Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Hi Nightbat The search for the truth is what science is all about.Best
to leave out words like "facts" Beast to think in every direction,as
long as it makes good science. The BB theory answers more questions than
the steady state theory. Gamow theorized that if there was a BB its
temperature would now be 3K Many years later the universe's temperature
was measured at 2.73K(see what I mean.) Nightbat a better theory would
answer more questions. The BB is the best theory man has come up with.
It has lots of good physics in its favor. It fits with GR,QM,and the
string theory. It fits in with my density of the universe theory.(had
for years) I theorize the smallest gravity can squeeze the mass
of our known universe is the size of a Planck length,and that is in all
of its spatial dimensions. That thinking fits well with the string
theory as to the dimension of a singularity. Bert


Sure, big bang has a nice structure, without a proper foundation. For,
an apparently simple question like how it all started is unanswered.
Until and unless this question is answered satisfactorily it remains a
theory.

Now, big bang cannot start from singularity, for singularity simply
remains unchanged. Or big bang cannot start form nothing, for nothing
comes from nothing. And so, only other alternative is to consider the
universe to be illusory based on the unchanging singularity. It is in
the nature of this illusory universe to delude as to believe in
creation and evolution. When this is understood everything in science
can be put in proper perspective.

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Hi Nightbat The search for the truth is what science is all about.Best
to leave out words like "facts" Beast to think in every direction,as
long as it makes good science. The BB theory answers more questions than
the steady state theory. Gamow theorized that if there was a BB its
temperature would now be 3K Many years later the universe's temperature
was measured at 2.73K(see what I mean.) Nightbat a better theory would
answer more questions. The BB is the best theory man has come up with.
It has lots of good physics in its favor. It fits with GR,QM,and the
string theory. It fits in with my density of the universe theory.(had
for years) I theorize the smallest gravity can squeeze the mass
of our known universe is the size of a Planck length,and that is in all
of its spatial dimensions. That thinking fits well with the string
theory as to the dimension of a singularity. Bert

Sure, big bang has a nice structure, without a proper foundation. For,
an apparently simple question like how it all started is unanswered.
Until and unless this question is answered satisfactorily it remains a
theory.

Now, big bang cannot start from singularity, for singularity simply
remains unchanged. Or big bang cannot start form nothing, for nothing
comes from nothing. And so, only other alternative is to consider the
universe to be illusory based on the unchanging singularity. It is in
the nature of this illusory universe to delude as to believe in
creation and evolution. When this is understood everything in science
can be put in proper perspective.

S S Shastry

nightbat

The back is on the clock Bert, so trying to get absolute facts
about cosmology and the quantum leads many times to uncertainty. However
the remarkable thing about use of logic and present math is that it
leads to possibilities of what is and what really makes the Universe
tick.

Yes, Shastry, there is no foundation according to G but according to my
profound " Continuing Universe Rule " there finally is. The dynamics of
my postulate " Black Comet " presents the logical foundation for the
baby GUT and closure to the enigma of Black hole paradox. What stood in
the way was the understanding of zero in mathematical transforms.
Nothing of something can take up zero volume or what they call zero
point energy. If it is or has energy it has non zero point volume. Even
the photon with deduced zero mass takes up world line space. And since
energy which always occupies space can't be destroy just transformed,
the space time it exists in also cannot have been Big bang created. It
would be a violation of equation proved out by relativistic mathematical
proof deduction.

The Universe is not illusory Shastry, just zero volume singularity
because of the nature of energy versus mass. The flow is towards the
base quantum field state that is in non equilibrium and will remain that
way until an outside force acts upon it. Until then, remember for every
action there is a reaction, so no hope for natural base equalization. No
slow heat death under Big Bang scenario or finite expanding universe
because of counter strong gravity field reality. Fermions permit
contraction of particles into nucleus in the absence of electron shells
in non violation of Pauli's super state or Chandra's upper mathematical
macro neutron stellar mass upper limits.

These are very deep theoretical doodles we expound on for how long did
it take for mainstream astrophysicists to get so excited about the
premise of black hole resolution via my " Black Comet " or what they
call gravastar? Remember there are different kinds of true heavy gravity
stellar to cold outer body comet transformed non classical
singularities, those theoretically formed at the center of galaxies and
those away from it in its arms. Just as there are many kinds of planets
and star classes, the formation of different, super dense, high
momentum, heavy gravity bodies is the same.


ponder on,
the nightbat

True, unless the reversal of the universe via Black holes resulted in the
big bang, I saw a theory recently that implied the universe, over time runs
an inside out process on a never ending basis.


"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote in message
om...
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message
...
Hi Nightbat The search for the truth is what science is all about.Best
to leave out words like "facts" Beast to think in every direction,as
long as it makes good science. The BB theory answers more questions than
the steady state theory. Gamow theorized that if there was a BB its
temperature would now be 3K Many years later the universe's temperature
was measured at 2.73K(see what I mean.) Nightbat a better theory would
answer more questions. The BB is the best theory man has come up with.
It has lots of good physics in its favor. It fits with GR,QM,and the
string theory. It fits in with my density of the universe theory.(had
for years) I theorize the smallest gravity can squeeze the mass
of our known universe is the size of a Planck length,and that is in all
of its spatial dimensions. That thinking fits well with the string
theory as to the dimension of a singularity. Bert


Sure, big bang has a nice structure, without a proper foundation. For,
an apparently simple question like how it all started is unanswered.
Until and unless this question is answered satisfactorily it remains a
theory.

Now, big bang cannot start from singularity, for singularity simply
remains unchanged. Or big bang cannot start form nothing, for nothing
comes from nothing. And so, only other alternative is to consider the
universe to be illusory based on the unchanging singularity. It is in
the nature of this illusory universe to delude as to believe in
creation and evolution. When this is understood everything in science
can be put in proper perspective.

S S Shastry

Shrikantha S. Shastry wrote:
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...

Now, big bang cannot start from singularity, for singularity simply
remains unchanged.

Hawkings mathematically proved that the universe started from a
singularity. So if you don't believe in the big bang, you have to work
the singularity inside your theories.

Or big bang cannot start form nothing, for nothing
comes from nothing. And so, only other alternative is to consider the
universe to be illusory based on the unchanging singularity.

The singularity was not nothing, it was all the energy of the universe
in one point.

It is in
the nature of this illusory universe to delude as to believe in
creation and evolution. When this is understood everything in science
can be put in proper perspective.

Why does believing in the big bang and evolution contradict your
theological beliefs, the Vatican believes its a compatible story.

Studying physics is not purly a scientific study its also a theological
one, but some poeple don't believe or see that.

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...
Hi Nightbat The search for the truth is what science is all about.Best
to leave out words like "facts" Beast to think in every direction,as
long as it makes good science. The BB theory answers more questions than
the steady state theory. Gamow theorized that if there was a BB its
temperature would now be 3K Many years later the universe's temperature
was measured at 2.73K(see what I mean.) Nightbat a better theory would
answer more questions. The BB is the best theory man has come up with.
It has lots of good physics in its favor. It fits with GR,QM,and the
string theory. It fits in with my density of the universe theory.(had
for years) I theorize the smallest gravity can squeeze the mass
of our known universe is the size of a Planck length,and that is in all
of its spatial dimensions. That thinking fits well with the string
theory as to the dimension of a singularity. Bert

Sure, big bang has a nice structure, without a proper foundation. For,
an apparently simple question like how it all started is unanswered.
Until and unless this question is answered satisfactorily it remains a
theory.

Now, big bang cannot start from singularity, for singularity simply
remains unchanged. Or big bang cannot start form nothing, for nothing
comes from nothing. And so, only other alternative is to consider the
universe to be illusory based on the unchanging singularity. It is in
the nature of this illusory universe to delude as to believe in
creation and evolution. When this is understood everything in science
can be put in proper perspective.

S S Shastry

nightbat

The back is on the clock Bert, so trying to get absolute facts
about cosmology and the quantum leads many times to uncertainty. However
the remarkable thing about use of logic and present math is that it
leads to possibilities of what is and what really makes the Universe
tick.

Yes, Shastry, there is no foundation according to G but according to my
profound " Continuing Universe Rule " there finally is. The dynamics of
my postulate " Black Comet " presents the logical foundation for the
baby GUT and closure to the enigma of Black hole paradox. What stood in
the way was the understanding of zero in mathematical transforms.
Nothing of something can take up zero volume or what they call zero
point energy. If it is or has energy it has non zero point volume. Even
the photon with deduced zero mass takes up world line space. And since
energy which always occupies space can't be destroy just transformed,
the space time it exists in also cannot have been Big bang created. It
would be a violation of equation proved out by relativistic mathematical
proof deduction.

The Universe is not illusory Shastry, just zero volume singularity
because of the nature of energy versus mass. The flow is towards the
base quantum field state that is in non equilibrium and will remain that
way until an outside force acts upon it. Until then, remember for every
action there is a reaction, so no hope for natural base equalization. No
slow heat death under Big Bang scenario or finite expanding universe
because of counter strong gravity field reality. Fermions permit
contraction of particles into nucleus in the absence of electron shells
in non violation of Pauli's super state or Chandra's upper mathematical
macro neutron stellar mass upper limits.

These are very deep theoretical doodles we expound on for how long did
it take for mainstream astrophysicists to get so excited about the
premise of black hole resolution via my " Black Comet " or what they
call gravastar? Remember there are different kinds of true heavy gravity
stellar to cold outer body comet transformed non classical
singularities, those theoretically formed at the center of galaxies and
those away from it in its arms. Just as there are many kinds of planets
and star classes, the formation of different, super dense, high
momentum, heavy gravity bodies is the same.


ponder on,
the nightbat

All the above conjectures about the universe may have to be from the
singularity. And since the singularity remains unchanged while the
universe is being considered variously, what is their relationship?
Since the singularity remains unchanged it is real. Its universe
considered variously has to be changing and not the real singularity.
Obviously, it is the lower reality which is the illusory.

S S Shastry

nightbat wrote

Yoyoma_2 wrote:

Shrikantha S. Shastry wrote:
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...


Shastry
Now, big bang cannot start from singularity, for singularity simply
remains unchanged.


Yoyoma-2
Hawkings mathematically proved that the universe started from a
singularity. So if you don't believe in the big bang, you have to work
the singularity inside your theories.

nightbat

Then I respectfully suggest that Mr. Hawking's recheck his math
because there is no such or ever has been the possibility or thing as a
singularity of zero volume of energy or mass point. All energy and mass
take up universal world space along contracted or extended lines.
Mathematical deduced large Bangs are fine because they are System non
uniform stellar nova's, super nova's, and even mega nova's, when two or
more cluster end neutron upper limit stars collide. And if you claim
origination of point sequence for universe (BB) sudden expanded space
time you need an outside force where none is known or ever observed.
Imagined or postulated math originating quantum super string non uniform
fluctuations need an originator or outside force to point counter
fluctuate where none is or has ever been observed. And if you like Mr.
Hawking's nice BB theory creation point sci fi hot air, you can, or even
his ballon basket, I understand it might still be available for
purchase.

See:http://www.hawking.org.uk/balloon.html
Mr. Hawking's Doodles See:http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/index.html
For Graphic Version See:http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html

Shastry

Or big bang cannot start form nothing, for nothing
comes from nothing. And so, only other alternative is to consider the
universe to be illusory based on the unchanging singularity.


Yoyoma_2
The singularity was not nothing, it was all the energy of the universe
in one point.

nightbat

If that were true you need an outside force to cause effect
change of point centralized theorized uniform momentum state and none is
or has ever been observed or confirmed. A system in uniform motion stays
in that motion until a force acts upon it. There is no known force that
can change a physical system in total uniform momentum via self. This
implies via theology based faith deity or outside force originator for
(BB) where none is observed or proven. What is the logical alternate
answer, it is right in front of you? A non uniform momentum system stays
non uniform unless or until another outside force acts upon it.

Shastry

It is in
the nature of this illusory universe to delude as to believe in
creation and evolution. When this is understood everything in science
can be put in proper perspective.


Yoyoma_2
Why does believing in the big bang and evolution contradict your
theological beliefs, the Vatican believes its a compatible story.

nightbat

The Vatican also once believed the world was flat and the center
of the Universe, it took enlightened gifted Maverick's and science to
show them the logical light.

Yoyoma_2

Studying physics is not purly a scientific study its also a theological
one, but some poeple don't believe or see that.

nightbat

If you combine the study of science and theology and believe
them one and the same you're bound to get confused. The former is based
on scientific proof the latter is based on faith. Belief systems are
fine for theology, but science requires empirical proof and postulated
deductions which require physical correlation's, applied logic and or
math rigorous solutions and observational confirmations. Without
observed confirmation recheck your logic or math. Humble nightbat cannot
speak for what others believe, only point to what is logical until
someone else further confirms or proves otherwise.


ponder on,
the nightbat

"Yoyoma_2" wrote...
in message news5rgc.155366$Pk3.134738@pd7tw1no...

Painius wrote:

Interesting treatment, Yoyoma. I'm not sure we're ready to go
further into "finegraining the universe" yet. Right now we are
just trying to discover if there indeed *is* one operation, one
universal force, that *drives* the "forces" that our science has
observed up to today.
Trying to determine if the strong nuclear force, the weak
nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravitational force are
actually "forces," or if they just *appear* to be forces, and are
in reality just "effects" of one universal force.

I don't know, though it could seem plausible that there is one force
that guides all other forces. In the first moments of the big bank
there was one "superforce" then it was said that it split off into
gravitation and "electroWeak", then merged out the four forces we know
today.

"Split off..." -- hmm...

This makes sense, for a universe that is only hydrogen has no use
for a strong nuclear force to hold protons together. All atoms have
only one proton!

So in the beginning there is the weak nuclear force on the quantum
scale, and there is gravity on the large scale.

You hearing this, Bill? Gravity, brought about by the coming
together of hydrogen atoms into vast clouds and then into star-like
objects, came *before* the advent of the strong nuclear force.

After a few *real* "big bangs" that probably made supernovas
look like firecrackers, these masses developed heavier elements
requiring the strong nuclear force to hold the protons together.
And on the large scale this could then have been manifested as
electromagnetism.

It could have been that the superforce was actually what you are trying
to observe, and only the "Effects" could be seen as the universe matured.

Or... it could be that we just haven't yet figured out how to sense
this "superforce" that may still be around. There *must* be an
equation that can help us with this, and with predictions of the
potential use and energy of this superforce.

We recently discoverd the pilot wave fenomenae (actually recently is
what 1930's? lol) and seeing them interract in the complex domain to
form wave groups (like the "beats" you hear tuning a musical
instrument). Those wave groups form the square root of the probability
distribution of matter. You have to do |Y|² to get the complex out and
finally be observable.

Now thats interesting fenomenae, it directly affects our universe but is
not within the real or observable domain.

This should not surprise you, Yoyoma. After all, everything that
man has invented, created, and/or devised began with just a thought
in someone's mind, i.e., the imagination.

Are you suggesting that this superforce could be outside or inside
spacetime?

Well, Bill and his mentor, Wolter, certainly suggest that the SCO,
the "supra-cosmic overpressure," is outside of our *observable*
spacetime.

If you are suggesting that there are more forces outside
spacetime that guide our universe i have to agree. Divine and religion
aside, why is EM so strong and gravitation so weak? What if EM was weak
and gravitation was strong, then everything would be roughly in the
same place and we wouldn't have friction so we could go through
anything. I don't know too much about nuclear physics but from what i
understand gluons transmit the strong force, weakons transmits the weak.
The weak and strong also act in very short distances while gravidation
and EM can act at very large distances. Quite intreguing phenomenae.
One could say that the superforce fine-grain effects are only observed
at small distances?

Also there are phonons to take care of in this treatments. They are the
particles that transmit vibrational energy (before they though it was
just sound, hense the word phone-on).

Now you have here what, Protons, gravitrons, weakons gluons. If you can
prove a force that is able to spontaneously create and radiate these
particles, you got yourself a theory.

And the most widely accepted theory of this is called "The Big Bang."

Electric fields and Magnetism are alwaise perpendicular. Though it is
just said i haven't seen any proof why that is so, i hear its just a
"property of matter". The presence of a superforce could explain why it
is perpendicular.

Also the presence of a superforce could explain entropy, the tendency
for the universe to get more and more random. Now entropy is measured in
Joules/Kelvin or "m²kg/s²K" so its also a "property of matter" the way i
see it. Convolute your phonons into that and you got yourself entropy.
You could be going somewhere with this. But i theorize that this
force would not be in the spacetime or "real" domain.

It may no longer exist in our observable universe. Its initial energies
may have passed beyond our senses eons and eons ago. And it
leaves behind what we sense as the "four universal forces" with
no apparent way to completely unify them.

Anyway before we can go into that we gotta prove that the gravitron
exists. It should exist, it must exist. But if we the gravitron isn't
transmitted like photons or gluons or weakons, then we got ourselves a
problem.

You mentioned "weakons" as the massive exchange particles of the
weak nuclear force. If i am correct, and the weak nuclear force is
closely related to gravitational force, then gravitons must somehow
be generated by weakons.

On the other hand, the reason we have not yet found the graviton
may very well be because no need for particle transfer exists where
gravity is concerned. If space is "something" (rather than just being
"nothing"), then space may be irrevocably attracted by weakons.

When too much space builds up inside an atom, then there is a high-
energy incident which results in the manufacture of gluons, in the
strong nuclear force and in electromagnetism on the large scale.
Where single-proton nuclei may last only several millions of years
before such an incident, larger more complex elements may last
several billions of years without exceeding their "space absorption"
capacity.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
I'm a fool upon a hill,
See my planet spinning still?
Sun goes down and stars arise
Warm and pleasing to mine eyes.

See my little telescope?
People say I'm such a dope;
I don't mind because I nurse
Secrets of the Universe!

Paine Ellsworth

nightbat wrote

David wrote:

True, unless the reversal of the universe via Black holes resulted in the
big bang, I saw a theory recently that implied the universe, over time runs
an inside out process on a never ending basis.

nightbat

Big Bang model busted based on understood and accepted deduced
mathematical proof that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Therefore, you can't have a BB point beginning to energy even in point
zero volume, for it occupies some space at all times wherever framed.
Therefore, imagining or modeling the sudden BB creation of energy or
space-time everywhere is not energy consistent.

David, there are no such things as black hole zero volume singularities,
my profound " Black Comet " put that to rest. See gravastars for some
insight.

If the above theory you refer to accepts or affirms zero volume black
holes or Big Bang premise, run. If however you refer to my internet
newsgroup posted premise about " Continuing Universe Rule " it patiently
perhaps does get around those brilliant fellow science circles
profoundly looking for a better logical premise for universal dynamics
and baby Gut premise.

For other theoretical insight into the non classical micro quantum field
flow premise and non standard model doodles see other leader original
logic premise Maverick's on this newsgroup.


the nightbat

nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

"Shrikantha S. Shastry" wrote:

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in message ...

snip


Shastry
All the above conjectures about the universe may have to be from the
singularity. And since the singularity remains unchanged while the
universe is being considered variously, what is their relationship?
Since the singularity remains unchanged it is real. Its universe
considered variously has to be changing and not the real singularity.
Obviously, it is the lower reality which is the illusory.

S S Shastry

nightbat

Shastry, in the classical physics or astronomy sense zero volume
singularities are physically non possible. Energy let alone mass
occupies space no matter how frame dependent. The more energy to mass
ratio the more volume is necessary for its very existence. Since you
premise possibility of (zero volume) singularity your logical foundation
is not correct from the start. A zero volume singularity cannot exist
therefore it cannot remain unchanged. The observed in volume changing
energy/matter composed universe is not a singularity because as stated
an energy based singularity cannot exist in zero volume. The reality of
the need for something that is, energy/matter, requires space or volume
to exist, therefore volume of space in which energy/matter is embedded
is the dominant dimension.


the nightbat

From Painius:

Well, oc and his mentor, Wolter,
certainly suggest that the SCO, the
"supra-cosmic overpressure," is outside
of our *observable* spacetime.

Under W's model, the *source* of the SCO resides outside our spacetime.
But its direct effect can be measured by standing on a bathroom scale
(jb's protestations and machinations notwithstanding). The scale
gives=A0=E5 direct analog readout of matter's resistance to the flow of
the spatial medium, aka an object's 'weight'. What we call gravity is
the accelerating, center-ward flow of the medium, driven by the SCO.
Gravity is not an "attraction" but a pressure-driven flow.

You hearing this, coot? Gravity, brought
about by the coming together of
hydrogen atoms into vast clouds and
then into star-like objects, came *before* the advent of the strong
nuclear force.

Well then, what caused the isolated H atoms to gravitate together.. if
not the cumulative 'influence at a distance' of their protons' strong
force? In your illustration, you're demonstrating the unification of
gravity and the strong force rather than their separateness. You're
showing the flow of the medium into its ultimate 'sump' in the seat of
the strong force.
Only under the 'no medium' premise (void-space paradigm)
are gravity and the strong force seen as separate and separately
sourced.
OK, now let's have jb's obligatory sqwawk. oc