A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

A Big Bang conundrum



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 22nd 13, 06:46 PM
JAAKKO KURHI JAAKKO KURHI is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlzc View Post
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
If the combined force of gravity of the independent
galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
solar system works and stays together because of the
gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
no problematic in the environment of recycling
universe.


Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.

David A. Smith
“Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.”

Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in the observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence, providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact. However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current observing techniques.

Jaakko Kurhi
  #32  
Old May 30th 13, 05:33 PM posted to sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default A Big Bang conundrum

On 20/05/2013 11:07 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
If the combined force of gravity of the independent galaxy system is so
strong that it can influence the behavior of the another galaxy system.
Then, why the milky-way is not collapsing by its one gravity. Our solar
system works and stays together because of the gravity of the sun, and
the kinetic energy of each orbiting object is in balance. So, how can
the combined gravity of the milky-way change the course of another
speeding galaxy that is in the course of moving away. Logically
thinking, the colliding galaxies are independent systems and just
happens to be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is no
problematic in the environment of recycling universe.
Jaakko Kurhi


The reason the Milky Way isn't collapsing in on itself is for the same
reason that the planets stay in orbit around the Sun, and don't fall in:
they have sufficient lateral velocity to miss the Sun as they fall
towards it, otherwise known as centrifugal force. The stars in the Milky
Way fall towards the centre, but keep missing it, and therefore stay in
orbit around it. If any of these stars were to lose a sufficient amount
of their lateral velocity, then they would fall towards the center.

And it's the same reason why nearby galaxies fall towards each other. If
they have sufficient lateral velocity, then they will fall towards each
other and keep missing, therefore they will enter into orbit around each
other. If the galaxies don't have enough lateral velocity, then they
will fall towards each other and hit each other, and combine together.

BTW, centrifugal force is not a real force, it's really the reactionary
force to the force of gravity. As Newton's Laws said, every action has
an equal and opposite reaction, centrifugal force is the reaction to
gravity.

Yousuf Khan

  #33  
Old May 30th 13, 07:43 PM posted to sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default A Big Bang conundrum

On 22/05/2013 1:46 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
dlzc;1246763 Wrote:
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....-
If the combined force of gravity of the independent
galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
solar system works and stays together because of the
gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
no problematic in the environment of recycling
universe.-

Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.

David A. Smith


“Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.”

Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in the
observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence,
providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies
eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact.
However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond
of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current
observing techniques.


Yet again, you're starting to make up your own terminology. First you
start off by calling the Earth and Moon, stars?!? And now it seems your
definition of a Recycling Universe is simply gases coalescing into stars
within the galaxies, over subsequent generations. Well, yes, the gases
inside a galaxy get recycled into new stars, but that's nothing like a
recyling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to Big
Crunch, and then back again, over and over again. The whole thing
expands and collapses under its own energy.

If you want to get taken seriously, you can't start making up your own
terminology at random. These terms have well-established meanings.

Yousuf Khan
  #34  
Old May 31st 13, 06:01 PM
JAAKKO KURHI JAAKKO KURHI is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousuf Khan[_2_] View Post
On 22/05/2013 1:46 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
dlzc;1246763 Wrote:
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Monday, May 20, 2013 8:07:51 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....-
If the combined force of gravity of the independent
galaxy system is so strong that it can influence the
behavior of the another galaxy system. Then, why the
milky-way is not collapsing by its [own] gravity. Our
solar system works and stays together because of the
gravity of the sun, and the kinetic energy of each
orbiting object is in balance. So, how can the
combined gravity of the milky-way change the course
of another speeding galaxy that is in the course of
moving away. Logically thinking, the colliding
galaxies are independent systems and just happens to
be moving in the colliding paths. Hence, the event is
no problematic in the environment of recycling
universe.-

Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.

David A. Smith


“Actually, such behavior kills recycling Universe, since said galaxies
proceed on forever, never getting turned all the way back.”

Quite a contrary, galaxies are make-up of billions of stars, and in the
observed Milky-Way, stars are self-destructing all the time. Hence,
providing recycling matter for the cooling process. Will galaxies
eventually cease functioning; I found no reference to this fact.
However, the science does not know the extent of the universe beyond
of the observable size, which seems to be limited to buy the current
observing techniques.


Yet again, you're starting to make up your own terminology. First you
start off by calling the Earth and Moon, stars?!? And now it seems your
definition of a Recycling Universe is simply gases coalescing into stars
within the galaxies, over subsequent generations. Well, yes, the gases
inside a galaxy get recycled into new stars, but that's nothing like a
recyling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to Big
Crunch, and then back again, over and over again. The whole thing
expands and collapses under its own energy.

If you want to get taken seriously, you can't start making up your own
terminology at random. These terms have well-established meanings.

Yousuf Khan
“recycling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to Big
Crunch, and then back again, over and over again.”

I have not referred the Earth and Moon as stars anywhere in this thread, so something is getting twisted.
In the case, my post; April 29th 13 did not make it clear, concerning my view of recycling universe; I try to clarify; its based on the concept where the universal matter is in the natural cooling cycle, from the hot events to the very absolute zero temperature state, where the mass of the matter only exists. This postulation is against the current scientific view, because of the application of laws of the thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and equation of E=mc squared. Conclude, that the matter cannot penetrate into the true 0K environment. My disagreement is based on the fact that none of the above components are applicable to explain the behavior of sub atomic particles at very lowest energy and temperature.
Read mo Space Science Misc / Recycling Universe.

Jaakko Kurhi
  #35  
Old May 31st 13, 09:47 PM posted to sci.astro
Dr J R Stockton[_193_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default A Big Bang conundrum

In sci.astro message , Thu, 30 May 2013
12:33:40, Yousuf Khan posted:

BTW, centrifugal force is not a real force, it's really the reactionary
force to the force of gravity. As Newton's Laws said, every action has
an equal and opposite reaction, centrifugal force is the reaction to
gravity.


No. For the action of the Earth pulling and accelerating the Moon, the
reaction is the Moon pulling and accelerating the Earth.

The "centrifugal" pseudo-force is what the Earth-facing Lunatic thinks
must be supporting the Earth against the gravity field that he feels
more strongly. The Lunatic, of course, does not perceive the monthly
rotation, except by seeing the Stars move across his sky and the Earth
spinning daily.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
  #36  
Old June 2nd 13, 03:15 PM posted to sci.astro
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,692
Default A Big Bang conundrum

On 31/05/2013 1:01 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
“recycling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to
Big
Crunch, and then back again, over and over again.”

I have not referred the Earth and Moon as stars anywhere in this thread,
so something is getting twisted.


Okay, you're right, that was David Levy in the thread "Star Age
Measurements". My apologies.

In the case, my post; April 29th 13 did not make it clear, concerning
my view of recycling universe; I try to clarify; its based on the
concept where the universal matter is in the natural cooling cycle, from
the hot events to the very absolute zero temperature state, where the
mass of the matter only exists. This postulation is against the current
scientific view, because of the application of laws of the
thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and equation of E=mc squared.
Conclude, that the matter cannot penetrate into the true 0K environment.
My disagreement is based on the fact that none of the above components
are applicable to explain the behavior of sub atomic particles at very
lowest energy and temperature.


The reason that absolute zero is not possible is because the Universe is
a closed system, and all of the heat that was ever created is still
located within the Universe, it cannot escape to the outside, as there
is no outside beyond the Universe. The only way that the Universe is
cooling down is because it is expanding. By the laws of thermodynamics,
expansion causes cooling, while compression causes heating up.

Subatomic particles at their lowest energy level still have movement.
This movement is due to the quantum uncertainty principle, which states
that you can't tell both a particle's speed and its position beyond a
certain level of accuracy because the particles exist as a cloud of
probabilities rather than a definite and discrete single particle. In
other words they are just moving because they can't exist in one place
for very long.

Yousuf Khan

  #37  
Old June 5th 13, 05:54 PM
JAAKKO KURHI JAAKKO KURHI is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yousuf Khan[_2_] View Post
On 31/05/2013 1:01 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
“recycling universe which means a universe that goes from Big Bang, to
Big
Crunch, and then back again, over and over again.”

I have not referred the Earth and Moon as stars anywhere in this thread,
so something is getting twisted.


Okay, you're right, that was David Levy in the thread "Star Age
Measurements". My apologies.

In the case, my post; April 29th 13 did not make it clear, concerning
my view of recycling universe; I try to clarify; its based on the
concept where the universal matter is in the natural cooling cycle, from
the hot events to the very absolute zero temperature state, where the
mass of the matter only exists. This postulation is against the current
scientific view, because of the application of laws of the
thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and equation of E=mc squared.
Conclude, that the matter cannot penetrate into the true 0K environment.
My disagreement is based on the fact that none of the above components
are applicable to explain the behavior of sub atomic particles at very
lowest energy and temperature.


The reason that absolute zero is not possible is because the Universe is
a closed system, and all of the heat that was ever created is still
located within the Universe, it cannot escape to the outside, as there
is no outside beyond the Universe. The only way that the Universe is
cooling down is because it is expanding. By the laws of thermodynamics,
expansion causes cooling, while compression causes heating up.

Subatomic particles at their lowest energy level still have movement.
This movement is due to the quantum uncertainty principle, which states
that you can't tell both a particle's speed and its position beyond a
certain level of accuracy because the particles exist as a cloud of
probabilities rather than a definite and discrete single particle. In
other words they are just moving because they can't exist in one place
for very long.

Yousuf Khan
“The reason that absolute zero is not possible is because the Universe is
a closed system, and all of the heat that was ever created is still
located within the Universe, it cannot escape to the outside, as there
is no outside beyond the Universe.”

The quest for the cooling of subatomic particle matter into the energy-less state is still an unresolved case. The motion within the subatomic particle system indicates the use of energy, and the output of the measurable heat further confirms the use of energy. Because of the energy used for work that generates heat is an expendable type, therefore, the source for energy stored within the system depletes and eventually runs out.
The space vacuum, nothingness or so called ‘place’ where the universe exists has no temperature, it’s the existing matter in that space that radiates heat. Hence, in the deep space, heat rays can be too far apart to keep the mass of the particle matter from cooling and reaching the absolute zero environment.

So, for the bottom line, analyzing, how the subatomic particle system functions, using uncertainty principle and its resulting probabilities, cannot conclude for absolute certainty, that reaching the motion-less absolute zero is impossible.

In case of the fast expanding BB. universe, where particles of matter are constantly growing further apart, resulting the reduced density of radiated heat. Hence, fewer of the heat rays are available to land on the isolated particles of matter, therefore, more of these cooling particles will slip to below the mean space temperature and further advance towards the motion-less state of the matter.

So, in the inflating BB. Model, ‘if you will’, the cooling process accelerates as the inflation continues. Hence, eventually the matter will convert to mass only existence, and to potential ingredients for the recycling BB. events. However, it’s problematic to think of operations of the fast inflating universe which makeup is less than 10% of the matter, and the balance is the dark matter.

Afterthought; perhaps a simple and naturally functioning recycling universe, which is less problematic and more logical solution. After all, isn’t the quantum mechanics designed as a numerical replacement for the logical thinking?

Jaakko Kurhi
  #38  
Old June 15th 13, 04:32 AM
JAAKKO KURHI JAAKKO KURHI is offline
Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Apr 2013
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAAKKO KURHI View Post
I think your analyses are a bit hasty, if you read it again and more thoughtfully the outcome may be different.
JK
During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky
Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from
the location of the young and small universe.

“No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are two very different things.”

So, how can a slow-moving Milky Way be as an observer of the 13 billion years-old light, if both the light rays and the Milky Way originates from the same small entity? , The moving speed of the Milky Way is not fast enough to place it to the right position for observing that old light.
Dear David, because of your communicating format is not very informative, perhaps a related link to this subject, that explains, how a fast inflating universe can be observed from the point of view of the slow-moving Milky Way, should be truly helpful.

Jaakko Kurhi
 




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
Dark Matter Conundrum Ben[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 12 October 30th 11 05:25 AM
The Elephant in the Room - is the Big Conundrum... don findlay Astronomy Misc 0 September 17th 08 03:43 AM
accelerating universe conundrum, help me find my logic flaw please chas Misc 26 June 18th 08 04:53 PM
Article - SETI ... and the Aliens Conundrum - Part I Jason H. SETI 11 August 3rd 06 12:23 AM
Oh, the conundrum Eric Martin Amateur Astronomy 16 December 10th 03 03:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:25 PM.


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.