|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Neill wrote:
"Yoyoma_2" wrote in message news:CDbhc.176138$Pk3.83825@pd7tw1no... G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Hi Yoyoma Since the singularity is at the core of a blackhole it is not part of the universe that gravity is continually evolving. Nature is using gravities compression force to create blackholes out of all matter in the universe. There than has to be a time when all matter and energy becomes a singularity. Here you see the end becoming the new beginning. The dog catching its tail,and round and round goes the cycles of the big bang. Bert I wholeheartedly agree! If the universe is expanding, and expanding at an accelerating pace as currently believed, then distantly separated black holes will never coalesce. The end will be a bleak, sparse, cold desert of a universe. That's the common belief yes. All the stars will eventually fizzle out when there is only iron in the universe, the stars will be very very far away from eachother, black holes might exist but remember hawkings proved that they dissapear over time due to their emition of EM radiation and all the universe will be darkness. The end. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Nightbat I'm laughing because it is so logical that the more matter
and energy, you naturally think it would take up more volume(space) Nay not so" said Bert" whose thoughts come out of the quantum realm of the universe. It is in the quantum theory that my weird thoughts fit in so well. I'm not the people that Feynman said could not understand it,for it fits with my thinking in the tiny microscopic world that is the foundation for our macro world spacetime. Bert PS I'm working on a theory that in the micro realm of energy it gets weaker coming into our three large dimensions as the inverse square law dictates |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Yoyoma Thank you for your wholeheartedagreement. I needed that. Bert
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Yoyoma Thank you for your wholeheartedagreement. I needed that. Bert Well i don't, and voiced oppinion, about some parts of your theory. Though the universe if accelerating eventually becoming dark and dispersed is the current theory, instead of the previously believed "big crunch". |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Yes we all have read the expansion(inflation) theory. We also know
gravity creates curved space(GR) and even quantum gravity(particle attraction) keeps everything going in a curve. Space is like the Earth's horizon go in one direction long enough and you will get back to the place you started from like the beginning(big bang started from).Gravity sees to it. I'm taking curved spacetime that gravity controls. A blackhole is curved spacetime(closed loop) that is 100% gravity. The singularity is created by gravity. It is gravity all the way to the end,and then to the new beginning. Bert |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Yoyoma What goes around comes around Bert
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Yoyoma_2 wrote:
Greg Neill wrote: If the universe is expanding, and expanding at an accelerating pace as currently believed, then distantly separated black holes will never coalesce. The end will be a bleak, sparse, cold desert of a universe. That's the common belief yes. All the stars will eventually fizzle out when there is only iron in the universe, the stars will be very very far away from eachother, black holes might exist but remember hawkings proved that they dissapear over time due to their emition of EM radiation and all the universe will be darkness. The end. How are all the other elements supposed to become iron? Sure, an iron isotope is the nucleus with the least potential energy, but most nuclear reactions -- including all fusion reactions AFAICT -- don't take place in cold, near-empty environments, having very high activation energies. Even stars don't 'build' elements much heavier than carbon, except for the most massive ones that get far above the main sequence near the end of their lives. Where is a cold, diffuse hydrogen cloud out in space supposed to get the energy to fuse to iron? Or is there some kind of improbable 'tunneling' phenomenon -- or perhaps collision with extremely energetic (but rare) virtual particles -- that, given enough time, will permit the 'borrowing' of enough energy to 'get over the hump'? If protons are (slightly) unstable, presumably *they* will all decay eventually. I have no idea into what -- cold quark soup? -- Odysseus |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
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 The nightbat, we cannot wish away zero volume singularities, for it is rather the only singularity which keeps emerging in field theories, inextricably, indicating fiercely its primary existence. Now once the existence of this primary singularity is known, nothing not even the universe can actually emerge from it. However, the universe which 'seems' to emerge from this singularity has to be illusory. Now, the illusory universe needs neither creation nor evolution. And so, how can they be taught? S S Shastry |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Odysseus wrote:
Yoyoma_2 wrote: Greg Neill wrote: If the universe is expanding, and expanding at an accelerating pace as currently believed, then distantly separated black holes will never coalesce. The end will be a bleak, sparse, cold desert of a universe. That's the common belief yes. All the stars will eventually fizzle out when there is only iron in the universe, the stars will be very very far away from eachother, black holes might exist but remember hawkings proved that they dissapear over time due to their emition of EM radiation and all the universe will be darkness. The end. How are all the other elements supposed to become iron? Sure, an iron isotope is the nucleus with the least potential energy, but most nuclear reactions -- including all fusion reactions AFAICT -- don't take place in cold, near-empty environments, having very high activation energies. To the limit, the most common element would be heavy elements, iron being the most common. Stars will no longer have enough hydrogen oxygen or other elements to fuse. At Fe, fusing becomes very energy intensive. Yes there are a lot of elements and most are created in supernovae or novae explosions, But we are talkinga bout the theoretical limit here. At the limit of infinity of itme, what will the universe look like. Even stars don't 'build' elements much heavier than carbon, except for the most massive ones that get far above the main sequence near the end of their lives. I agree. Where is a cold, diffuse hydrogen cloud out in space supposed to get the energy to fuse to iron? Well in theory the more the universe advances, the more and more hydrogen will get used and nebulae will be mostly heavyer elements. Gravitation will still exist, but when the clouds gravitate, they will form stars based on primarily heavyer and heavyer elements. Or is there some kind of improbable 'tunneling' phenomenon -- or perhaps collision with extremely energetic (but rare) virtual particles -- that, given enough time, will permit the 'borrowing' of enough energy to 'get over the hump'? That i don't know. If protons are (slightly) unstable, presumably *they* will all decay eventually. I have no idea into what -- cold quark soup? That i have no idea either. i don't know if protons are slightly unstable or not. If so then to the limit then you could say that all protons will dissintegrate, yes. But maby recombination could occure. Who knows. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Ralph Gravity like all forces push or pulls. You go with push as does
oc late friend Wolton. What particle waves are doing the pushing? I go with quantum gravity,and one good reason is QM has meet every test,and "never" proven to be wrong. Now who's thinking is far out? My "spin is in theory" shows how nature creates action over distance. It uses no hooks. It shows how the graviton works. Does the strong force push or pulls? Why does a rotating bucket of water create a concaved surface? Why do grandfather clocks in the same room always swing in unison? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bang busted? | Bob Wallum | Astronomy Misc | 8 | March 16th 04 02:44 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 02:32 PM |
NASA Celebrates Educational Benefits of Earth Science Week | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | October 10th 03 04:14 PM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Space Station | 1 | July 30th 03 12:01 AM |
Space Station Crew Brings Science Down To Earth | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 29th 03 04:50 PM |