A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old April 20th 04, 06:36 PM
Yoyoma_2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 20th 04, 06:49 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 20th 04, 06:55 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Yoyoma Thank you for your wholeheartedagreement. I needed that. Bert

  #124  
Old April 20th 04, 07:09 PM
Yoyoma_2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 20th 04, 07:10 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 20th 04, 10:35 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yoyoma What goes around comes around Bert

  #127  
Old April 21st 04, 05:48 AM
Odysseus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 21st 04, 06:42 AM
Shrikantha S. Shastry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 21st 04, 11:04 AM
Yoyoma_2
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 21st 04, 01:47 PM
G=EMC^2 Glazier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.