Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

nightbat wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi nightbat and Carusus Well big guns like Kip Thorne,and John
Preskill of C I T have their theories of singularities like they are not
mysteries(but they are). I think of them like DNA. The big function
nature gave singularities is to store information. This information is
needed when a singularity is released into spacetime(mini- bang) so a
new universe can be a clone of its parent universe. I can't see GR
that gave Schwarzchild the idea for blackhole's event horizon help him
in anyway to theorize the core of a blackhole. However QM might have
this to say about the blackholes center. "Due to the enormous mass and
energy crushed together at the blackhole's center this causes the fabric
of spacetime to be completely warped into a state of infinite
curvature." I don't think Einstien would like infinite curvature(he did
not like BHs) These thoughts tell me that all the matter that comes
into the interior of a blackhole ends up at its core. That also includes
all forces, energy, waves, and fields. Nature is showing how she
unifies all that is. When man unifies all there is he will have GUT.
My thoughts are leading me closer to GUT as I type this. Best I use
my thoughts to unravel the mysteries residing at the core of blackholes.
One thing I can safely say "There are as many singularities in the
cosmos as flakes of snow in an endless storm".
" Bert

nightbat

Ha, ha, what good are standard model herd big guns Bert, in the
absence of accuracy? I have told you for years Bert, there are no black
holes other then sci fi ones, my internet science groups posted profound
postulate of the " Black Comet " resolution took care of that. Further
look up info on gravastars for some finally accepting background
understanding if my original guidance is not enough. I have also posted
the grounds for the baby GUT to Carusus and Shastry who apparently are
also lost because of the black hole zero volume common understanding.
How long does a Maverick have to ride point on the herd before they get
it?
You keep asking to be made an authority and I keep giving you the story
for the chance but then you fall back on the M string theorists as
belated father figures. Bert, they are in the dark as much as you
originally were, give a Maverick a rest, I'm hoping you finally get it.
No mystery Bert, think fermions, lots of fermions, at the center of the
" Black Comet ". And no multi universes just new galaxy understanding
coming out of the fused factor contracted end sequence central galaxy
neutron star transformation. Oc has further clued you in about the
quantum and macro flow dynamics. Painius with his added profound
thoughts too. Come on Bert, put 2 and 2 together, the unified base field
is the missing 5th dimension or space vacuum in which all energy/mass is
embedded, and the ultimate sink which when in the disturbed state gives
rise to all the other forces and effects, in attempt to continually
reach equilibrium, yes, even your love, gravity.

Your thinking in terms of space-time infinite curvature is very good and
on the right track because as long as the base field remains in non
equilibrium the metric field will be curved inwards towards
renormalization of disturbed state. Don't worry about your other friend
Einstein who never fully understood strong gravity dynamics but saw the
curvature. And finally remember to distinguish between classical term
zero volume singularity and nightbat disclosed heavy gravity new altered
matter singularity understanding fermion based one. The nightbat final
closed loop for the baby GUT understanding is there for all, can you
rope it in Bert? Become the authority, take the credit, go for it if you
dare, but don't blame me later when the Nobel and the fans get to be too
much. Ha, ha, just tell me about it over suds and your sweet potato pie,
maybe later, down by your southern Florida Savanna. Like Newton, I
prefer the long and quiet winding road, for it leaves more time for
research and fun. Poor Einstein said it was a curse to get the credit
and be made an authority, so beware Bert, I told you be careful what you
ask for. Fame they say isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Good
friends, on the other hand, are worth their weight in gold.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Hi Nightbat Good friends are worth more than gold. I don't have enough
friends left for a poker game. I have my ideals in science. First was
Einstien,than came along Feynman,now its Greene,Joel Scherk,Kip
Thorne,and Witten. I should not leave out John Wheeler after all I've
read his thoughts for over 65 years. The nice part of creation(the
beginning) is we all can be thinkers and not be a parrot. For me that is
the fun of science. I sometimes throw in a popular name(wrote books)
just to show I'm not alone in my thinking about the subject in question.
Like I told you I don't like "black comet" I can live with "gravistar"
Nightbat I like lots of theories that I did not come up with,and yet I
like mine,as you like yours the best. All great thinkers have a big ego
I like the big bang,blackholes, virtual particles,gravitons,the
intrinsic energy of space, dark energy,wormholes,white holes,space
foreshortning. Objects foreshortning,and an unknown force that can act
instantaneously from one end to the universe to the other in the macro
realm,and the micro realm. See nightbat again I threw in some of my own
thoughts. Your very "old" friend Bert PS That is getting younger
everyday eating his Mexican sweet potato chips with his Bud Lite

nightbat wrote wrote

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi Nightbat Good friends are worth more than gold. I don't have enough
friends left for a poker game. I have my ideals in science. First was
Einstien,than came along Feynman,now its Greene,Joel Scherk,Kip
Thorne,and Witten. I should not leave out John Wheeler after all I've
read his thoughts for over 65 years. The nice part of creation(the
beginning) is we all can be thinkers and not be a parrot. For me that is
the fun of science. I sometimes throw in a popular name(wrote books)
just to show I'm not alone in my thinking about the subject in question.
Like I told you I don't like "black comet" I can live with "gravistar"
Nightbat I like lots of theories that I did not come up with,and yet I
like mine,as you like yours the best. All great thinkers have a big ego
I like the big bang,blackholes, virtual particles,gravitons,the
intrinsic energy of space, dark energy,wormholes,white holes,space
foreshortning. Objects foreshortning,and an unknown force that can act
instantaneously from one end to the universe to the other in the macro
realm,and the micro realm. See nightbat again I threw in some of my own
thoughts. Your very "old" friend Bert PS That is getting younger
everyday eating his Mexican sweet potato chips with his Bud Lite

nightbat

Ha, ha, I'm no spring chicken either Bert. And yes, you would
like the Los Alamos National Laboratory researcher approved new term
gravastar, since they made it closer to the term gravity. But it's an
misnomer because the transformed former star is free falling out of
gravitational center lock step with the galaxy that produced it. They're
still trying to work out the details because I haven't posted all the
finer " Black Comet " points hoping you and the rest of the Maverick
gang joined in the physics breakthrough bandwagon. But ha, ha, you do
prefer all those other sci fi theorist's over humble nightbat because
sci fi multi universes and worm holes are fun while understanding true
cosmos dynamics can be really taxing and mundane. At times, I do feel
guilty I have my model and find it amusing watching them run around in
the dark. Then at other times I throw the main crowd a bone or two and
it apparently goes over their heads. Ha, ha, you're different Bert, you
get the info straight from the astronomy Maverick's mouths and still you
try to weave it into the main streamers out in left field doodles, it is
too much fun. You asked how do comets tip toe around the stars? Ask the
Los Alamos fellows how the gravastar can answer that versus your spin is
in theory.

Have they gotten those voting machines repaired down there in Florida so
there is not a repeat of the last Presidential election? It's getting
nice here in Indiana, can't wait to finally be able to get some good
exercise out in the yard. I asked my wife to try and make me one of your
small sweet potato pies but she says she can't find a recipe. I said,
cutie make it like a cherry pie and just use canned sweet potatoes and
its syrup instead, we'll see. Where do you find Mexican sweet potatoes
in Florida Bert, special order?


the nightbat

Hi Nightbat Here in Florida all sweet potatoes come from Mexico.I'm
lucky Tell you wife to make a sweet potato pie go with a recipe of a
pumpkin pie. Bake you Mexican sweet potatoes first,and make sure there
not wet.Don't use can stuff(very bad) I mash in cooked carrots(my own
idea) I try everything(as you know) Tonite I'm sprinkling ground cashews
on top. I love that nut. I can't use sugar(I'm a diabetic) Like I told
you I have lived so long I've got every thing except HIV (never got
lucky) President Bush will get
Florida's electorial votes. His brother will make sure of that as he did
in the last election. Politics in Florida is so bad that our founding
fathers would be turning over in their grave. Its money all the way
down. Tallahassee is run by crooks. Its starts at the top. Here in
central Florida the utility co. W
water,and electric don't read meters any more and just bill you all they
like(hope that is not true in Indiana) IThe Enrod Texas crooks are
building 20 million dollar homes 50 miles south of me.(Bocca Grande)
they are safe here Jeb Bush has his state police making sure of that.
Bush will win. Money talks,and his funds come to him like a gushing oil
well. Bert

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

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 å 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.
------------------------

But wait... how does the flow *know* to flow into mass? There
must be something attracting the fabric of space into the atoms of
matter.

----------------------

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.
-----------------------

Negatory, good buddy... what caused the hydrogen atoms to come
together was fusion, not gravity. Gravity caused "clumping" of the
H atoms into a starlike density. When density was great enough, the
nebula became a fusor and began producing helium. When the first
He was produced, *that's* when the strong force became needed.

....to keep the He from falling apart and reverting back to H.

------------------------

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
-------------------------

Forgive me for saying so, Bill, but sometimes you seem to be
too hung up on the VSP. Some VSP attributes could work
under a flowing-space model as well.

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

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...
in message ...

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?

g Oh they do not...

About the only place you'll find more than one grandfather clock
in the same room is in a grandfather clock store. And if you visit
one, you will find your witty premise to be quite false.

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

That's very pleasing to hear.

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

"Carusus" wrote in message ...
I am pleased to hear that you don't know.

"Yoyoma_2" wrote...
in message news:P9ahc.187923$Ig.100003@pd7tw2no...

Painius wrote:

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

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.

Well in that time it wasen't large, theory says it was something like
the size of a baseball. (10cm cubed at that time)

Lost in space the size of a baseball... inconceivable that all my
atoms, and all your atoms, and all existing atoms came from
this baseball-sized entity.

The problem seems to be what's outside the baseball? Can
science answer this? Science seems to have a problem
answering *several* things about this well-accepted theory...

Science says that "space" expanded, and is still expanding,
but expanding outward into precisely what? Into "nothing?"

Science says that space expands, space can be curved, and
yet science also seems to stick to a "void-space paradigm"
which to me means that space is "nothing" and is filled with
little "somethings" called atoms, and with fields of energy.

Science says that at the center of a basic atom is a proton,
a "something" that has mass and is therefore "matter." And
somewhere in sort of a shell around this proton is an electron,
also with mass and is therefore "matter." And between these
two tiny bits of matter is... nothing. A void. Void space.

Yoyoma, have you ever tried in earnest to define the word
"nothing" without resorting to the use of its complimentary
term, "something?"

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.

That's not what i said and thats in error. You couldn't have star-like
objects without the strong because what is it going to fuse into. Stars
started forming many years after the universe became transparent.

No, it's *not* what you said. That's the nature of a "conversation."
You say something, and then i infer something else from what you
say. And maybe it's in error and maybe not.

At first, there must have been extremely high levels of energy that
produced the first protons and electrons. These came together as
hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen atoms began clumping together to
form gas and gaseous nebulas. Gravity worked to collapse these
nebulas into denser and denser forms. When the centers of these
nebulas reached a certain density, the gigantic objects would begin
the process of fusion, thereby producing helium. Only then was the
strong force needed.

I'm not saying that the strong force was not already in existence.
But it wasn't *needed* until hydrogen atoms fused into helium.

There are many sites online that explain the first couple
seconds/minutes/days/years of the universe, i suggest you take a look.

http://members.tripod.com/~ssscott/BigBang.html

Check otu this site it has everything you need to know.

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.

A few? no there was only one and is mathematically explained to death.

I put "big bangs" in quotation marks to differentiate them from the
first "Big Bang." And i called them "real" because i believe that
they were indeed huge explosions (unlike the misnomered "Big
Bang" beginning, which was i believe very different from what we
call an "explosion" today).

We know exactly where the forces all came from (the superforce). Any
argument you provide against that should be mathematical to disprove the
works of poeple like hawkings etc., since they proved it mathematically.

Not to take away from Stephen Hawking and other great
scientists, Yoyoma, but lest we forget... Ptolemy was also a
great man who used mathematics to "prove" that Earth was
the center and all other visible objects in the sky revolved
around the Earth. And his mathematics held science totally
spellbound for about two thousand years!


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.

Well if there is its beyond my, your and our comprehension. String
theory and work in theoretical physics will find it. Any "theory" will
make is just phylosophy really.

You say this as if it's a *bad* thing. g (just kidding)

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.

Hunh? dude that doesn't make sense. You've been watching too much star
trek TNG.

Read it again, Yoyoma... everything you see that is "man-made,"
every inch of the screen you're looking at, the keyboard on which
your fingers type, the chair in which you're sitting... EVERYTHING,,,...

....was once just a thought in someone's mind.

You wouldn't even own a computer if you hadn't THOUGHT
about getting one first, aint' it true?

Men and women first have to THINK in order to shape (or
reshape) their environment. And this takes imagination. The
point is... maybe Nature works the same way?

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.

Most likley it will be outside our lightcone yes (thats everything we
see from the speed of light over time).

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."

The big bang doesn't explain this at all. The big bang explains the
first creation of the elementry particles such as the electron and
proton and forces. What i meant by that is the spontaneous, currently
occuring everywhere creation of various particles throughout the universe.

Like the electron that excites another electron that makes it go into a
higher orbit then low again then a photon being created out of the
difference in energy. That is going on right in front of you in your
computer monitor.

This is a mystery to you? If you're interested, you may find
some of these answers just by doing a more in-depth study
of physics.

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.

No there would be a way to unify them, no prob. Do it with math

I cannot. Nor can anyone else, evidently. If you can do it, then
it's your ticket to Stockholm, my friend.

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.

No that's not how it works. Because forces are related doesn't mean
that one generates the other.

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.

Everything is particle transfer, even sound is based on the phonon
principle.

Too pat, Yoyoma, too darn pat. A little more thinking on your
part will eventually erase your "dead certainty."

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.

I think your thinking too linearly about this. I suggest maby hooking up
with your local university and tell them, instead of discussing it with
us when we don't have the math background to prove your theories.

On this you may be correct... i've always had trouble with three
dimensions! g

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

Hi Painius I'm laughing for the unison swing of grandfather clocks has
been proven. An astronomer(can't think of his name) he lived in Norway
(near the north pole) and his hobby was collecting grandfather
clocks,and kept them in the same room,and was first to prove this. Was
not trying to be witty. Kind of hard I know to believe. I think Mach's
inertia theory is used to help account for this. Bert PS I love
being shot down because I read to much. Painius go to Google

From Panius:

But wait... how does the flow *know* to
flow into mass?

How does water in a bathtub 'know' to flow down the drain?

There must be something attracting the
fabric of space into the atoms of matter.

When Jos=E9 Jim=E9nez was riding in his space capsule it sprung an air
leak. Distraught, Jos=E9 exclaimed "what ees sucking all the air
out!???"

..what caused the hydrogen atoms to
come together was fusion, not gravity.

Negatory good buddy. We're talkin' about the diffuse protostellar cloud,
long before the star itself coalesced and attained fusion
density/pressure at its core.
What "attracted" those diffuse atoms toward one another
initially.. except their collective 'strong force'?
When sufficient numbers of atoms aggregate into a mass, what
is its 'gravity' except the collective strong force of its constituent
atoms?

...sometimes you seem to be too hung
up on the VSP.

Gadzooks, Paine(!). The mainstream is who's "hung up" on the 'no medium'
premise. It's virtually a bedrock doctrine akin to the Ptolemaic
worldview that the Earth is the center of the universe. And how long did
that model hold sway? 1300-1400 years? If the timeframe is any
indication, the VSP is here to stay. Sure, like the Ptolemaic mosel it
"works" OK up to a point, but no further. The VSP cannot explain the
mechanism of gravity solving the UFT/GUT, nor can it correctly interpret
deep-past redshifts.. which bear directly on the expansion-rate and fate
of the universe.

Some VSP attributes could work under a
flowing-space model as well.

Yes, there was the Painlev=E9-Gullstrand metric (which Zinni pulled up).
It shows how a 'flow' model would fit with the 'curvature' equations of
GR. But it still maintains space is functionally void and that the flow
is not literal but a 'metric' interchangable with the 'curvature'
metric.

Viva la VSP.

oc