its very own most powerful gravitational field is there to contain it. It would be like fart that no quite make it out of arse. BALANCE, Daniel San, BALANCE!g Again, this is all conjecture, but could the 'velocity' be sufficient to 'escape' the gravitational field? Perhaps, unlike some 'round here, you'll be able to grasp the validity of this analogy: Many years ago, when scientists were contemplating the origin of the asteroid belt, one hypothesis was that a fully formed planet had traversed that Solar orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Then for some reason, that planet broke up, exploded, and wound up as a bunch of loose rocks - the asteroids. Now, try as they might, not those scientists, nor none since, have been able to come up with a viable or reasonable way or mechanism for a fully formed planet to break up like that, to explode like that. No way. So the conclusion was that the asteroids had never had the chance to form into a planet due mainly to the influence of planet Jupiter. Jupiter's gravitational field just wouldn't allow a bunch of rocks that near to it to accrete into a larger body. Now, picture in your mind a black hole. At its center is believed to be a singularity. The density of a singularity is said to be infinite and the volume is said to be zero. And it was just such a singularity that, about 13.7 billion years ago, is believed to have somehow popped into existence and began to expand into the Universe we see today. That was the moment of the so-called "Big Bang". Now, just like the mechanism that would result in an exploding planet, scientists are unable to come up with any mechanism that would result in the singularity of a black hole to begin to expand. There is no known way for this to happen. And yet scientists readily accept that it happened "back in the beginning". In the beginning, a singularity began to expand into the Universe we see today. The origin of that singularity is still unknown, and the reason it began to expand is still unknown, and yet there it was, and off it went. As that singularity began to expand, it would have instantly generated a gravitational field the likes of which are hardly imaginable, certainly nothing like we see today, even among the quasars. That field would have been like billions and trillions of Solar masses strong. That singularity, from a reasonable standpoint, would have collapsed "under its own weight" almost as quickly as it had begun to expand. So "reasonably", the Big Bang was and is an impossibility. Just as there is no known way for a planet to explode under the weight of its own gravitational field, just as there is no known way for the singularity of a black hole to expand under the weight of its own gravitational field, there can be no known way for the Big Bang to have happened. It did not happen. It was a contrived hypothesis set forth by a God-fearing Catholic priest... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre ...who in his mind turned back the hands of time. He took a Universe that appeared to be expanding, stopped time, and then watched as in his mind the Universe began to contract as he went backward in time. For some reason, scientists even today accept that it was okay to do this. It was okay for the Universe to just keep on contracting as we went farther back in time. There was never really any reason to believe that, if the Universe actually were expanding, it had *always* been in that state of expansion. And yet, there it was, laid down by a religious man. The Universe kept contracting and contracting until it was this tiny point. All the matter, all the energy, all the space and time neatly rolled up in what he called a "primeval atom". The God-fearing priest was very careful when he proposed his idea to science not to mention the "Let there be light" part. He gave no explanation at all as to how the primeval atom got there nor what caused it to begin to expand. To this day, over eighty years later, and the contemplations of countless scientists and others with heads on their shoulders, there is still no reasonable explanation for these two crucial points. No not one. A hundred years from now, or hopefully much sooner, these times will be looked back upon and called "The Age of Absurd Astronomy", or "A Case for Colossally Comedic Cosmology". It is, I sincerely believe, the Baddest and Blindest of Big Bang Bummer Beliefs we, as human beings, must share until scientists come 'round to their senses. They are blinded by this cosmology paradigm so much so, that every single piece of evidence that could support any number of different hypotheses is "worked in" to support the present paradigm. Even the mighty concept of the redshifts of faraway galaxies and their "obvious" meaning that the Universe is expanding can be crushed under the clarity of reason. But when *you* are *crushed* under the magnificent weight of the existing paradigm, then you become blind to facts, and thereby, blind to reality. This post has become long, too long for even me. Einstein told us many great things. Among the greatest was his light warning to always question, to never stop with the questions. Question all of it, question everything. And never stop. When the questioning stops, the thinking stops also. There is no reason to think further on the Big Bang, there is no reason to question it. Scientists have made their choice about it, they have made their decision about it, and when a decision is made, thinking stops. Only our youth continue to think, continue to question. Only they follow the good advice of Einstein. Well, they and a very few of us old farts.g I think the biggest problem here is that there is evidence for the Big Bang and the Big Bang fits all the available evidence. You bring up black holes which is a decent analogy, but not a great one. A black hole would not contain all the energy/matter of the universe. Nor would two black holes. Or a dozen. Or a thousand. Or a million. The singularity proposed in the Big Bang was apparently different from a mere black hole. Yes, and there are smaller black holes and larger black holes. The larger ones, like those at the centers of galaxies, have larger masses, and yet each black hole's singularity has infinite density and zero volume. Black holes do not have zero volume. Nor do they have infinite density. I agree. The black hole is the best analogy because of this. When the very first singularity came to be (how? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious people)), it would have been the mother of all singularities in terms of the massiveness within. And yet it still would have had infinite density and zero volume. And similar to a black hole, it would have generated the mother of all gravitational fields. It is then believed that the initial singularity began to expand (what made it begin to expand? nobody knows! (except perhaps religious people)). However, surrounded by the mother of all gravitational fields, what mechanism could possibly make the singularity begin to expand? Does gravity exist at the quantum state? Although I suspect it very likely does, research in the area of Quantum Gravity (and particularly with regard to the complexities of Quantum Chromodynamics and related forces) is still ongoing. This is a reasonable impossibility. So, with all the energy of the universe, it couldn't expand at escape speeds to escape the gravity of the singularity? The absolute nature of an answer that agrees with this idea is already flawed if it is all-encompassing. It is highly illogical that such an event could have ever taken place. Not really, no. I agree. -- Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess "My calculations show that even if God dedicated all of his time meeting the dead, you would only get to meet him for half of one second. There are 56 million deaths occurring annually and only 32 million seconds in a year." -- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason ("The Pope is Humpty Dumpty") |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aether Foreshortning at c | G=EMC^2[_2_] | Misc | 3 | March 1st 12 07:51 AM |
Aether | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 22 | July 17th 11 02:21 AM |
Aether | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 4 | July 11th 11 01:57 AM |
Aether or whatever | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | October 17th 06 05:17 AM |