Hello All
Is there an origin.
Or
Is that, just man's way of thinking that there is an origin.
We have many theories as to the origin and there are varies theories telling us there is no Origin and that the universe is infinite.
With all the modern scientists and astronomers and cosmologists and the many telsecopes on earth and outer sapce, you would think that a common thought as to the origin of the universe would develope.
Long time ago I was brain washed into the Big Bang and there was no way people could talk me out of it. They presented the Big Bang in such a way that I believed every part, because it was so logical and supported widely and became the standard model.
I'm not here trying to talk you out of the Big Bang, just advising people to look at modern observations and papers that expalin the universe.
In my opinion, the universe is ongoing and recycles, that is the parts within the universe and not the universe itself.
Some parts are expanding and others are contracting, forming clusters of stars, clusters of galaxies, clusters of clusters forming super cluster of galaxies.
What about the so called expansion of the universe. They say it expands in time and space but! not the actual expansion in actual distance.
What are your thoughts?
Hello All
I came across this link as to the origin of our solar system
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
I came across this link as to the origin of our solar system
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
There is great evidence for the big bang, but even the big bang theory doesn't actually explain the universe's origins.
So we poke and peek, guess and test until something is consistent with everything else we know. One issue here, however, is that these questions exists at the limits of our technological and political-economic means to test theories. So likely, you aren't going to get an answer anytime soon, if at all in your lifetime.
Personally, i'm thinking the universe is a finite bit on an infinite background. That's out of my arse, so i don't plan on backing that pablum up.
So we poke and peek, guess and test until something is consistent with everything else we know. One issue here, however, is that these questions exists at the limits of our technological and political-economic means to test theories. So likely, you aren't going to get an answer anytime soon, if at all in your lifetime.
Personally, i'm thinking the universe is a finite bit on an infinite background. That's out of my arse, so i don't plan on backing that pablum up.
QUOTE (Pan+Sep 29 2006, 10:37 PM)
Personally, i'm thinking the universe is a finite bit on an infinite background. That's out of my arse, so i don't plan on backing that pablum up.
Out of your arse and childrens mouths......sounds about right to me
Hello All
We know the position of Uranus.
But! it does not stop us from discussing the issues.
Because I'm right and everybody else is wrong.
When everybody else is right than I'm wrong.
So! we have an infinite universe, with its internal parts, doing what they know best.
Forming stars
Forming galaxies
colliding together.
Forming clusters of galaxies
In a never ending story of reycling.
The deeper we see into space the more we find and sometimes we discover new objects that test our abilty and knowledge.
Man always wants to know where and when did it all start.
There was never a start and there will never be and end.
Its always been here in one form or another matter if that matters.
We know the position of Uranus.
But! it does not stop us from discussing the issues.
Because I'm right and everybody else is wrong.
When everybody else is right than I'm wrong.
So! we have an infinite universe, with its internal parts, doing what they know best.
Forming stars
Forming galaxies
colliding together.
Forming clusters of galaxies
In a never ending story of reycling.
The deeper we see into space the more we find and sometimes we discover new objects that test our abilty and knowledge.
Man always wants to know where and when did it all start.
There was never a start and there will never be and end.
Its always been here in one form or another matter if that matters.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Oct 2 2006, 01:15 AM)
Hello All
We know the position of Uranus.
But! it does not stop us from discussing the issues.
Because I'm right and everybody else is wrong.
When everybody else is right than I'm wrong.
So! we have an infinite universe, with its internal parts, doing what they know best.
Forming stars
Forming galaxies
colliding together.
Forming clusters of galaxies
In a never ending story of reycling.
The deeper we see into space the more we find and sometimes we discover new objects that test our abilty and knowledge.
Man always wants to know where and when did it all start.
There was never a start and there will never be and end.
Its always been here in one form or another matter if that matters.
Hi Harry,
I'll return the courtesy from the infinity thread.
I think you are quite right to ask whether it even matters. We should not be here arguing with each other, but simply enjoying the view!
You know my outlook. Infinite Space, with pockets of 'finite space', of which we are a tiny part, and we call 'universe(s)'. This is scietifically backed up by the WSM theory, but the 'science' doesn't particularly interest me. It is just further physical proof of what we all already know. I already find such proof, in a stroll through the forest.
This is actually great news, or it would be, if it were not for the fact that Humans are also so very close to destroying, unconsciously, the great beauty that is the ability of this Universe to use its evolved consciousness to contemplate its own 'mysteries'; the ability of this Universe to use its evolved consciousness to share its love with other parts of itself; the ability of this Universe to use its evolved consciousness to look back through its spacial self, to a time many billions of years previously when it created such beauty that we can still observe, and appreciate, today.
This is incredible, when you seriously think about it! - And that is what we should be doing, instead of arguing about trivia.
The only good reason to discuss it at all, is to stop ourselves unconsciously destroying such beauty, or even to be able to show ourselves that it IS beauty, at all. When you know that you are part of this Infinite Spacial Beauty, it becomes worth all the effort it took to reach this 'knowing', and worth all the effort to bring this consciousness to others, so that they stop destroying it, and start enjoying it, and encourage their children to consciously enjoy, and not unconsciously destroy...
So, there it is. Reason, purpose and motivation.
k.
We know the position of Uranus.
But! it does not stop us from discussing the issues.
Because I'm right and everybody else is wrong.
When everybody else is right than I'm wrong.
So! we have an infinite universe, with its internal parts, doing what they know best.
Forming stars
Forming galaxies
colliding together.
Forming clusters of galaxies
In a never ending story of reycling.
The deeper we see into space the more we find and sometimes we discover new objects that test our abilty and knowledge.
Man always wants to know where and when did it all start.
There was never a start and there will never be and end.
Its always been here in one form or another matter if that matters.
Hi Harry,
I'll return the courtesy from the infinity thread.
I think you are quite right to ask whether it even matters. We should not be here arguing with each other, but simply enjoying the view!
You know my outlook. Infinite Space, with pockets of 'finite space', of which we are a tiny part, and we call 'universe(s)'. This is scietifically backed up by the WSM theory, but the 'science' doesn't particularly interest me. It is just further physical proof of what we all already know. I already find such proof, in a stroll through the forest.
This is actually great news, or it would be, if it were not for the fact that Humans are also so very close to destroying, unconsciously, the great beauty that is the ability of this Universe to use its evolved consciousness to contemplate its own 'mysteries'; the ability of this Universe to use its evolved consciousness to share its love with other parts of itself; the ability of this Universe to use its evolved consciousness to look back through its spacial self, to a time many billions of years previously when it created such beauty that we can still observe, and appreciate, today.
This is incredible, when you seriously think about it! - And that is what we should be doing, instead of arguing about trivia.
The only good reason to discuss it at all, is to stop ourselves unconsciously destroying such beauty, or even to be able to show ourselves that it IS beauty, at all. When you know that you are part of this Infinite Spacial Beauty, it becomes worth all the effort it took to reach this 'knowing', and worth all the effort to bring this consciousness to others, so that they stop destroying it, and start enjoying it, and encourage their children to consciously enjoy, and not unconsciously destroy...
So, there it is. Reason, purpose and motivation.
k.
Hello All
Hello Mr Knot
Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,I think we should blow the earth up.
Than we shall know its value.
Somebody asked me what theories are discussed as per the origin of the universe.
M- theory
String theory
Big Bang
Steady state
Plasma
Static
Wave theory
Creation
Recycle Theory
and my theory under construction.
am!!! did I forget any
Hello Mr Knot
Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,I think we should blow the earth up.
Than we shall know its value.
Somebody asked me what theories are discussed as per the origin of the universe.
M- theory
String theory
Big Bang
Steady state
Plasma
Static
Wave theory
Creation
Recycle Theory
and my theory under construction.
am!!! did I forget any
Hello All
Found this link
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960109.html
This question of,,,,,,,,,,,,,Is the universe expanding? is so critical to the theory of the Big Bang.
Even so, the Big Bang says that, time/space is expanding but! not the actual distance.
Work that one out.
Found this link
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960109.html
QUOTE
Many believe that the Hubble Space Telescope's recent distance measurement to this galaxy accurately calibrates the expansion rate of the universe. Others believe this distance measurement is misleading. The universe's expansion rate is usually given as a quantity called "Hubble's constant", a factor dividing well-measured recession velocity of a galaxy to give actual distance. Scientific debate over the value of Hubble's constant has been ongoing since it was first measured by Edwin Hubble in 1929
This question of,,,,,,,,,,,,,Is the universe expanding? is so critical to the theory of the Big Bang.
Even so, the Big Bang says that, time/space is expanding but! not the actual distance.
Work that one out.
It is difficult if not impossible to conceive of an endlessness to space or whatever name one wishes to use. Infinity, infinite- are words which have meaning, however they are also words which we cannot really relate to since all that is known to us has a beginning an an end. Our own lives are but a fraction of the time in history. Our own lives are also a very very small fraction of time,(permission requested to use the term 'time', that science has revealed concerning the existance of humans on the planet earth. Isn't it true that if we pinch our thumb and index finger together tightly, that space still doesn't give us a reasonable concept of our 'time' in existance. More to come. Responses most welcome. Speculation also most welcome.
you know you're onto something when uncle sam intervenes
Hello US
Man,,,,,,,,,,,what is your point.
Man,,,,,,,,,,,what is your point.
Hello All
I have been asked to focus on the Origins of the universe.
Lets look at the Steady state. What I believe in and what is truth are two different things. So with that in mind keep your mind open.
RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE
The Steady State Galaxy Theory
An Alternative To
The Big Bang Theory
http://www.galaxytheory.com/#INT
Shape of Galaxies
The Concept of the Steady State Galaxy as put forth above can account for the shape of all galaxies we see in the universe. As explained above, the spiral is the basic shape of galaxies. The exact shape will be determined by the size of the neutroid, the tilt of its magnetic axis with respect to its axis of rotation and its rate of rotation
Modern Cosmologists claim that the expansion of the universe under the Big Bang Theory is due to the expansion of "space" and it is the expanding "space" which is causing the stretching of photons (i.e. red shift). Again it sounds like the use of the word "space" here is just another name for aether. Cosmologists seem to believe that the material they call "space" has some rather magical properties. They claim that as it expands, it increases the distance between galaxies, that it stretches photons, but it does not cause the size of anything within galaxies to expand. If space were expanding. everything would expand including our measuring sticks, thus making such expansion impossible to detect
MicroWave Background Radiation
A second argument which has been made to support the Big Bang Theory is the microwave background radiation. COBE has shown that the spectrum of the Microwave Background Radiation (MBR) is that of an ideal Black Body Radiator having a temperature of about 2.8 degrees K. It has also shown that this radiation has a Redshift/Blueshift to it, indicating that the earth is moving about 600Km/s relative to the shell of matter that emitted the radiation. Since this speed is too great for the earth's movement within the milky-way galaxy, it indicates that the source is outside our galaxy and that our galaxy is moving in relation to that source.
As indicated in the previous section dealing with redshift, the starlight photons radiated by galaxies gradually lose energy to the aether which then reradiates this energy as the Microwave Background Radiation. The wavelength of the photons of the MBR, at the peak of the spectrum radiation curve, will be about 1mm. Since the rate of loss of energy by photons will be inversely proportional to the wavelength of those photons, and since the MBR photons have a wavelength of more than a thousand times that of visible light, the percentage loss of energy by the MBR photons will be at a rate of over one thousand times less than that of a visible photon. (If it takes a visible photon 15 billion years to lose 3/4's of it's energy, then it would take a MBR photon 15,000 billion years to lose 3/4's of it's energy). It follows that since MBR photons have a range of travel of more than one thousand times that of visible light photons, they are also a thousand times more likely to encounter a galaxy and be absorbed by the matter of that galaxy then a visible light photon would.
Hydrogen-Helium
A fourth arguement which has been used to support the Big Bang theory is that it would account for the abundance of helium we find in the universe. The amount of helium present (24%) cannot be accounted for by star production and according to Gamow it was generated by the Big Bang.
Under the Steady State Galaxy theory, the nuclear fusion process which is expelling the material from the neutroid would generate large amounts of helium as well as other light elements and is the source of the excess helium found in the universe
The Steady State Galaxy Theory as put forth above can provide the basis for the operation of the Universe as it is seen to exist. It can not only account for the shape of all galaxies we see in the universe which is something no other theory as proposed so far can accomplish but it can also explain the existence of quasars.
Is it right or is wrong.
The information is out there, use the observation, test the theory and study it.
In the past people were caught in a wave of facts and figures and entrusted others to tell them the truth.
Recently two scientists were givem Nobel prize for fininding evidence that proves the Big Bang. The question is do we except this and if we do, do we entrust these people in leading us maybe up the garden parth.
How can we even question the evidence when the world has accepted the evidence.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsg...ize_mather.html
You want the truth, look for it, and never, never, ever take a persons word for it.
Many Nobel prize winners have proven to be wrong in later years.
In the next post I will give a point of view on The Big Bang
I have been asked to focus on the Origins of the universe.
Lets look at the Steady state. What I believe in and what is truth are two different things. So with that in mind keep your mind open.
RUFUS'S GALAXY WEB PAGE
The Steady State Galaxy Theory
An Alternative To
The Big Bang Theory
http://www.galaxytheory.com/#INT
QUOTE
Basic Operation of Galaxies
At the center of each galaxy is a neutroid which acts to constantly recycle all the matter and energy in the galaxy. This neutroid is similar to a neutron star but is very much larger and has reached a size where the pressure and temperature at its surface are great enough to generate a nuclear fusion process. In the areas of the neutroid's magnetic poles, the products of fusion are trapped by the magnetic field and are pushed out along the magnetic field by the pressure of the nuclear fusion process going on below. This results in a column of material composed of hydrogen, helium and other light elements being ejected at each of the neutroid's two magnetic poles. This material moves out from the neutroid at essentially constant velocity until it reaches a point where the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to control it. Once free of the magnetic field the material then continues under it's own momentum to travel to the outer edge of the galaxy before starting to fall back toward the neutroid.
At the center of each galaxy is a neutroid which acts to constantly recycle all the matter and energy in the galaxy. This neutroid is similar to a neutron star but is very much larger and has reached a size where the pressure and temperature at its surface are great enough to generate a nuclear fusion process. In the areas of the neutroid's magnetic poles, the products of fusion are trapped by the magnetic field and are pushed out along the magnetic field by the pressure of the nuclear fusion process going on below. This results in a column of material composed of hydrogen, helium and other light elements being ejected at each of the neutroid's two magnetic poles. This material moves out from the neutroid at essentially constant velocity until it reaches a point where the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to control it. Once free of the magnetic field the material then continues under it's own momentum to travel to the outer edge of the galaxy before starting to fall back toward the neutroid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Basic Operation of Galaxies At the center of each galaxy is a neutroid which acts to constantly recycle all the matter and energy in the galaxy. This neutroid is similar to a neutron star but is very much larger and has reached a size where the pressure and temperature at its surface are great enough to generate a nuclear fusion process. In the areas of the neutroid's magnetic poles, the products of fusion are trapped by the magnetic field and are pushed out along the magnetic field by the pressure of the nuclear fusion process going on below. This results in a column of material composed of hydrogen, helium and other light elements being ejected at each of the neutroid's two magnetic poles. This material moves out from the neutroid at essentially constant velocity until it reaches a point where the magnetic field is no longer strong enough to control it. Once free of the magnetic field the material then continues under it's own momentum to travel to the outer edge of the galaxy before starting to fall back toward the neutroid. |
Shape of Galaxies
The Concept of the Steady State Galaxy as put forth above can account for the shape of all galaxies we see in the universe. As explained above, the spiral is the basic shape of galaxies. The exact shape will be determined by the size of the neutroid, the tilt of its magnetic axis with respect to its axis of rotation and its rate of rotation
QUOTE
Red Shift
In reality the universe we live in is not expanding and is in a steady state where its matter and energy are being constantly recycled. The so called Red Shift is caused by other factors. We know from a branch of Physics known as Quantum Mechanics that the Energy of a photon of light is defined by the equation E=hv where E is the energy of the photon, h is plancks' constant and v is its frequency. If for any reason energy is lost from a photon, its frequency will decrease in accordance with this equation.
In reality the universe we live in is not expanding and is in a steady state where its matter and energy are being constantly recycled. The so called Red Shift is caused by other factors. We know from a branch of Physics known as Quantum Mechanics that the Energy of a photon of light is defined by the equation E=hv where E is the energy of the photon, h is plancks' constant and v is its frequency. If for any reason energy is lost from a photon, its frequency will decrease in accordance with this equation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Red Shift In reality the universe we live in is not expanding and is in a steady state where its matter and energy are being constantly recycled. The so called Red Shift is caused by other factors. We know from a branch of Physics known as Quantum Mechanics that the Energy of a photon of light is defined by the equation E=hv where E is the energy of the photon, h is plancks' constant and v is its frequency. If for any reason energy is lost from a photon, its frequency will decrease in accordance with this equation. |
Modern Cosmologists claim that the expansion of the universe under the Big Bang Theory is due to the expansion of "space" and it is the expanding "space" which is causing the stretching of photons (i.e. red shift). Again it sounds like the use of the word "space" here is just another name for aether. Cosmologists seem to believe that the material they call "space" has some rather magical properties. They claim that as it expands, it increases the distance between galaxies, that it stretches photons, but it does not cause the size of anything within galaxies to expand. If space were expanding. everything would expand including our measuring sticks, thus making such expansion impossible to detect
QUOTE
Cosmologists argue that the redshift cannot be caused by loss of energy of the light wave (tired light theory) to stray hydrogen atoms which permeate interstellar space through the Compton effect, because, if they did, the images from distant galaxies would be blurred. This blurring effect is not seen. However, if light waves were losing energy to the medium through which they travel, the distant
images would not be blurred
images would not be blurred
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cosmologists argue that the redshift cannot be caused by loss of energy of the light wave (tired light theory) to stray hydrogen atoms which permeate interstellar space through the Compton effect, because, if they did, the images from distant galaxies would be blurred. This blurring effect is not seen. However, if light waves were losing energy to the medium through which they travel, the distant images would not be blurred |
MicroWave Background Radiation
A second argument which has been made to support the Big Bang Theory is the microwave background radiation. COBE has shown that the spectrum of the Microwave Background Radiation (MBR) is that of an ideal Black Body Radiator having a temperature of about 2.8 degrees K. It has also shown that this radiation has a Redshift/Blueshift to it, indicating that the earth is moving about 600Km/s relative to the shell of matter that emitted the radiation. Since this speed is too great for the earth's movement within the milky-way galaxy, it indicates that the source is outside our galaxy and that our galaxy is moving in relation to that source.
As indicated in the previous section dealing with redshift, the starlight photons radiated by galaxies gradually lose energy to the aether which then reradiates this energy as the Microwave Background Radiation. The wavelength of the photons of the MBR, at the peak of the spectrum radiation curve, will be about 1mm. Since the rate of loss of energy by photons will be inversely proportional to the wavelength of those photons, and since the MBR photons have a wavelength of more than a thousand times that of visible light, the percentage loss of energy by the MBR photons will be at a rate of over one thousand times less than that of a visible photon. (If it takes a visible photon 15 billion years to lose 3/4's of it's energy, then it would take a MBR photon 15,000 billion years to lose 3/4's of it's energy). It follows that since MBR photons have a range of travel of more than one thousand times that of visible light photons, they are also a thousand times more likely to encounter a galaxy and be absorbed by the matter of that galaxy then a visible light photon would.
QUOTE
Entropy
A third argument that has been put forward in support of the Big Bang Theory is entropy, in that, it is argued that the universe must eventually run down into a state of thermal equilibrium. Energy exists in various forms such as atomic binding energies, thermal energy, potential and kinetic energy, etc., all of which are associated with matter, or it exists in photons which have been radiated by matter and will eventually be reabsorbed by matter. Under the Steady State Galaxy Theory as put forth above, since all matter in a Galaxy is recycled through the Neutroid on a regular basis, all energy contained by that matter is also recycled at the same time and, thus, the universe does not run down into a state of thermal equilibrium.
A third argument that has been put forward in support of the Big Bang Theory is entropy, in that, it is argued that the universe must eventually run down into a state of thermal equilibrium. Energy exists in various forms such as atomic binding energies, thermal energy, potential and kinetic energy, etc., all of which are associated with matter, or it exists in photons which have been radiated by matter and will eventually be reabsorbed by matter. Under the Steady State Galaxy Theory as put forth above, since all matter in a Galaxy is recycled through the Neutroid on a regular basis, all energy contained by that matter is also recycled at the same time and, thus, the universe does not run down into a state of thermal equilibrium.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Entropy A third argument that has been put forward in support of the Big Bang Theory is entropy, in that, it is argued that the universe must eventually run down into a state of thermal equilibrium. Energy exists in various forms such as atomic binding energies, thermal energy, potential and kinetic energy, etc., all of which are associated with matter, or it exists in photons which have been radiated by matter and will eventually be reabsorbed by matter. Under the Steady State Galaxy Theory as put forth above, since all matter in a Galaxy is recycled through the Neutroid on a regular basis, all energy contained by that matter is also recycled at the same time and, thus, the universe does not run down into a state of thermal equilibrium. |
Hydrogen-Helium
A fourth arguement which has been used to support the Big Bang theory is that it would account for the abundance of helium we find in the universe. The amount of helium present (24%) cannot be accounted for by star production and according to Gamow it was generated by the Big Bang.
Under the Steady State Galaxy theory, the nuclear fusion process which is expelling the material from the neutroid would generate large amounts of helium as well as other light elements and is the source of the excess helium found in the universe
QUOTE
Quasars
The latest Hubble pictures of quasars show that they are associated with galaxies and in most cases there is evidence that these galaxies have recently collided with other galaxies.
In normal galaxies, the neutroid at their center is obscured by a halo of material trapped in the neutroid's magnetic field. In the case of quasars, this halo of material has been temporarily destroyed by the collision with another galaxy and we are seeing the bare neutroid which is, as expected, extremely energetic
The latest Hubble pictures of quasars show that they are associated with galaxies and in most cases there is evidence that these galaxies have recently collided with other galaxies.
In normal galaxies, the neutroid at their center is obscured by a halo of material trapped in the neutroid's magnetic field. In the case of quasars, this halo of material has been temporarily destroyed by the collision with another galaxy and we are seeing the bare neutroid which is, as expected, extremely energetic
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quasars The latest Hubble pictures of quasars show that they are associated with galaxies and in most cases there is evidence that these galaxies have recently collided with other galaxies. In normal galaxies, the neutroid at their center is obscured by a halo of material trapped in the neutroid's magnetic field. In the case of quasars, this halo of material has been temporarily destroyed by the collision with another galaxy and we are seeing the bare neutroid which is, as expected, extremely energetic |
The Steady State Galaxy Theory as put forth above can provide the basis for the operation of the Universe as it is seen to exist. It can not only account for the shape of all galaxies we see in the universe which is something no other theory as proposed so far can accomplish but it can also explain the existence of quasars.
Is it right or is wrong.
The information is out there, use the observation, test the theory and study it.
In the past people were caught in a wave of facts and figures and entrusted others to tell them the truth.
Recently two scientists were givem Nobel prize for fininding evidence that proves the Big Bang. The question is do we except this and if we do, do we entrust these people in leading us maybe up the garden parth.
How can we even question the evidence when the world has accepted the evidence.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsg...ize_mather.html
You want the truth, look for it, and never, never, ever take a persons word for it.
Many Nobel prize winners have proven to be wrong in later years.
In the next post I will give a point of view on The Big Bang
At the centre of each galaxy is a super-massive black hole. In a spiral galaxy it looks as though the rest of the galaxy built around it. Rather than the idiot and unlikely dark matter which just happens to coincide with light matter though it is said to outnumber it 400 to 1, it is more likely that we have the theory of gravity wrong on a galactic or bigger scale.
I have come back to the steady state theory as the big bang has had to rely on ever more unlikely fudges to hold it together.
I have come back to the steady state theory as the big bang has had to rely on ever more unlikely fudges to hold it together.
Guest Sam. Space does not have to be infinite. If there is literally nothing outside the Universe, then the Universe is it. Space is very finite.
Harry Costas. According to the BB idea, there was first faster than light 10^20c)inflation which suddenly slowed down to below light speed inflation, which then several billion years ago suddenly started to expand faster. The edge of what we can see now is expanding at almost light speed (ie: the further something is away, the faster it expands), but that is from over 13 billion years ago so has it reached an ultimate speed or another ten billion light years further away, is material expanmding at multiples of light speed?
Another point. Space is actually said to be stretching. This means from about a point source, magnitudes smaller than an electron, space has stretched to tens of billions of light years. This without any effect on the nuclear forces, the speed of light, the force of gravity, etc.
Another point. Space is actually said to be stretching. This means from about a point source, magnitudes smaller than an electron, space has stretched to tens of billions of light years. This without any effect on the nuclear forces, the speed of light, the force of gravity, etc.
Hello Kaneda
Investigate more on the BBT and other models.
Look at the evidence supporting each one. Look at the observations and so on, and so on.
Too many people assume that the BBT is fact and than proceed to deduce observations.
Think about it for a sec.
Do you really think matter can travel at 10^20 C.
Do you really think that the galaxies are moving away from each other.
Do you really think that the universe is 13.7 Gyrs .
Do you know how big some super clusters of galaxies are. In order for one of these super cluster to die would take 10 ^ 70 yrs. How long do you think it took to form such a monster.
Investigate more on the BBT and other models.
Look at the evidence supporting each one. Look at the observations and so on, and so on.
Too many people assume that the BBT is fact and than proceed to deduce observations.
Think about it for a sec.
Do you really think matter can travel at 10^20 C.
Do you really think that the galaxies are moving away from each other.
Do you really think that the universe is 13.7 Gyrs .
Do you know how big some super clusters of galaxies are. In order for one of these super cluster to die would take 10 ^ 70 yrs. How long do you think it took to form such a monster.
Harry Costas. I agree with you. It does seem to me that branes merely put the origin back one step. It also requires a multiverse for total conservation of matter and energy. The BB doesn't explain why spacetime inflated then expanded, then accelerated.
Our problem is that basically we just have a snapshot of the Universe (decades) to work with and nothing is moving on a cosmic scale and it all happened billions of years ago. You see a little blob in a photo and are told that that is proof of dark matter, which has all the attributes of fairy dust. It is annoying that many people are so closed minded that the BB is it and nothing else is even considered.
Our problem is that basically we just have a snapshot of the Universe (decades) to work with and nothing is moving on a cosmic scale and it all happened billions of years ago. You see a little blob in a photo and are told that that is proof of dark matter, which has all the attributes of fairy dust. It is annoying that many people are so closed minded that the BB is it and nothing else is even considered.
Hello Kaneda
In oder for you to bang the BBT, you need to know more about it.
Hello All
Some links on the Big Bang. Because I post these links, it does not mean I agree with them. I have listed them because many people talk about the Big Bang without knowing that there was never a Big Bang, just many bangs everywhere at the same time.
Models of Earlier Events
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../planck.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../bbcloc.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../expand.html#c3
Big Bang Time Line
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...n.html#c1"
Physical Keys to Cosmology
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...o/cosmo.html#c1
Red Shift
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../redshf.html#c1
Expanding Universe
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../hubble.html#c0
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
Inflationary Period in Big Bang
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../inflat.html#c1
Cosmology: The Study of the Universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth...h_contents.html
Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
I know there are better links, but! these are the ones close at hand.
What's my theory? Well it does not belong to me.
The universe is endless and recyclic. How it does this is another issue. We are at the door steps of looking and going where no man has gone before in a galaxy far far away.
So! if you can hold your horses until the cows come home we will in the near future have better observations to DRAW conclusions from.
In oder for you to bang the BBT, you need to know more about it.
Hello All
Some links on the Big Bang. Because I post these links, it does not mean I agree with them. I have listed them because many people talk about the Big Bang without knowing that there was never a Big Bang, just many bangs everywhere at the same time.
Models of Earlier Events
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../planck.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../bbcloc.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../expand.html#c3
Big Bang Time Line
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...n.html#c1"
Physical Keys to Cosmology
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...o/cosmo.html#c1
Red Shift
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../redshf.html#c1
Expanding Universe
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../hubble.html#c0
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
Inflationary Period in Big Bang
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../inflat.html#c1
Cosmology: The Study of the Universe
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WAS COSMIC INFLATION THE 'BANG' OF THE BIG BANG?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth...h_contents.html
Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html
QUOTE
Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.
As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:
Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.
One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe.
The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.
As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:
Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.
Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance.
Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.
Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.
One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe.
I know there are better links, but! these are the ones close at hand.
What's my theory? Well it does not belong to me.
The universe is endless and recyclic. How it does this is another issue. We are at the door steps of looking and going where no man has gone before in a galaxy far far away.
So! if you can hold your horses until the cows come home we will in the near future have better observations to DRAW conclusions from.
Harry Costas. I know enough about the BBT to know why it is almost certainly wrong. Like christians, BB-ers insist on a single interpretation of all evidence so it supports their theory. Any problems are overcome by yet another unlikely fudge.
Hello Kaneta
Now that the BB is out of the way.
Lets talk about formation of stars and their stages of development (evolution).
or
evolution of galaxies
or what ever comes to mind.
Now that the BB is out of the way.
Lets talk about formation of stars and their stages of development (evolution).
or
evolution of galaxies
or what ever comes to mind.
Stars we are told form from hydrogen clouds. Or some do. Our sun and planets formed from the remnants of a super-nova. BUT planets seem to be common and I have trouble believing so many super-novae to form so many planets.
Galaxies seem to form around a black hole, gradually accreting material over time I would think. However this would lead to a very old Universe. I suppose it could be said that galaxies formed from the material of the big bang but that does not explain the black holes at the centre. Since dark matter allegedly does not clump in any way, it could in no way play a part in the creation of black holes. Neither could the alleged dark energy which is a repulsive force.
Why should galaxies or even stars form if hydrogen, helium, etc was general throughout the Universe? It would need "seeds" of some kind around which they could form. The big bang would need currents and eddys of some kind instead of the uniform expansion claimed.
Galaxies seem to form around a black hole, gradually accreting material over time I would think. However this would lead to a very old Universe. I suppose it could be said that galaxies formed from the material of the big bang but that does not explain the black holes at the centre. Since dark matter allegedly does not clump in any way, it could in no way play a part in the creation of black holes. Neither could the alleged dark energy which is a repulsive force.
Why should galaxies or even stars form if hydrogen, helium, etc was general throughout the Universe? It would need "seeds" of some kind around which they could form. The big bang would need currents and eddys of some kind instead of the uniform expansion claimed.
Hello Kaneda
The more I learn the less I know.
Rather than discussing the BBT.
Look at starformation first.
Different types of supernova
Different types of nova
Varies types of stars.
Its like a giant puzzle. Work out the parts and than put them together.
You will discover issues never seen before, and you will start to think in a different light.
Discussing these is OK, but you will need to research the info.
If I can be of any help. Just ask. Just as long as I can do so.
============================================
Black Holes.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml
The more I learn the less I know.
Rather than discussing the BBT.
Look at starformation first.
Different types of supernova
Different types of nova
Varies types of stars.
Its like a giant puzzle. Work out the parts and than put them together.
You will discover issues never seen before, and you will start to think in a different light.
Discussing these is OK, but you will need to research the info.
If I can be of any help. Just ask. Just as long as I can do so.
============================================
Black Holes.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml
Harry Costas. Just about all that we know about black holes is theory. Certainly we can not know what goes on inside black holes. Feel free to comment on what I say rather than just continually referring me to other sources which support your beliefs.
Hello Kaneda
Sorry if I seem to be directing you to info.
But the more you learn the less you know.
You are right we do not know much about Black holes.
But! there is info out there that you can work the info.
Sorry if I seem to be directing you to info.
But the more you learn the less you know.
You are right we do not know much about Black holes.
But! there is info out there that you can work the info.
Harry Costas. Obviously but I thought you wanted some dialogue.
What's your opinion on old light?
What's your opinion on old light?
Hello Kaneda
Read the following link
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
I hope this answers your quetsion on Old light
Read the following link
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
QUOTE
2.3 Characteristics of the Energy Loss Equation.
It is interesting to note that in equation 12, the relative energy loss is independent of the frequency n of the incoming radiation in the case stated (blackbody radiation). Therefore, the whole spectrum will undergo a constant relative displacement in energy toward lower frequencies. This displacement of the spectrum is exactly similar to the redshift produced when a source of radiation recedes from the observer. (Doppler effect). For example, the fractional redshift (5) for astronomical objects can be described by:
13
where n is the radial component of the receding velocity of the light source.
Since the relative energy loss is independent of n in both cases, the new redshift described by equation 12 is undistinguishable from the Doppler redshift described by equation 13 in the energy range studied.
As a consequence, all absorption lines in such a spectrum will also be redshifted according to Z (eq. 13), the fractional redshift constant, as long as conditions described above are respected (away from resonant frequencies). On the other hand, if narrow emission lines, which necessarily have much longer time of coherence (see Appendix A), are superimposed on the spectrum, the resulting redshift for such lines would be very small [according to equation 12] for a constant cross section. However, if the emitted light appears at the same frequency as the resonant absorption line of the interacting gas, the cross section becomes very much larger. This problem related to emission lines (instead of absorption lines) is much more complicated, requires a different treatment and is outside the scope of this paper. It may at least be perceived that the redshift is emission should, in general, be different from that in absorption, and also be influenced by the energy of the quantum states that characterize the absorption medium.
One must then conclude that a slight redshift is produced, due to hydrogen in the space crossed by electromagnetic radiation, according to equation 12. This redshift appears undistinguishable from the ordinary Doppler redshift. The energy loss of the initial radiation appears separately as very low frequency radio waves
. It is interesting to note that in equation 12, the relative energy loss is independent of the frequency n of the incoming radiation in the case stated (blackbody radiation). Therefore, the whole spectrum will undergo a constant relative displacement in energy toward lower frequencies. This displacement of the spectrum is exactly similar to the redshift produced when a source of radiation recedes from the observer. (Doppler effect). For example, the fractional redshift (5) for astronomical objects can be described by:
13
where n is the radial component of the receding velocity of the light source.
Since the relative energy loss is independent of n in both cases, the new redshift described by equation 12 is undistinguishable from the Doppler redshift described by equation 13 in the energy range studied.
As a consequence, all absorption lines in such a spectrum will also be redshifted according to Z (eq. 13), the fractional redshift constant, as long as conditions described above are respected (away from resonant frequencies). On the other hand, if narrow emission lines, which necessarily have much longer time of coherence (see Appendix A), are superimposed on the spectrum, the resulting redshift for such lines would be very small [according to equation 12] for a constant cross section. However, if the emitted light appears at the same frequency as the resonant absorption line of the interacting gas, the cross section becomes very much larger. This problem related to emission lines (instead of absorption lines) is much more complicated, requires a different treatment and is outside the scope of this paper. It may at least be perceived that the redshift is emission should, in general, be different from that in absorption, and also be influenced by the energy of the quantum states that characterize the absorption medium.
One must then conclude that a slight redshift is produced, due to hydrogen in the space crossed by electromagnetic radiation, according to equation 12. This redshift appears undistinguishable from the ordinary Doppler redshift. The energy loss of the initial radiation appears separately as very low frequency radio waves
I hope this answers your quetsion on Old light
Universe was born out of parent universe where it was preformed (similar to Jupiter storm eye) until it was unable to keep adding mass and agree with conservation of momentum law within parent organism at the same time. As it had to add mass to keep developing, it had to bifurcate outside parent universe.
At this moment , bifurcation which placed universe from inside of parent universe to outside ( similar to eddies in a flow which start to form inside the stream, then swap to the outside, or any other tunneling type effect ) happened.
This bifurcation is called BIG BANG. but is was not a bang, and there was never density of matter as high as model predicts. Nor was its size anywhere as small as Planck scale. Planck scale has to be reserved for inner structure of our Universe.
The so called inflationary phase was just the length in OUR time of bifurcation from inside to outside; if looked upon from our Universe, it looks like a bang, because our time starts with the birth, and first moments after birth suddenly our Universe was very big when moments ago there was nothing.But this was true only if looked upon from inside our Universe. For an observer outside (other universe or parent universe) it was no bang, normal quite lengthy process of giving birth.
D Turunyanins (Heavyside) constant
H=G/c^2 = 7.426049E-28 m/kg = R (universe)/M (universe) = 2,23E+25 m/ 3*E+52 kg
these 7.426049E-28 m are added to visible, 3rd dimension of space each time unit of mass =1 kg - is added to our Universe.
But as we know, the smallest unit of angular moment which can be added to anything is h.
If we consider electron to be the smallest mass in our universe, if our universe consumes 1 electron, it adds to the 3rd space dimension
delta r=7.426049E-28 m/kg * 9.1035E-31 kg= 6.76030371* E-60 m.
We can assume that this electron at first is added to some surface of our universe.
This smallest mass adds moment h to the fractional sum of moments in 3rd fractal dimension of space. Let us assume it is connected with something which moves with the spead v; then
h= M * v * 6.76030371E-60m.
How big is M?
M= h/ (v * delta r) = 6.626068 E-34 kg*m2/s/ (v m/s * 6.76030371E-60m) = 9.8014353E+25 / v
We can see that this defines another gravitational constant. If G works in all 3 dimesnions, including 3rd fractional mass space, ( m3 /kg s2) then this one works in the extra 3rd fractional mass space dimension ONLY and relates the change of Mass of the rotating organism with its change of rotational speed responsible for its momentum when 1 electron is added to it.
From here: M * V = 9.8014353E+25 kg* m/s = h/(m el * (R univ/ M univ))
My gut feeling is that this M is a mass of a vortice and speed is its rotational speed . This vortice axis is orientated perpendicular to the surface of Universe and PERPENDICULAR to the added 6.76E-60 m of space dimension. If the organism is a sphere, then addign an electron to it will lead to 6.76E-60 m increase of thickness of its skin/shell in that place, and it would create vortice of mass M rotating with speed V, which would have spin h.
We can see that adding just 1 electron to our universe leads to creation of huge vortice; even if speed of it would be c , mass will be anyway
M vortice min = 9.8014353E+25 / 3E+8= 3.267E+17 kg.
Interaction of one electron with Huge organism like Universe leads to REACTION of Universe of a monstrous scale. 9 E-31 kg, h spin was added ; 3.26 E+17 mass was set into motion at light speed! The Universe uses all it mass and size sinchronously to react to a minor disturbance or appetizer.
The remaining question is diameter of this new vortice. If electron carries spin h and it must be conserved, most likely diameter at speed c will be
M vortice min * c * r min= h
r min= h/ M vortice min*c = 6.626068 E-34/ 9.8014353E+25 = delta r -= 6.76E-60 m
This would determine the size of light wave being generated in a vortex rotating with speed c. Frequency of rotation will determine light frequency.
Also this looks bloody close to Earth gravitational acceleration constant, which is also 1 dimensional - central.
Standard g=9.80665 m/s2
The only "small "difference is in dimensions ( kg*m/s vs m/s2) and multiplier close to 10^25.
For e.g Earth "non-live" mass of Earth is 5.9736E+24kg
So we can say that g= h/(m el * (R univ/ M univ)) * total Mass of Earth / unit of time.
Unit of time here is 0.59736 sec. It is the smallest unit of time of Earth as an Organism.
At this moment , bifurcation which placed universe from inside of parent universe to outside ( similar to eddies in a flow which start to form inside the stream, then swap to the outside, or any other tunneling type effect ) happened.
This bifurcation is called BIG BANG. but is was not a bang, and there was never density of matter as high as model predicts. Nor was its size anywhere as small as Planck scale. Planck scale has to be reserved for inner structure of our Universe.
The so called inflationary phase was just the length in OUR time of bifurcation from inside to outside; if looked upon from our Universe, it looks like a bang, because our time starts with the birth, and first moments after birth suddenly our Universe was very big when moments ago there was nothing.But this was true only if looked upon from inside our Universe. For an observer outside (other universe or parent universe) it was no bang, normal quite lengthy process of giving birth.
D Turunyanins (Heavyside) constant
H=G/c^2 = 7.426049E-28 m/kg = R (universe)/M (universe) = 2,23E+25 m/ 3*E+52 kg
these 7.426049E-28 m are added to visible, 3rd dimension of space each time unit of mass =1 kg - is added to our Universe.
But as we know, the smallest unit of angular moment which can be added to anything is h.
If we consider electron to be the smallest mass in our universe, if our universe consumes 1 electron, it adds to the 3rd space dimension
delta r=7.426049E-28 m/kg * 9.1035E-31 kg= 6.76030371* E-60 m.
We can assume that this electron at first is added to some surface of our universe.
This smallest mass adds moment h to the fractional sum of moments in 3rd fractal dimension of space. Let us assume it is connected with something which moves with the spead v; then
h= M * v * 6.76030371E-60m.
How big is M?
M= h/ (v * delta r) = 6.626068 E-34 kg*m2/s/ (v m/s * 6.76030371E-60m) = 9.8014353E+25 / v
We can see that this defines another gravitational constant. If G works in all 3 dimesnions, including 3rd fractional mass space, ( m3 /kg s2) then this one works in the extra 3rd fractional mass space dimension ONLY and relates the change of Mass of the rotating organism with its change of rotational speed responsible for its momentum when 1 electron is added to it.
From here: M * V = 9.8014353E+25 kg* m/s = h/(m el * (R univ/ M univ))
My gut feeling is that this M is a mass of a vortice and speed is its rotational speed . This vortice axis is orientated perpendicular to the surface of Universe and PERPENDICULAR to the added 6.76E-60 m of space dimension. If the organism is a sphere, then addign an electron to it will lead to 6.76E-60 m increase of thickness of its skin/shell in that place, and it would create vortice of mass M rotating with speed V, which would have spin h.
We can see that adding just 1 electron to our universe leads to creation of huge vortice; even if speed of it would be c , mass will be anyway
M vortice min = 9.8014353E+25 / 3E+8= 3.267E+17 kg.
Interaction of one electron with Huge organism like Universe leads to REACTION of Universe of a monstrous scale. 9 E-31 kg, h spin was added ; 3.26 E+17 mass was set into motion at light speed! The Universe uses all it mass and size sinchronously to react to a minor disturbance or appetizer.
The remaining question is diameter of this new vortice. If electron carries spin h and it must be conserved, most likely diameter at speed c will be
M vortice min * c * r min= h
r min= h/ M vortice min*c = 6.626068 E-34/ 9.8014353E+25 = delta r -= 6.76E-60 m
This would determine the size of light wave being generated in a vortex rotating with speed c. Frequency of rotation will determine light frequency.
Also this looks bloody close to Earth gravitational acceleration constant, which is also 1 dimensional - central.
Standard g=9.80665 m/s2
The only "small "difference is in dimensions ( kg*m/s vs m/s2) and multiplier close to 10^25.
For e.g Earth "non-live" mass of Earth is 5.9736E+24kg
So we can say that g= h/(m el * (R univ/ M univ)) * total Mass of Earth / unit of time.
Unit of time here is 0.59736 sec. It is the smallest unit of time of Earth as an Organism.
Universal Origin? A space-time singularity that expands as an 4D Hypersphere with matter beginning on its surface.
Hello All
So many different ideas of the origin or the ongoing Universe.
But! having fantasy ideas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,why not?
We have BBT, Branes, static, steady, electromagnetic, plasma, String and Wave and so on.
Which theory would I support.
The theory based on observations and scientific practice and as much evidence as possible.
So many different ideas of the origin or the ongoing Universe.
But! having fantasy ideas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,why not?
We have BBT, Branes, static, steady, electromagnetic, plasma, String and Wave and so on.
Which theory would I support.
The theory based on observations and scientific practice and as much evidence as possible.
I guess I should now join THIS discussion too :-), since I have become a new sceptic ;-).
I am mainly skeptical of SPACE expanding (instead of matter flying away from each other) and assuming that galaxies can fly away from us at speeds > c because of that, and simply assuming that redshift= only doppler effect.
I found there IS other evidence for the BBT:
- there are fewer heavy elments farther away (and thus back in time).
How do you explain that without the BBT?
Chantal
I am mainly skeptical of SPACE expanding (instead of matter flying away from each other) and assuming that galaxies can fly away from us at speeds > c because of that, and simply assuming that redshift= only doppler effect.
I found there IS other evidence for the BBT:
- there are fewer heavy elments farther away (and thus back in time).
How do you explain that without the BBT?
Chantal
korosten. +1 and -1 = 0. +trillion and -trillion = 0. Scientists added together all the pluses (matter, energy) and all the minuses (gravity) together in the Universe and got zero.
What if there has never been "nothing" but always particles and energy appearing and disappearing? What if something complex enough not to disappear appeared? And something appeared to try and compensate for it, and something tried to compensate for that, etc and next thing you know, the whole "nothing" unravels like a cold wildfire spreading out from a centre. It would probably require a steady state Universe.
According to the BB, you have an ultra-dense medium which spreads out. It should make all the very heavy elements, not mostly hydrogen, some helium and some lithium, etc.
The CMB we are told is the remains of the equivalent of 2,000,000,000 matter and anti-matter Universes turning into energy as the whole lot annihilated itself, with just one Universe full of matter surviving. I would sooner accept billions of years of star energy red shifted from infra-red to microwave radiation (both frequencies overlap) from travelling cosmic distances.
Gravity is probably wrong over cosmic distances and type 1A supernovae are not standard yardsticks.
What if there has never been "nothing" but always particles and energy appearing and disappearing? What if something complex enough not to disappear appeared? And something appeared to try and compensate for it, and something tried to compensate for that, etc and next thing you know, the whole "nothing" unravels like a cold wildfire spreading out from a centre. It would probably require a steady state Universe.
According to the BB, you have an ultra-dense medium which spreads out. It should make all the very heavy elements, not mostly hydrogen, some helium and some lithium, etc.
The CMB we are told is the remains of the equivalent of 2,000,000,000 matter and anti-matter Universes turning into energy as the whole lot annihilated itself, with just one Universe full of matter surviving. I would sooner accept billions of years of star energy red shifted from infra-red to microwave radiation (both frequencies overlap) from travelling cosmic distances.
Gravity is probably wrong over cosmic distances and type 1A supernovae are not standard yardsticks.
Hello Keneda
Mate what are you trying to say.
Mate what are you trying to say.
That it all came from nothing. That matter is formed by intersections in the "folds" in space, whose interlocking with everything else on a small scale provides what we call gravity. And that all forms of radiation are waves travelling through these "folds".
I know it ain't much of an idea (still working on it), but neither are the competing ideas, like the BB.
I know it ain't much of an idea (still working on it), but neither are the competing ideas, like the BB.
Hello Kaneda
I do not agree with the BB.
But your idea is out of the blue.
Rather than putting the cart before the horse.
Look at the observations.
I could give you more info on recycling, plasma and the wave theory WSM.
At the same time, i do not want to put you off on your ideas.
Maybe, in search of your ideas you will come across the actual functioning of the objects within the universe.
I do not agree with the BB.
But your idea is out of the blue.
Rather than putting the cart before the horse.
Look at the observations.
I could give you more info on recycling, plasma and the wave theory WSM.
At the same time, i do not want to put you off on your ideas.
Maybe, in search of your ideas you will come across the actual functioning of the objects within the universe.
Feel free to explain your ideas like how something rotates 720 degrees (does that means spins around twice?), and how the Earth is one with the Universe.
Fluctuations occur between two non-conductive plates very close to each other. Not a lot of them in free space.
Fluctuations occur between two non-conductive plates very close to each other. Not a lot of them in free space.
Hello Kaneda
Can you please explain further.
Can you please explain further.
I presume you mean the Casimir effect? What works in a lab does not necessarily work in deep space.
I'm off on holiday tomorrow so back in a few days or so.
I'm off on holiday tomorrow so back in a few days or so.
korosten. +1 and -1 = 0. +trillion and -trillion = 0. Scientists added together all the pluses (matter, energy) and all the minuses (gravity) together in the Universe and got zero.
this idea if from Steven Hawking and do not make much sense for me
how can energy be negative or positive ?
energy just is exists
by chance we say energy is negative in the universe nothing will change
energy can not be created and so universe is aternal, atemporal
there was no creation
in black holes matter turns into space
in big explosions og AGN space turns back into matter
this flow of energy is permanent, it has no beginning
this idea if from Steven Hawking and do not make much sense for me
how can energy be negative or positive ?
energy just is exists
by chance we say energy is negative in the universe nothing will change
energy can not be created and so universe is aternal, atemporal
there was no creation
in black holes matter turns into space
in big explosions og AGN space turns back into matter
this flow of energy is permanent, it has no beginning
Hello All
Some links on Plasma
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/
Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm
THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasma.universe.intro.html
Extragalactic Astronomy
http://www.cips.mpg.de/cips_home.html
Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=39706
30-Jun-06
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k
The above links are for those who want further info on Plasma
================================================
During a supernova a number of things can happen. One is the formation of a compact core. Its size and density will determine its destiny.
Some compact cores
Neutrons with a density of about 10^18 Compared to our sun (10Km ball)
Quark composites with density 10^18 to about 10^ 22 (3 M3 ball)
Preon cores 10^22 to about 10^35 size of a soccer ball compared to the sun.
This is where black holes are formed, where the core matter is so large and dense that it prevents light from escaping. Some black holes are only a few solar masses compared to some giant black holes being several billion solar masses such as M87.
The idea that black holes are a circular cyclone singularity is not correct. Although part of a so called black hole may have a jet stream that expells matter into space. Matter is usually attracted into the black hole perpandicular to the jet stream.
Some links on Plasma
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/
Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm
THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasma.universe.intro.html
Extragalactic Astronomy
http://www.cips.mpg.de/cips_home.html
Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/in...fobjectid=39706
30-Jun-06
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k
The above links are for those who want further info on Plasma
================================================
During a supernova a number of things can happen. One is the formation of a compact core. Its size and density will determine its destiny.
Some compact cores
Neutrons with a density of about 10^18 Compared to our sun (10Km ball)
Quark composites with density 10^18 to about 10^ 22 (3 M3 ball)
Preon cores 10^22 to about 10^35 size of a soccer ball compared to the sun.
This is where black holes are formed, where the core matter is so large and dense that it prevents light from escaping. Some black holes are only a few solar masses compared to some giant black holes being several billion solar masses such as M87.
The idea that black holes are a circular cyclone singularity is not correct. Although part of a so called black hole may have a jet stream that expells matter into space. Matter is usually attracted into the black hole perpandicular to the jet stream.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 21 2006, 11:46 AM)
Harry Costas. I know enough about the BBT to know why it is almost certainly wrong. Like christians, BB-ers insist on a single interpretation of all evidence so it supports their theory. Any problems are overcome by yet another unlikely fudge.
The Big Bang that replaces God never happened. If all the matter in the universe was in a place without time a singular point of space how could it explode against its infinite gravity? There is no time yet for space to expand in. In the real beginning there was no time for anything to exist in just God.
Einstein wanted to know how God created the universe. He wanted to know his thoughts. The rest were just details to him.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light falls --
The Big Bang that replaces God never happened. If all the matter in the universe was in a place without time a singular point of space how could it explode against its infinite gravity? There is no time yet for space to expand in. In the real beginning there was no time for anything to exist in just God.
Einstein wanted to know how God created the universe. He wanted to know his thoughts. The rest were just details to him.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light falls --
Nick,
So you don't believe in the BB after all :-)? Why do you insist then that it has been proven in the other thread?
Harry Costas,
I didn't read the entire thread, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on the cause of the redshift? (see other thread :-)
Chantal
So you don't believe in the BB after all :-)? Why do you insist then that it has been proven in the other thread?
Harry Costas,
I didn't read the entire thread, but I was wondering what your thoughts were on the cause of the redshift? (see other thread :-)
Chantal
I use that name because to describe that there was a beginning. Sorry for misleading you. That there was a beginning and space has been expanding has been proven.
MITCH RAEMSCH
MITCH RAEMSCH
Hello All
If you want to thinky that there was a start and there was a Big Bang and there is a god who did it. Thats well and good.
But! that does not make it right.
Man through histroy has allowed his thoughts and emotions to rule and in so doing have developed theories based on thought rather than observations and science.
==================================================
Red shifts
How accurate is it?
You will need to reaserch some papers.
I came across these
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16
Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_...w_Test_999.html
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUn...eABeginning.asp
Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/
Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
A Bang into Nowhere
Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf
On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm
The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html
==============================================
On a previous post I gave the point of view from a Big Bang person.
The above is from people who are driven to find the truth in the MATTER.
What I think is not important. There are people out there researching the facts through observations and scientific reasoning. We wait for their evidence and observations.
Big Bang people are very emotional about their model.
If you want to thinky that there was a start and there was a Big Bang and there is a god who did it. Thats well and good.
But! that does not make it right.
Man through histroy has allowed his thoughts and emotions to rule and in so doing have developed theories based on thought rather than observations and science.
==================================================
Red shifts
How accurate is it?
You will need to reaserch some papers.
I came across these
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16
Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_...w_Test_999.html
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUn...eABeginning.asp
Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/
Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
Redshift
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
A Bang into Nowhere
Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO1PDF/V10N1ANT.pdf
On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY
http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm
The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html
==============================================
On a previous post I gave the point of view from a Big Bang person.
The above is from people who are driven to find the truth in the MATTER.
What I think is not important. There are people out there researching the facts through observations and scientific reasoning. We wait for their evidence and observations.
Big Bang people are very emotional about their model.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 11 2006, 06:59 AM)
Hello All
If you want to thinky that there was a start and there was a Big Bang and there is a god who did it. Thats well and good.
But! that does not make it right.
Then you don't know the truth. Thought is doubt based.
Where else did the universe come from?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
If you want to thinky that there was a start and there was a Big Bang and there is a god who did it. Thats well and good.
But! that does not make it right.
Then you don't know the truth. Thought is doubt based.
Where else did the universe come from?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
Harry Costas,
Thanks for these links! Wow!
I read the first 3-4 (not all of it), and it looks like sound science to me. If they are indeed right, then there is cleary no way that the BB could be true.
It would be great if someone who is an astronomer could read those too and verify their accuracy etc - although it seems like they appeared in peer reviewed journals/conferences? Still, and confirmation would add a lot of credibility.
Chantal
Thanks for these links! Wow!
I read the first 3-4 (not all of it), and it looks like sound science to me. If they are indeed right, then there is cleary no way that the BB could be true.
It would be great if someone who is an astronomer could read those too and verify their accuracy etc - although it seems like they appeared in peer reviewed journals/conferences? Still, and confirmation would add a lot of credibility.
Chantal
Hello All
Hello Nick
Where else did the universe come from?
Mate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its always been hear in one form of matter or another.
Man has a brain, emotions drive man to make it so.
Truth, yep! truth,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you can have a billion people thinking along some truth idea and yet can be wrong compared to one person with evidence.
This person with evidence can go through a life time and in some cases hundreds of years before the truth is proven.
So! keep emotions of truth away from the workshop.
========================================
Hello Korosten
Keep reading mate, and keep an open mind.
There are plenty of astronomers out there that do not think along the lines of the BB.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Hello Nick
Where else did the universe come from?
Mate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,its always been hear in one form of matter or another.
Man has a brain, emotions drive man to make it so.
Truth, yep! truth,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you can have a billion people thinking along some truth idea and yet can be wrong compared to one person with evidence.
This person with evidence can go through a life time and in some cases hundreds of years before the truth is proven.
So! keep emotions of truth away from the workshop.
========================================
Hello Korosten
Keep reading mate, and keep an open mind.
There are plenty of astronomers out there that do not think along the lines of the BB.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
amrit. Energy is a positive force. Anything which has existence has motion on the smallest scale upwards so is positive. Gravity is the exception since it tries to stop all motion so is negative. Like EMR, it too moves at the same speed so possibly there is a connection somewhere that we do not know about at present?
All energy is believed to have been created in the first moment of the Universe. It is motion of all kinds, so as a whole, the Universe has a set amount of energy to go around and that does not alter though the energy itself can change forms.
We don't know about how it all started and at the end of the day, the Big Bang is an idea that may or may not be true.
I would think that in a black hole, matter gets crushed to something smaller than we know about at present (although it could be quarks?) but not to a point source as some imagine.
In big explosions (novae/super-novae), heavier elements are formed from lighter elements beyond what can naturally be formed by fusion in stars. Space is a lack of matter of any kind through which energy can flow at it's maximum speed and which some particles of matter actually do occupy, though not many.
All energy is believed to have been created in the first moment of the Universe. It is motion of all kinds, so as a whole, the Universe has a set amount of energy to go around and that does not alter though the energy itself can change forms.
We don't know about how it all started and at the end of the day, the Big Bang is an idea that may or may not be true.
I would think that in a black hole, matter gets crushed to something smaller than we know about at present (although it could be quarks?) but not to a point source as some imagine.
In big explosions (novae/super-novae), heavier elements are formed from lighter elements beyond what can naturally be formed by fusion in stars. Space is a lack of matter of any kind through which energy can flow at it's maximum speed and which some particles of matter actually do occupy, though not many.
Harry Costas. A good site. Nice to know that some scientists do not bow to the unthinking majority.
Nick. Right. No BB. Put everything in one tiny place and you have the grand-daddy of black holes. Call it a singularity, cosmic egg or anything else but it still does not inflate or expand. Black holes do not do that. Some scientists are tying themselves into ever greater knots to try and make it work. I'm sure the whole lot will come crashing down on them one day.
Hello All
Kaneda said
Mate where did you get the notion from. First moment, thats a fantasy of magic. You cannot creat something from nothing.
You do have large so called black holes, MECO objects or some call them ultra dense plasma matter that has so much density that it prevents light from escaping.
Some of these objects are so large that they contain billions and billions of our sun.
M87 has close to 3 billion and is an active blackhole ejecting huge amounts of matter to the surrounding galaxy.
other known huge black holes 10 billion plus.
Kaneda said
QUOTE
All energy is believed to have been created in the first moment of the Universe. It is motion of all kinds, so as a whole, the Universe has a set amount of energy to go around and that does not alter though the energy itself can change forms.
Mate where did you get the notion from. First moment, thats a fantasy of magic. You cannot creat something from nothing.
You do have large so called black holes, MECO objects or some call them ultra dense plasma matter that has so much density that it prevents light from escaping.
Some of these objects are so large that they contain billions and billions of our sun.
M87 has close to 3 billion and is an active blackhole ejecting huge amounts of matter to the surrounding galaxy.
other known huge black holes 10 billion plus.
THERE WAS A HYPERSPHERE SINGULARITY THAT EXPANDED; BUT MATTER CAME LATTER.
Hello Nick
Mate that is just a theory, not a fact.
Read more on singularity, you will find that most scientists do not think they can exist.
Mate that is just a theory, not a fact.
Read more on singularity, you will find that most scientists do not think they can exist.
Hello Nick
Mate that is just a theory, not a fact.
Read more on singularity, you will find that most scientists do not think they can exist.
Mate that is just a theory, not a fact.
Read more on singularity, you will find that most scientists do not think they can exist.
QUOTE (Nick+Dec 17 2006, 12:43 AM)
THERE WAS A HYPERSPHERE SINGULARITY THAT EXPANDED; BUT MATTER CAME LATTER.
Nick,
That's exactly how I 'see' it. ...... a universe once smaller than the smallest particle we can generate today.
Nick,
That's exactly how I 'see' it.
...... a universe once smaller than the smallest particle we can generate today.
dear five
you sent me an e-mail.but i get not read.please send again
greetings=carl
you sent me an e-mail.but i get not read.please send again
greetings=carl
QUOTE (mott.carl+Dec 17 2006, 11:19 AM)
dear five
you sent me an e-mail.but i get not read.please send again
greetings=carl
Mott.c',
Just > understanding of the common language used in this forum will allow us to comprehend what you're writing.
p.s I was really trying to recruit you into giving those knob bonce Pupa' clones lashings of neg' feedback
you sent me an e-mail.but i get not read.please send again
greetings=carl
Mott.c',
Just > understanding of the common language used in this forum will allow us to comprehend what you're writing.
p.s I was really trying to recruit you into giving those knob bonce Pupa' clones lashings of neg' feedback
Harry Costas. I was answering amrit, using the accepted version of the BB, which I have said before that I don't believe. However, I would say that if particles came literally from nothing, then all would have appeared with a set energy value, continually adding to the total energy of the universe till this process stopped (has it?)
Whatever caused the Universe, as soon as it stopped working, then there was a set amount of energy in the universe and no more.
As to black holes, they are merely energy in a different form, confined within the event horizon; rotation, heat, magnetism, etc.
What exactly is nothing?
Whatever caused the Universe, as soon as it stopped working, then there was a set amount of energy in the universe and no more.
As to black holes, they are merely energy in a different form, confined within the event horizon; rotation, heat, magnetism, etc.
What exactly is nothing?
Nick. Why does it have to be a 4D hyperspehere? Why not a 3D solid sphere on which everything is inside? What is the need of this unnecessary extra dimension?
Kaneda,
The big bang has always been a theory looking for facts to support it. So much for the scientific method.
There is one other reason for the red shift that has not been considered. We know that time is effected by gravity and time speeds up away from gravity (simple relativity). We also know that there is a lens effect around a galaxy, kind of a magnifying lens. The light being produced in the center of a galaxy where time is the slowest could be stretched as it comes out of the lens and continue to be stretched as it goes through more energetic space. Since we are on the outer portion of our galaxy the light does not get re-compressed towards the blue shift very much.
The big bang has always been a theory looking for facts to support it. So much for the scientific method.
There is one other reason for the red shift that has not been considered. We know that time is effected by gravity and time speeds up away from gravity (simple relativity). We also know that there is a lens effect around a galaxy, kind of a magnifying lens. The light being produced in the center of a galaxy where time is the slowest could be stretched as it comes out of the lens and continue to be stretched as it goes through more energetic space. Since we are on the outer portion of our galaxy the light does not get re-compressed towards the blue shift very much.
Kaneda,
Mass has entropy not energy. Mass is created from energy through fusion. Energy is released from mass through fission. Mass is merely a conduit for energy and has none of its own.
Mass has entropy not energy. Mass is created from energy through fusion. Energy is released from mass through fission. Mass is merely a conduit for energy and has none of its own.
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 17 2006, 11:41 AM)
p.s I was really trying to recruit you into giving those knob bonce Pupa' clones lashings of neg' feedback
Five, please make him do it.
I think i would even pay to see his retarded waffle in my feedback.
Five, please make him do it.
I think i would even pay to see his retarded waffle in my feedback.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 17 2006, 10:33 AM)
Hello Nick
Mate that is just a theory, not a fact.
Read more on singularity, you will find that most scientists do not think they can exist.
Facts are stupid things.
I know how they can exist.
Mate that is just a theory, not a fact.
Read more on singularity, you will find that most scientists do not think they can exist.
Facts are stupid things.
I know how they can exist.
Hello Nick
How do you know they exist mate?
and
Do you know what a singularity is?
How do you know they exist mate?
and
Do you know what a singularity is?
4Dguy. Mass must have energy to exist. If it did not, it would collapse into it's smallest possible state (black hole material?)
How is mass created from energy? Energy is movement of some kind. Mass is an actual material of some kind which cannot reach the speed of light that EMR energy travels at.
How is mass created from energy? Energy is movement of some kind. Mass is an actual material of some kind which cannot reach the speed of light that EMR energy travels at.
4Dguy. We don't know what happens to photons over cosmic time. There is also the point that while a photon cannot lose speed (always travelling at light speed for the medium it is in), there is the belief that it cannot lose energy either.
The obvious way for a photon to lose energy after trillions of impacts would be by red shifting, and since infra-red and microwaves overlap, heat from the "edge of the universe" could arrive here as microwaves. This fits in with the further light has had to travel, the more red shifted it is.
The obvious way for a photon to lose energy after trillions of impacts would be by red shifting, and since infra-red and microwaves overlap, heat from the "edge of the universe" could arrive here as microwaves. This fits in with the further light has had to travel, the more red shifted it is.
Originally, there was a huge black hole which expanded and formed the universze we lived in.
Till someone pointed out that black holes are ultra stable and don't expand, so they decided on a special magical kind of black hole which because it didn't actually exist off of a maths page could do anything needed of it.
They called it a singularity.
Till someone pointed out that black holes are ultra stable and don't expand, so they decided on a special magical kind of black hole which because it didn't actually exist off of a maths page could do anything needed of it.
They called it a singularity.
Kaneda,
Where energy really exists is outside of mass. Energy is time and without it everything would freeze into place not collapse as you now believe. Mass is just a conduit for energy from space time. All mass has entropy not energy. Space time is what makes the electrons move. What do you think synchronizes atomic clocks and why do you think they stay synchronized if they are together going through different gravitational conditions? Why do you think they run at different speeds when they are in different gravitational or accelerated conditions? Space time drives the electrons and protons it is the energy that synchronizes everything.
Where energy really exists is outside of mass. Energy is time and without it everything would freeze into place not collapse as you now believe. Mass is just a conduit for energy from space time. All mass has entropy not energy. Space time is what makes the electrons move. What do you think synchronizes atomic clocks and why do you think they stay synchronized if they are together going through different gravitational conditions? Why do you think they run at different speeds when they are in different gravitational or accelerated conditions? Space time drives the electrons and protons it is the energy that synchronizes everything.
There is also the point that while a photon cannot lose speed (always travelling at light speed for the medium it is in), there is the belief that it cannot lose energy either.
Light is a wave on space time energy and space time energy is not entropic so it goes for what seems like forever.
QUOTE
Mass must have energy to exist. If it did not, it would collapse into it's smallest possible state (black hole material?)
Where energy really exists is outside of mass. Energy is time and without it everything would freeze into place not collapse as you now believe. Mass is just a conduit for energy from space time. All mass has entropy not energy. Space time is what makes the electrons move. What do you think synchronizes atomic clocks and why do you think they stay synchronized if they are together going through different gravitational conditions? Why do you think they run at different speeds when they are in different gravitational or accelerated conditions? Space time drives the electrons and protons it is the energy that synchronizes everything.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mass must have energy to exist. If it did not, it would collapse into it's smallest possible state (black hole material?) |
Where energy really exists is outside of mass. Energy is time and without it everything would freeze into place not collapse as you now believe. Mass is just a conduit for energy from space time. All mass has entropy not energy. Space time is what makes the electrons move. What do you think synchronizes atomic clocks and why do you think they stay synchronized if they are together going through different gravitational conditions? Why do you think they run at different speeds when they are in different gravitational or accelerated conditions? Space time drives the electrons and protons it is the energy that synchronizes everything.
There is also the point that while a photon cannot lose speed (always travelling at light speed for the medium it is in), there is the belief that it cannot lose energy either.
Light is a wave on space time energy and space time energy is not entropic so it goes for what seems like forever.
Kaneda,
What is EMR does anyone know? Its just a term to describe a process. no one knows what is happening at that level. Mass can be created from space energy through fusion. Energy can be released from mass by fission. Suns are creating H2 fuel all the time from space energy. Mass is compressed energy.
The big bang is not testable by the scientific method. Its a theory that keeps changing to fit new observations. Its based on faith of its existence. Science it is not. The research money is controlled by the faith in the big bang. If you do not believe you are labeled a crank and I am feeling a bit cranky.
QUOTE
How is mass created from energy? Energy is movement of some kind. Mass is an actual material of some kind which cannot reach the speed of light that EMR energy travels at.
What is EMR does anyone know? Its just a term to describe a process. no one knows what is happening at that level. Mass can be created from space energy through fusion. Energy can be released from mass by fission. Suns are creating H2 fuel all the time from space energy. Mass is compressed energy.
The big bang is not testable by the scientific method. Its a theory that keeps changing to fit new observations. Its based on faith of its existence. Science it is not. The research money is controlled by the faith in the big bang. If you do not believe you are labeled a crank and I am feeling a bit cranky.
Folks,
I'm not sure if you have seen my "attemped prove" to show that the force of gravity moves at >>>> c.
I would really like some feedback on this! Because, I am not sure you all realize it, if this is correct, what the implications are!
Basically, if this is true, then a big part of special relativity is wrong (NOT the Lorentzian part! Just Einstein's additions).
The it would mean we can trasmit information >>> c.
Also, our interpretation of space time is wrong too.
And if that is wrong, there is no big bang - at least not as we know it!
And so on, and so on. And the whole house of cards is crumbling...
(or maybe I am exaggerating, but a BIG chunk is falling down!)
That's why it is SO ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY critcal that this prove is 100% solid.
Do you guys see what I mean?
If not, I'd be more than happy to discuss each and every single point!
Chantal :-)
I'm not sure if you have seen my "attemped prove" to show that the force of gravity moves at >>>> c.
I would really like some feedback on this! Because, I am not sure you all realize it, if this is correct, what the implications are!
Basically, if this is true, then a big part of special relativity is wrong (NOT the Lorentzian part! Just Einstein's additions).
The it would mean we can trasmit information >>> c.
Also, our interpretation of space time is wrong too.
And if that is wrong, there is no big bang - at least not as we know it!
And so on, and so on. And the whole house of cards is crumbling...
(or maybe I am exaggerating, but a BIG chunk is falling down!)
That's why it is SO ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY critcal that this prove is 100% solid.
Do you guys see what I mean?
If not, I'd be more than happy to discuss each and every single point!
Chantal :-)
4Dguy. I would think that EMR is waves travelling through space, SIMILAR to waves travelling through water. When people tell us that they trapped one photon to do the double slit experiment, this is garbage because one wave can always be made into smaller waves.
Within each discreet wave, there is motion. The more motion (frequency), the shorter the wavelength.
Matter and energy are 100% different. All matter must contain some energy, otherwise it would collapse into black hole material (or further?) Matter is what we regard as made of solids, even on an atomic level. These cannot travel at light speed, like waves which are not solid always do.
You can take atomic energy out of materials by bringing them to critic mass (fission) or by incredible pressures and temperatures (fusion), makes heavier elements.
Suns do not create H2 fuel. If they did, no star would ever run out of energy. Our sun takes four atoms of hydrogen and turns it into one atom of helium. The byproduct is heat, light, etc.
Space itself actually has no energy. It is an absence of matter, energy, gravity, etc which can be used by those effects. If space did have energy, that would solve many of NASA's problems. The only energy space has, is from the sun.
How can energy be compressed? Black holes can do it to an extent but hang onto their energy.
Take E=MC2. That means if you have 1 kg of matter, you then multiply it by 300,000,000x300,000,000 which gives you 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. A 100 watt light bulb burns 100 joules per second. The figure given from 1 kg of matter is enough energy to run every car in America for a week. So how can that much energy be compressed into something small enough to hold in your hand?
With theories, you can hoist them up and see who salutes them and who shoots at them. Unless you know something for 100% certain, theories should be fluid, and changed by new ideas, new discoveries, etc. If you get a solid theory like super-strings and it does not work, then it breaks.
Only morons like pupawanker call people cranks for daring to think different. Ignore him. He's useless and just rambles. Poor old git!
Within each discreet wave, there is motion. The more motion (frequency), the shorter the wavelength.
Matter and energy are 100% different. All matter must contain some energy, otherwise it would collapse into black hole material (or further?) Matter is what we regard as made of solids, even on an atomic level. These cannot travel at light speed, like waves which are not solid always do.
You can take atomic energy out of materials by bringing them to critic mass (fission) or by incredible pressures and temperatures (fusion), makes heavier elements.
Suns do not create H2 fuel. If they did, no star would ever run out of energy. Our sun takes four atoms of hydrogen and turns it into one atom of helium. The byproduct is heat, light, etc.
Space itself actually has no energy. It is an absence of matter, energy, gravity, etc which can be used by those effects. If space did have energy, that would solve many of NASA's problems. The only energy space has, is from the sun.
How can energy be compressed? Black holes can do it to an extent but hang onto their energy.
Take E=MC2. That means if you have 1 kg of matter, you then multiply it by 300,000,000x300,000,000 which gives you 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy. A 100 watt light bulb burns 100 joules per second. The figure given from 1 kg of matter is enough energy to run every car in America for a week. So how can that much energy be compressed into something small enough to hold in your hand?
With theories, you can hoist them up and see who salutes them and who shoots at them. Unless you know something for 100% certain, theories should be fluid, and changed by new ideas, new discoveries, etc. If you get a solid theory like super-strings and it does not work, then it breaks.
Only morons like pupawanker call people cranks for daring to think different. Ignore him. He's useless and just rambles. Poor old git!
Kaneda,
Its hard to discuss ideas without the mud slingers following you. But here goes.
I agree, but still what is EMR? Electro magnetic radiation is what exactly? What are its properties? Do you think this is a wave through or of this?
I agree, but still what is EMR? Electro magnetic radiation is what exactly? What are its properties? Do you think this is a wave through or of this?
Within each discreet wave, there is motion. The more motion (frequency), the shorter the wavelength.
OK you think it rides in it.
Matter is frozen energy (none left) motion of electrons probably comes from space energy (mass is entropic no energy of itself).
Matter is frozen energy (none left) motion of electrons probably comes from space energy (mass is entropic no energy of itself).
You can take atomic energy out of materials by bringing them to critic mass (fission) or by incredible pressures and temperatures (fusion), makes heavier elements.
Suns do not create H2 fuel. If they did, no star would ever run out of energy. Our sun takes four atoms of hydrogen and turns it into one atom of helium. The byproduct is heat, light, etc.
Yes but suns do not stop at helium. Eventually they turn into red giants with too much iron. If a sun could get rid of its garbage elements they would last as long as time.
How do you tap into the energy of time or what drives the electrons, protons and neutrons? Mass is a conduit for space energy but all mass is entropic going to the lowest energy state. What we think of energy is just a tap into space energy. NASA cannot change physical laws and use space energy. Its like sitting on a 6 thousand volt electric wire with no way to ground.
How do you tap into the energy of time or what drives the electrons, protons and neutrons? Mass is a conduit for space energy but all mass is entropic going to the lowest energy state. What we think of energy is just a tap into space energy. NASA cannot change physical laws and use space energy. Its like sitting on a 6 thousand volt electric wire with no way to ground.
How can energy be compressed? Black holes can do it to an extent but hang onto their energy.
Energy is in its most condensed and energetic form when its not part of mass or a gravity field (time runs faster). This would be seen between galaxies where time would run the fastest. Causing light to be red shifted.
I am sure papacurse will be here to disapprove soon along with the masked demarker. To him science is a religious faith that has no room for deviation from the Einstein scriptures.
Its hard to discuss ideas without the mud slingers following you. But here goes.
QUOTE
4Dguy. I would think that EMR is waves travelling through space, SIMILAR to waves travelling through water. When people tell us that they trapped one photon to do the double slit experiment, this is garbage because one wave can always be made into smaller waves.
I agree, but still what is EMR? Electro magnetic radiation is what exactly? What are its properties? Do you think this is a wave through or of this?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4Dguy. I would think that EMR is waves travelling through space, SIMILAR to waves travelling through water. When people tell us that they trapped one photon to do the double slit experiment, this is garbage because one wave can always be made into smaller waves. |
I agree, but still what is EMR? Electro magnetic radiation is what exactly? What are its properties? Do you think this is a wave through or of this?
Within each discreet wave, there is motion. The more motion (frequency), the shorter the wavelength.
OK you think it rides in it.
QUOTE
Matter and energy are 100% different. All matter must contain some energy, otherwise it would collapse into black hole material (or further?) Matter is what we regard as made of solids, even on an atomic level. These cannot travel at light speed, like waves which are not solid always do.
Matter is frozen energy (none left) motion of electrons probably comes from space energy (mass is entropic no energy of itself).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Matter and energy are 100% different. All matter must contain some energy, otherwise it would collapse into black hole material (or further?) Matter is what we regard as made of solids, even on an atomic level. These cannot travel at light speed, like waves which are not solid always do. |
Matter is frozen energy (none left) motion of electrons probably comes from space energy (mass is entropic no energy of itself).
You can take atomic energy out of materials by bringing them to critic mass (fission) or by incredible pressures and temperatures (fusion), makes heavier elements.
Suns do not create H2 fuel. If they did, no star would ever run out of energy. Our sun takes four atoms of hydrogen and turns it into one atom of helium. The byproduct is heat, light, etc.
Yes but suns do not stop at helium. Eventually they turn into red giants with too much iron. If a sun could get rid of its garbage elements they would last as long as time.
QUOTE
Space itself actually has no energy. It is an absence of matter, energy, gravity, etc which can be used by those effects. If space did have energy, that would solve many of NASA's problems. The only energy space has, is from the sun.
How do you tap into the energy of time or what drives the electrons, protons and neutrons? Mass is a conduit for space energy but all mass is entropic going to the lowest energy state. What we think of energy is just a tap into space energy. NASA cannot change physical laws and use space energy. Its like sitting on a 6 thousand volt electric wire with no way to ground.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Space itself actually has no energy. It is an absence of matter, energy, gravity, etc which can be used by those effects. If space did have energy, that would solve many of NASA's problems. The only energy space has, is from the sun. |
How do you tap into the energy of time or what drives the electrons, protons and neutrons? Mass is a conduit for space energy but all mass is entropic going to the lowest energy state. What we think of energy is just a tap into space energy. NASA cannot change physical laws and use space energy. Its like sitting on a 6 thousand volt electric wire with no way to ground.
How can energy be compressed? Black holes can do it to an extent but hang onto their energy.
Energy is in its most condensed and energetic form when its not part of mass or a gravity field (time runs faster). This would be seen between galaxies where time would run the fastest. Causing light to be red shifted.
I am sure papacurse will be here to disapprove soon along with the masked demarker. To him science is a religious faith that has no room for deviation from the Einstein scriptures.
QUOTE (Harry Costas+Dec 18 2006, 07:34 AM)
Hello Nick
How do you know they exist mate?
and
Do you know what a singularity is?
Mathematically the infinitely small can either be a zero or nozero infinitesimal. This nonzero singularity doesn't have the theoretical problems that a zero singularity has. Mass is spread out like it is in Silly String Theory.
MITCH RAEMSCH
How do you know they exist mate?
and
Do you know what a singularity is?
Mathematically the infinitely small can either be a zero or nozero infinitesimal. This nonzero singularity doesn't have the theoretical problems that a zero singularity has. Mass is spread out like it is in Silly String Theory.
MITCH RAEMSCH
Hello All
Matter and electromagnetic radiation is one of the same but in a different state.
As for black hole,,,,,,,,research in compact star cores
Neutron cores: Compact really well about 10^18: Size of New York compared to our sun (10Km ball)
Quark cores that form neutrons compact more about 10^22 (3 m ball)
The theoretical preon core makes up quarks compacts about 10^35 (soccer ball)
and the formation of the so called black hole, which is just matter that is ultra dense plasma that has so much gravity and electromangetic forces that light cannot escape from it. Although the plasma does create eddy cuurents, convectional currents that create jet streams expelling plasma from black holes. Because of the extreme plasma density, when a door is made by the convectional currents to the outside, it propells itself with great energy.
Thats my opinion.
Matter and electromagnetic radiation is one of the same but in a different state.
As for black hole,,,,,,,,research in compact star cores
Neutron cores: Compact really well about 10^18: Size of New York compared to our sun (10Km ball)
Quark cores that form neutrons compact more about 10^22 (3 m ball)
The theoretical preon core makes up quarks compacts about 10^35 (soccer ball)
and the formation of the so called black hole, which is just matter that is ultra dense plasma that has so much gravity and electromangetic forces that light cannot escape from it. Although the plasma does create eddy cuurents, convectional currents that create jet streams expelling plasma from black holes. Because of the extreme plasma density, when a door is made by the convectional currents to the outside, it propells itself with great energy.
Thats my opinion.
4Dguy. If someone can debate and show you wrong, fair enough but just ignore any clods who blindly insult you.
EMR ranges from ultralong radio waves to very energetic (very short) gamma rays. All travel at the speed of light and have no mass. They are not "real" but are merely motion of a kind.
I think you still need to work on definitions of matter and energy. They are not interchangeable. Light can be stopped using what is known as a Bose Einstein condensate but it is still light. I don't think you can actually ompress energy. Even inside a black hole, energy though trapped under billions of gravities is still energy.
Yes, small suns like ours used fusion to produce elements up to carbon and bigger suns upto iron but there is no renewable resources. A sun starts off with X amount of material and from then onwards loses material in it's atomic processes (our sun loses four millions tons a second). Stars can dump heavy elements if they smother them and the pressure builds up by going nova/super-nova, but this is at the expense of huge amounts of energy and material.
Atomic particles are "like" being in space and throwing a ball away from you. hat ball will go on forever unless acted on by another force. Atomic particles have an inbuilt amount of energy and a 100% rebound from anything they hit.
Mass actually has a huge amount of energy contained in it. The only energy we can get at is by putting together 12 lbs or more of plutonium to give us a nuclear bomb which releases the energy of the atom. This can only be done with very large and unstable nucleii. The common elements are far too stable to be able to disrupt (which is probably just as well, or the whole Earth might just go up in smoke).
Light runs at a set speed for a set medium. It has a maximum speed when travelling through a vacuum (space). It cannot go any faster that we know of.
There is still a lot about science we do not know and a lot we are not sure of. It leaves room for speculation and unless properwanker has inside information from god, then he is just using guesswork too.
EMR ranges from ultralong radio waves to very energetic (very short) gamma rays. All travel at the speed of light and have no mass. They are not "real" but are merely motion of a kind.
I think you still need to work on definitions of matter and energy. They are not interchangeable. Light can be stopped using what is known as a Bose Einstein condensate but it is still light. I don't think you can actually ompress energy. Even inside a black hole, energy though trapped under billions of gravities is still energy.
Yes, small suns like ours used fusion to produce elements up to carbon and bigger suns upto iron but there is no renewable resources. A sun starts off with X amount of material and from then onwards loses material in it's atomic processes (our sun loses four millions tons a second). Stars can dump heavy elements if they smother them and the pressure builds up by going nova/super-nova, but this is at the expense of huge amounts of energy and material.
Atomic particles are "like" being in space and throwing a ball away from you. hat ball will go on forever unless acted on by another force. Atomic particles have an inbuilt amount of energy and a 100% rebound from anything they hit.
Mass actually has a huge amount of energy contained in it. The only energy we can get at is by putting together 12 lbs or more of plutonium to give us a nuclear bomb which releases the energy of the atom. This can only be done with very large and unstable nucleii. The common elements are far too stable to be able to disrupt (which is probably just as well, or the whole Earth might just go up in smoke).
Light runs at a set speed for a set medium. It has a maximum speed when travelling through a vacuum (space). It cannot go any faster that we know of.
There is still a lot about science we do not know and a lot we are not sure of. It leaves room for speculation and unless properwanker has inside information from god, then he is just using guesswork too.
The legendary point source of maths. Maths loves using the word "infinite" but there ain't no such thing! Maths is not the real world.
Kaneda,
Space time energy has no apparent mass. We can only detect it indirectly. EMR are the waves on the energy source I am discussing.
Space time energy has no apparent mass. We can only detect it indirectly. EMR are the waves on the energy source I am discussing.
They are not "real" but are merely motion of a kind.
Of course it is motion created in space energy. Many people claim space energy is not real. Those that have bathed themselves in gamma rays might disagree with your idea of reality.
Mass energy: potential, kinetic and resistance.
Space energy: Where all energy is derived. It moves the electrons, protons and neutrons and in so doing is expanded and reduced in the mass environment. This is why atomic clocks run slower in a mass or accelerated environment.
Mass energy: potential, kinetic and resistance.
Space energy: Where all energy is derived. It moves the electrons, protons and neutrons and in so doing is expanded and reduced in the mass environment. This is why atomic clocks run slower in a mass or accelerated environment.
They are not interchangeable.
Fission and fusion.
No, of course not but it is in its most compressed form between galaxies away from mass.
No, of course not but it is in its most compressed form between galaxies away from mass.
Even inside a black hole, energy though trapped under billions of gravities is still energy.
If black holes exist (as we only detect them indirectly) there would be very little space energy in it. Its the ultimate entropy I suspect. Gravity is the lack of energy. All we do is add potential energy to do work sometimes using the entropy of gravity to extract energy from space energy.
Yes but what is left is not the starting material of a sun is it. A super nova burns itself out because of its heavy elements left behind. Ask yourself How can a star lose mass and grow in mass at the same time? Calculate your tonnage for 4 billion years.
Yes but what is left is not the starting material of a sun is it. A super nova burns itself out because of its heavy elements left behind. Ask yourself How can a star lose mass and grow in mass at the same time? Calculate your tonnage for 4 billion years.
Atomic particles are "like" being in space and throwing a ball away from you. hat ball will go on forever unless acted on by another force. Atomic particles have an inbuilt amount of energy and a 100% rebound from anything they hit.
Sure they get there energy from space energy.
That is just another form of entropy (potential energy).
That is just another form of entropy (potential energy).
Light runs at a set speed for a set medium. It has a maximum speed when travelling through a vacuum (space). It cannot go any faster that we know of.
Yes it has a maximum speed but we can not tell what it is because it is always confounded with mass. We know it is 186,000 miles per second but in space between galaxies a second has a shorter duration.
I am guessing also but there is nothing I have said that is more than one degree of subjective conclusions to known observations. Please show me I am wrong.
QUOTE
EMR ranges from ultralong radio waves to very energetic (very short) gamma rays. All travel at the speed of light and have no mass.
Space time energy has no apparent mass. We can only detect it indirectly. EMR are the waves on the energy source I am discussing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| EMR ranges from ultralong radio waves to very energetic (very short) gamma rays. All travel at the speed of light and have no mass. |
Space time energy has no apparent mass. We can only detect it indirectly. EMR are the waves on the energy source I am discussing.
They are not "real" but are merely motion of a kind.
Of course it is motion created in space energy. Many people claim space energy is not real. Those that have bathed themselves in gamma rays might disagree with your idea of reality.
QUOTE
I think you still need to work on definitions of matter and energy.
Mass energy: potential, kinetic and resistance.
Space energy: Where all energy is derived. It moves the electrons, protons and neutrons and in so doing is expanded and reduced in the mass environment. This is why atomic clocks run slower in a mass or accelerated environment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you still need to work on definitions of matter and energy. |
Mass energy: potential, kinetic and resistance.
Space energy: Where all energy is derived. It moves the electrons, protons and neutrons and in so doing is expanded and reduced in the mass environment. This is why atomic clocks run slower in a mass or accelerated environment.
They are not interchangeable.
Fission and fusion.
QUOTE
I don't think you can actually ompress energy
No, of course not but it is in its most compressed form between galaxies away from mass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think you can actually ompress energy |
No, of course not but it is in its most compressed form between galaxies away from mass.
Even inside a black hole, energy though trapped under billions of gravities is still energy.
If black holes exist (as we only detect them indirectly) there would be very little space energy in it. Its the ultimate entropy I suspect. Gravity is the lack of energy. All we do is add potential energy to do work sometimes using the entropy of gravity to extract energy from space energy.
QUOTE
Yes, small suns like ours used fusion to produce elements up to carbon and bigger suns Up to iron but there is no renewable resources. A sun starts off with X amount of material and from then onwards loses material in it's atomic processes (our sun loses four millions tons a second). Stars can dump heavy elements if they smother them and the pressure builds up by going nova/super-nova, but this is at the expense of huge amounts of energy and material.
Yes but what is left is not the starting material of a sun is it. A super nova burns itself out because of its heavy elements left behind. Ask yourself How can a star lose mass and grow in mass at the same time? Calculate your tonnage for 4 billion years.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, small suns like ours used fusion to produce elements up to carbon and bigger suns Up to iron but there is no renewable resources. A sun starts off with X amount of material and from then onwards loses material in it's atomic processes (our sun loses four millions tons a second). Stars can dump heavy elements if they smother them and the pressure builds up by going nova/super-nova, but this is at the expense of huge amounts of energy and material. |
Yes but what is left is not the starting material of a sun is it. A super nova burns itself out because of its heavy elements left behind. Ask yourself How can a star lose mass and grow in mass at the same time? Calculate your tonnage for 4 billion years.
Atomic particles are "like" being in space and throwing a ball away from you. hat ball will go on forever unless acted on by another force. Atomic particles have an inbuilt amount of energy and a 100% rebound from anything they hit.
Sure they get there energy from space energy.
QUOTE
Mass actually has a huge amount of energy contained in it. The only energy we can get at is by putting together 12 lbs or more of plutonium to give us a nuclear bomb which releases the energy of the atom. This can only be done with very large and unstable nucleii. The common elements are far too stable to be able to disrupt (which is probably just as well, or the whole Earth might just go up in smoke).
That is just another form of entropy (potential energy).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Mass actually has a huge amount of energy contained in it. The only energy we can get at is by putting together 12 lbs or more of plutonium to give us a nuclear bomb which releases the energy of the atom. This can only be done with very large and unstable nucleii. The common elements are far too stable to be able to disrupt (which is probably just as well, or the whole Earth might just go up in smoke). |
That is just another form of entropy (potential energy).
Light runs at a set speed for a set medium. It has a maximum speed when travelling through a vacuum (space). It cannot go any faster that we know of.
Yes it has a maximum speed but we can not tell what it is because it is always confounded with mass. We know it is 186,000 miles per second but in space between galaxies a second has a shorter duration.
QUOTE
There is still a lot about science we do not know and a lot we are not sure of. It leaves room for speculation and unless properwanker has inside information from god, then he is just using guesswork too.
I am guessing also but there is nothing I have said that is more than one degree of subjective conclusions to known observations. Please show me I am wrong.
4Dguy. What exactly is spacetime energy? How do we detect it?
I think anyone (apart from Doctor Banner) who has bathed themselves in gamma rays are terminally ill from various cancers or dead.
Once atomic particles have acquired energy, they tend to hang onto it. If they gain more energy, it is from an obvious source. Particles do not suddenly accelerate for no apparent reason.
Fission releases atomic binding energy of atoms. Fusion creates heavier elements from lighter elements.
Why should energy be most compressed away from anything that "might" compress it?
The sun currently loses about 126,144,000,000,000 tons of energy a year.
It currently masses at about 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. So if the sun were literally able to burn it's self to a frazzle, it would last nearly 175 trillion more years. So, 4.6 billion years is not very long.
Entropy is more likened to chaos (a measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system OR the tendancy of matter to evolve to inert uniformity). It is not a potential energy.
Light runs at a set speed. We have no evidence otherwise. What we call time has a set rate. Apart from affecting atomic clocks by various means, we have no evidence of shorter seconds.
You are going to have to define this space energy. Do you mean atomic forces? What scientists call gluons, etc? How does it actually energise protons and electrons? Can it be detected in any way?
I think anyone (apart from Doctor Banner) who has bathed themselves in gamma rays are terminally ill from various cancers or dead.
Once atomic particles have acquired energy, they tend to hang onto it. If they gain more energy, it is from an obvious source. Particles do not suddenly accelerate for no apparent reason.
Fission releases atomic binding energy of atoms. Fusion creates heavier elements from lighter elements.
Why should energy be most compressed away from anything that "might" compress it?
The sun currently loses about 126,144,000,000,000 tons of energy a year.
It currently masses at about 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. So if the sun were literally able to burn it's self to a frazzle, it would last nearly 175 trillion more years. So, 4.6 billion years is not very long.
Entropy is more likened to chaos (a measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system OR the tendancy of matter to evolve to inert uniformity). It is not a potential energy.
Light runs at a set speed. We have no evidence otherwise. What we call time has a set rate. Apart from affecting atomic clocks by various means, we have no evidence of shorter seconds.
You are going to have to define this space energy. Do you mean atomic forces? What scientists call gluons, etc? How does it actually energise protons and electrons? Can it be detected in any way?
Kaneda,
It can only be detected indirectly. Kind of like a black hole can only be detected indirectly so we do not really know what its properties are only subjectively. We see space time energy around galaxies as a lens effect. There is a threshold boundary between the space energy being effected by gravity and not being effected as much. Space time energy expands and is reduced by mass. The reduction of energy is because space time energy is what causes electrons, protons and neutrons to move. It causes the electron to orbit.
It can only be detected indirectly. Kind of like a black hole can only be detected indirectly so we do not really know what its properties are only subjectively. We see space time energy around galaxies as a lens effect. There is a threshold boundary between the space energy being effected by gravity and not being effected as much. Space time energy expands and is reduced by mass. The reduction of energy is because space time energy is what causes electrons, protons and neutrons to move. It causes the electron to orbit.
Once atomic particles have acquired energy, they tend to hang onto it. If they gain more energy, it is from an obvious source. Particles do not suddenly accelerate for no apparent reason.
The acquired energy is from a non entropic source the reason they hang onto it is because they are bathed in it. If the space energy in an environment remains constant, Why would they suddenly accelerate for no apparent reason?
Yes and they return to space time energy.
Yes and they return to space time energy.
Fusion creates heavier elements from lighter elements.
Yes that is why a sun does not stop at helium but fusion also creates hydrogen from space time energy. What you do not realize is the sun is not losing mass it is gaining mass all the time. Fusion in the center is outstripping fission in the suns.
That is one of the biggest misconceptions. Fusion compresses mass but mass decompresses energy. There is no energy in mass. Mass is used up energy. Mass is a conduit for space time energy potential, kinetic and resistance all entropic and non of its own. Mass is just a conductor for entropy.
That is one of the biggest misconceptions. Fusion compresses mass but mass decompresses energy. There is no energy in mass. Mass is used up energy. Mass is a conduit for space time energy potential, kinetic and resistance all entropic and non of its own. Mass is just a conductor for entropy.
It currently masses at about 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. So if the sun were literally able to burn it's self to a frazzle, it would last nearly 175 trillion more years. So, 4.6 billion years is not very long.
Yes but the heavy elements will smother it before that.
Matter is inert until we position it for potential energy. Matter is just a conduit for space time energy.
Matter is inert until we position it for potential energy. Matter is just a conduit for space time energy.
Light runs at a set speed. We have no evidence otherwise. What we call time has a set rate. Apart from affecting atomic clocks by various means, we have no evidence of shorter seconds.
Of course we do the atomic clocks that are made for space use more energetic cesium atoms while the ones here on earth are made with less energetic atoms in order to synchronize them. Atomic clocks take longer too cycle in the presence of mass. That is the whole idea between the different aging depending on acceleration or amount of gravity. No matter how fast or how slow the cesium atoms cycle everyone is always in the present. Space time energy is finite going the speed of light is a limit because there is no more energy left to go faster. Mass can not get that close to the speed of light because it would cause fusion and create massive resistance.
Space energy is: time,gravity, magnetism, All the waves from gamma to radio and longer. Its the reason for atomic forces. It is the glue and the substance that makes mass. Light and the rest are just a wave of space time energy so they do not have entropy. Electrons move in a bath of energy. How do you detect time? If your detection was limited to the size of a galaxy how would you detect a planet? This is the difficulty and obstacle that we face. Most people are not able to see beyond there sight. Specific observations will allow many theories. The combined observations will only allow one.
QUOTE
4Dguy. What exactly is spacetime energy? How do we detect it?
It can only be detected indirectly. Kind of like a black hole can only be detected indirectly so we do not really know what its properties are only subjectively. We see space time energy around galaxies as a lens effect. There is a threshold boundary between the space energy being effected by gravity and not being effected as much. Space time energy expands and is reduced by mass. The reduction of energy is because space time energy is what causes electrons, protons and neutrons to move. It causes the electron to orbit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4Dguy. What exactly is spacetime energy? How do we detect it? |
It can only be detected indirectly. Kind of like a black hole can only be detected indirectly so we do not really know what its properties are only subjectively. We see space time energy around galaxies as a lens effect. There is a threshold boundary between the space energy being effected by gravity and not being effected as much. Space time energy expands and is reduced by mass. The reduction of energy is because space time energy is what causes electrons, protons and neutrons to move. It causes the electron to orbit.
Once atomic particles have acquired energy, they tend to hang onto it. If they gain more energy, it is from an obvious source. Particles do not suddenly accelerate for no apparent reason.
The acquired energy is from a non entropic source the reason they hang onto it is because they are bathed in it. If the space energy in an environment remains constant, Why would they suddenly accelerate for no apparent reason?
QUOTE
Fission releases atomic binding energy of atoms.
Yes and they return to space time energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fission releases atomic binding energy of atoms. |
Yes and they return to space time energy.
Fusion creates heavier elements from lighter elements.
Yes that is why a sun does not stop at helium but fusion also creates hydrogen from space time energy. What you do not realize is the sun is not losing mass it is gaining mass all the time. Fusion in the center is outstripping fission in the suns.
QUOTE
Why should energy be most compressed away from anything that "might" compress it?
That is one of the biggest misconceptions. Fusion compresses mass but mass decompresses energy. There is no energy in mass. Mass is used up energy. Mass is a conduit for space time energy potential, kinetic and resistance all entropic and non of its own. Mass is just a conductor for entropy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why should energy be most compressed away from anything that "might" compress it? |
That is one of the biggest misconceptions. Fusion compresses mass but mass decompresses energy. There is no energy in mass. Mass is used up energy. Mass is a conduit for space time energy potential, kinetic and resistance all entropic and non of its own. Mass is just a conductor for entropy.
It currently masses at about 22,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons. So if the sun were literally able to burn it's self to a frazzle, it would last nearly 175 trillion more years. So, 4.6 billion years is not very long.
Yes but the heavy elements will smother it before that.
QUOTE
Entropy is more likened to chaos (a measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system OR the tendency of matter to evolve to inert uniformity). It is not a potential energy.
Matter is inert until we position it for potential energy. Matter is just a conduit for space time energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Entropy is more likened to chaos (a measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system OR the tendency of matter to evolve to inert uniformity). It is not a potential energy. |
Matter is inert until we position it for potential energy. Matter is just a conduit for space time energy.
Light runs at a set speed. We have no evidence otherwise. What we call time has a set rate. Apart from affecting atomic clocks by various means, we have no evidence of shorter seconds.
Of course we do the atomic clocks that are made for space use more energetic cesium atoms while the ones here on earth are made with less energetic atoms in order to synchronize them. Atomic clocks take longer too cycle in the presence of mass. That is the whole idea between the different aging depending on acceleration or amount of gravity. No matter how fast or how slow the cesium atoms cycle everyone is always in the present. Space time energy is finite going the speed of light is a limit because there is no more energy left to go faster. Mass can not get that close to the speed of light because it would cause fusion and create massive resistance.
QUOTE
You are going to have to define this space energy. Do you mean atomic forces? What scientists call gluons, etc? How does it actually energise protons and electrons? Can it be detected in any way?
Space energy is: time,gravity, magnetism, All the waves from gamma to radio and longer. Its the reason for atomic forces. It is the glue and the substance that makes mass. Light and the rest are just a wave of space time energy so they do not have entropy. Electrons move in a bath of energy. How do you detect time? If your detection was limited to the size of a galaxy how would you detect a planet? This is the difficulty and obstacle that we face. Most people are not able to see beyond there sight. Specific observations will allow many theories. The combined observations will only allow one.
QUOTE (korosten+Dec 19 2006, 01:13 AM)
Folks,
I'm not sure if you have seen my "attemped prove" to show that the force of gravity moves at >>>> c.
I would really like some feedback on this! Because, I am not sure you all realize it, if this is correct, what the implications are!
Yep, a lot of people saw it. You know the feedback: pure junk.
Ah, just one of those Einstein haters, now we understand the motive.
Ah, just one of those Einstein haters, now we understand the motive.
The it would mean we can trasmit information >>> c.
That would violate causality principle, I don't expect you to know about the magnitude of the absurdity of what you are claiming.
Also, our interpretation of space time is wrong too.
And if that is wrong, there is no big bang - at least not as we know it!
You may be in line for a Nobel prize, I'll email Stephen Hawking.
You may be in line for a Nobel prize, I'll email Stephen Hawking.
And so on, and so on. And the whole house of cards is crumbling...
(or maybe I am exaggerating, but a BIG chunk is falling down!)
In your deluded dreams.
That's why it is SO ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY critcal that this prove is 100% solid.
Do you guys see what I mean?
If not, I'd be more than happy to discuss each and every single point!
Chantal :-)
Yeah, we know what you mean.
I'm not sure if you have seen my "attemped prove" to show that the force of gravity moves at >>>> c.
I would really like some feedback on this! Because, I am not sure you all realize it, if this is correct, what the implications are!
Yep, a lot of people saw it. You know the feedback: pure junk.
QUOTE
Basically, if this is true, then a big part of special relativity is wrong (NOT the Lorentzian part! Just Einstein's additions).
Ah, just one of those Einstein haters, now we understand the motive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Basically, if this is true, then a big part of special relativity is wrong (NOT the Lorentzian part! Just Einstein's additions). |
Ah, just one of those Einstein haters, now we understand the motive.
The it would mean we can trasmit information >>> c.
That would violate causality principle, I don't expect you to know about the magnitude of the absurdity of what you are claiming.
QUOTE
Also, our interpretation of space time is wrong too.
And if that is wrong, there is no big bang - at least not as we know it!
You may be in line for a Nobel prize, I'll email Stephen Hawking.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Also, our interpretation of space time is wrong too. And if that is wrong, there is no big bang - at least not as we know it! |
You may be in line for a Nobel prize, I'll email Stephen Hawking.
And so on, and so on. And the whole house of cards is crumbling...
(or maybe I am exaggerating, but a BIG chunk is falling down!)
In your deluded dreams.
QUOTE
That's why it is SO ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY critcal that this prove is 100% solid.
Do you guys see what I mean?
If not, I'd be more than happy to discuss each and every single point!
Chantal :-)
Yeah, we know what you mean.
Hello Pupamancur
You maybe right in what you say.
But! your attitude stinks.
At this moment. There is not proof that gravity travels faster than light.
Although there is strong indications that gravity does travel faster than light. It requires this point to escape the black hole gravitational pull.
You maybe right in what you say.
But! your attitude stinks.
At this moment. There is not proof that gravity travels faster than light.
Although there is strong indications that gravity does travel faster than light. It requires this point to escape the black hole gravitational pull.
Hello All
Look at these links
The Universe: Cosmology Quest
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=145881599911703060 (part 1)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=584573302505202765 (part 2)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009
I have seen the first movie,,,,,,,,,,,very intersting
Look at these links
The Universe: Cosmology Quest
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=145881599911703060 (part 1)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=584573302505202765 (part 2)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009
I have seen the first movie,,,,,,,,,,,very intersting
Harry Costas. The effect of gravity is said to travel at light speed. However, we have never detected any gravitons, waves, etc despite having witnessed some of the most violent gravitational events in the universe which are believed to have caused gamma ray bursters.
Gravity is said to escape a black hole by quantum tunnelling (how mythology alleges your computer works, but no 8x10 photos yet). It is more likely that gravity is an absense of some kind, like a hole which must be filled.
Gravity is said to escape a black hole by quantum tunnelling (how mythology alleges your computer works, but no 8x10 photos yet). It is more likely that gravity is an absense of some kind, like a hole which must be filled.
Hello Kaneda
What is your evidence to prove that gravity travels at C.
What is your evidence to prove that gravity travels at C.
Hello All
There are two conflicting ideas as to the speed of light and the ability for man to generate a speed to go faster than C.
As for gravity, smile the amount of evidence to indicate the speed is very little.
Unless you have evidence rather than hear say.
Look at these links.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/...esofgravity.asp
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/...esofgravity.asp
Abstract. Gravity has no aberration, and propagation delays cannot be used without destroying angular momentum conservation at an unacceptable rate. Even the curved spacetime explanation (“gravity is just geometry”) breaks down when masses and speeds are large, as in binary pulsars. But if gravity or spacetime curvature information is carried by classical propagating particles or waves, a modern Laplace experiment places a lower limit on their speed of 1010 c. The so-called Lorentzian modification of special relativity permits such speeds without need of tachyons. But there are other consequences. If ordinary gravity is carried by particles with finite collision cross-section, such collisions would progressively diminish its inverse square character. Gravity would gradually convert to inverse linear behavior on the largest scales. Curiously, at all scales greater than about 2 kiloparsecs, gravity can be modeled without need for dark matter by an inverse linear law. The orbital motions of Mercury and Earth may also show traces of this effect. Moreover, if gravity were carried by particles, a collapsed ultra-dense mass between two bodies could shield each of them from the gravity of the other. Anomalies are seen in the motions of certain artificial Earth satellites during eclipse seasons that behave like shielding of the Sun’s gravity. Certain types of radiation pressure might cause a similar behavior, but require far more free parameters to model. Each of these effects of particle-gravity models has the potential to lead to a breakthrough in our post-Einsteinian understanding of gravitation. This would also change our views of the nature of time in relativity theory.
But!!
There are some that think they have proven the speed of gravity to be that of light.
See link
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=573
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232
Ed Fomalont of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Sergei Kopeikin of the University of Missouri in Columbia made the measurement, with the help of the planet Jupiter.
"We became the first two people to know the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature," the scientists say, in an article in New Scientist print edition. One important consequence of the result is that it places constraints on theories of "brane worlds", which suggest the Universe has more spatial dimensions than the familiar three.
This response is questionable.
Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp
Read this link
Table 1. Overview and comparison of SR and LR.
Something interesting
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796
This response is questionable.
Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp
Read this link
Table 1. Overview and comparison of SR and LR.
Something interesting
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796
Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department.
Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500.
So! does gravity travel faster than the speed of light?
Mate, I wish someone would prove this one way or another.
There are two conflicting ideas as to the speed of light and the ability for man to generate a speed to go faster than C.
As for gravity, smile the amount of evidence to indicate the speed is very little.
Unless you have evidence rather than hear say.
Look at these links.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
QUOTE
Abstract. Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2x1010 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/...esofgravity.asp
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract. Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed. This is because gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the “Poynting-Robertson effect”); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature. Problems with the causality principle also exist for GR in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments: not less than 2x1010 c. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation. Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau. |
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/...esofgravity.asp
Abstract. Gravity has no aberration, and propagation delays cannot be used without destroying angular momentum conservation at an unacceptable rate. Even the curved spacetime explanation (“gravity is just geometry”) breaks down when masses and speeds are large, as in binary pulsars. But if gravity or spacetime curvature information is carried by classical propagating particles or waves, a modern Laplace experiment places a lower limit on their speed of 1010 c. The so-called Lorentzian modification of special relativity permits such speeds without need of tachyons. But there are other consequences. If ordinary gravity is carried by particles with finite collision cross-section, such collisions would progressively diminish its inverse square character. Gravity would gradually convert to inverse linear behavior on the largest scales. Curiously, at all scales greater than about 2 kiloparsecs, gravity can be modeled without need for dark matter by an inverse linear law. The orbital motions of Mercury and Earth may also show traces of this effect. Moreover, if gravity were carried by particles, a collapsed ultra-dense mass between two bodies could shield each of them from the gravity of the other. Anomalies are seen in the motions of certain artificial Earth satellites during eclipse seasons that behave like shielding of the Sun’s gravity. Certain types of radiation pressure might cause a similar behavior, but require far more free parameters to model. Each of these effects of particle-gravity models has the potential to lead to a breakthrough in our post-Einsteinian understanding of gravitation. This would also change our views of the nature of time in relativity theory.
But!!
There are some that think they have proven the speed of gravity to be that of light.
See link
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=573
QUOTE
In September 2002, two US scientists made some very accurate measurements of the position of a quasar as it passed behind Jupiter. They argued that the exact amount of apparent motion of the quasar (as the path of the radio waves from it was bent in Jupiter's gravitational field) depended on both the speed of light AND the speed of gravity. The measurements they took then proved that the speed of gravity is the same as that of light, ruling out some of the more bizarre modifications to the laws of gravity which have been proposed, and further backing General Relativity (BBC news article on the experiment).
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In September 2002, two US scientists made some very accurate measurements of the position of a quasar as it passed behind Jupiter. They argued that the exact amount of apparent motion of the quasar (as the path of the radio waves from it was bent in Jupiter's gravitational field) depended on both the speed of light AND the speed of gravity. The measurements they took then proved that the speed of gravity is the same as that of light, ruling out some of the more bizarre modifications to the laws of gravity which have been proposed, and further backing General Relativity (BBC news article on the experiment). |
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232
Ed Fomalont of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Sergei Kopeikin of the University of Missouri in Columbia made the measurement, with the help of the planet Jupiter.
"We became the first two people to know the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature," the scientists say, in an article in New Scientist print edition. One important consequence of the result is that it places constraints on theories of "brane worlds", which suggest the Universe has more spatial dimensions than the familiar three.
QUOTE
But the assumption of light-speed gravity has come under pressure from brane world theories, which suggest there are extra spatial dimensions rolled up very small. Gravity could take a short cut through these extra dimensions and so appear to travel faster than the speed of light - without violating the equations of general relativity.
This response is questionable.
Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp
Read this link
Table 1. Overview and comparison of SR and LR.
Something interesting
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the assumption of light-speed gravity has come under pressure from brane world theories, which suggest there are extra spatial dimensions rolled up very small. Gravity could take a short cut through these extra dimensions and so appear to travel faster than the speed of light - without violating the equations of general relativity. |
This response is questionable.
Is faster-than-light propagation allowed by the laws of physics?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp
Read this link
Table 1. Overview and comparison of SR and LR.
Something interesting
Speed of light broken with basic lab kit
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796
Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department.
Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500.
So! does gravity travel faster than the speed of light?
Mate, I wish someone would prove this one way or another.
Harry Costas. A recent observation as you point out which showed that gravity moves at light speed:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
The cases you show look on gravity as an actual particle (graviton), which I believe is wrong. I think of it more as a hole in space which has to be filled, and light speed seems to be a limiting factor where space is concerned.
I have no time for branes, which are no-brainers. They are as likely as god is.
That experiment was just an interference pattern and not actual movement as claimed. Like having a magic torch with a beam a million miles long and whirling it around the sky, claiming that the end of the torch's beam was moving faster than light.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php
The cases you show look on gravity as an actual particle (graviton), which I believe is wrong. I think of it more as a hole in space which has to be filled, and light speed seems to be a limiting factor where space is concerned.
I have no time for branes, which are no-brainers. They are as likely as god is.
That experiment was just an interference pattern and not actual movement as claimed. Like having a magic torch with a beam a million miles long and whirling it around the sky, claiming that the end of the torch's beam was moving faster than light.
Hello Kaneda
Mate, you could be right.
I'm sitting on the fence until someone gives us evidence.
Regardless you can still look at both options and look at the ins and outs.
Mate, you could be right.
I'm sitting on the fence until someone gives us evidence.
Regardless you can still look at both options and look at the ins and outs.
Harry Costas. Agreed. The trouble with such theoretical physics is that so much of it is still theoretical. Until we have hard facts with only one interpretation, I think it is all down to personal opinions.
Hello Kaneda
Have you reseached Plasma Cosmology.
This is the future of cosmology
Have you reseached Plasma Cosmology.
This is the future of cosmology
My favorite topic these days, speed of gravity :-)
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv...of-gravity.html
Did you see my thread on "propagation of forces: gravity"
It cannot propagate at c - at least not via any particle or wave or density change or curvature change - it is not consistent with observations.
It may not propagate at all, or else if it is some form of particle, it has to be >>> c.
http://chantal.nobilitas.com/gravity/gravity.html
The only solution that works mathematically where the force is supposed to travel at c is the one that Carlip proposed, and I've taken this formula completely apart. His formula works mathematically, but it violates the equivalence principle, so this is not how gravity can work in reality....
Let me know if you find a mistake... but so far nobody has found one...
Chantal
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv...of-gravity.html
Did you see my thread on "propagation of forces: gravity"
It cannot propagate at c - at least not via any particle or wave or density change or curvature change - it is not consistent with observations.
It may not propagate at all, or else if it is some form of particle, it has to be >>> c.
http://chantal.nobilitas.com/gravity/gravity.html
The only solution that works mathematically where the force is supposed to travel at c is the one that Carlip proposed, and I've taken this formula completely apart. His formula works mathematically, but it violates the equivalence principle, so this is not how gravity can work in reality....
Let me know if you find a mistake... but so far nobody has found one...
Chantal
korosten. It is strange that despite witnessing some of the most violent gravitational events in the Universe, we have never detected any particles (gravitons) or waves from them. I am more inclined to think that gravity is some kind of void in space which has to be filled.
Gravity is said to travel at light speed (which makes sense since this seems to be a set speed for movements in space itself, like photons) yet is not bothered by the most super-massive black holes which suggests (quantum fairy tales aside) that it is not a force of any kind so cannot be confined as light can by a higher escape velocity.
Gravity is said to travel at light speed (which makes sense since this seems to be a set speed for movements in space itself, like photons) yet is not bothered by the most super-massive black holes which suggests (quantum fairy tales aside) that it is not a force of any kind so cannot be confined as light can by a higher escape velocity.
Harry Costas. I've only touched on plasma cosmology. I think until we know better, every reasonable explanation of how it all began is as good as any other, till we actually have any proof.
Hello Kaneda
Degenerate matter and plasma cosmology is the way to go.
They are the foundations.
We notice degenerate matter in all stars.
Plasma makes up most of the universe.
Degenerate matter and plasma cosmology is the way to go.
They are the foundations.
We notice degenerate matter in all stars.
Plasma makes up most of the universe.
Harry Costas. Do you believe the Universe has always existed?
Plasma is everywhere but I don't know if it is symptomatic of anything. Degenerate matter is the end state of plasma.
I have difficulties with the electrical universe too. If any planet were generating a huge current I would have thought it would hav been Jupiter, and when a probe came within a million miles of it, I would have expected it to have gone up in smoke.
Plasma is everywhere but I don't know if it is symptomatic of anything. Degenerate matter is the end state of plasma.
I have difficulties with the electrical universe too. If any planet were generating a huge current I would have thought it would hav been Jupiter, and when a probe came within a million miles of it, I would have expected it to have gone up in smoke.
Universe can be born from Mother Universe or can come out of Aether as a vortex breakdown structure.
Both scenarios would explain inflation phase.
First scenario would be based on bifurcation due to angular moment conservation law, like eddie, second- the physical meaning and content of number 0 and the possible ways for it to be manifested.
Both scenarios would explain inflation phase.
First scenario would be based on bifurcation due to angular moment conservation law, like eddie, second- the physical meaning and content of number 0 and the possible ways for it to be manifested.
kaneda,
gravity is not aberrated like light is.
planets feel the "instantaneous", actual positions of other planets (light on the other hand is retarded).
So gravity cannot have the same speed as light, it must "trave" (if it does) much faster than light.
Chantal
gravity is not aberrated like light is.
planets feel the "instantaneous", actual positions of other planets (light on the other hand is retarded).
So gravity cannot have the same speed as light, it must "trave" (if it does) much faster than light.
Chantal
Hello Kaneda
Kaneda said
The universe is infinite and all the matter has been here in one form or another of matter recyling. All the phases of matter are part of the never ending story and each part plays an important role from molecular nebula, star formation to black holes(Ultra dense plasma matter also called ultra dense degenerated matter) and so on.
Degerate matter is not the end state of plasma. Where on earth do you get that logic. Research the origin of our solar system. Degenerate matter makes the stars and black holes function without it, we would no be.
This is the reason why I have asked you to research more on
Star formation
Plasma cosmology and so on.
If you need formation, just ask.
Kaneda said
QUOTE
Harry Costas. Do you believe the Universe has always existed?
Plasma is everywhere but I don't know if it is symptomatic of anything. Degenerate matter is the end state of plasma.
I have difficulties with the electrical universe too. If any planet were generating a huge current I would have thought it would hav been Jupiter, and when a probe came within a million miles of it, I would have expected it to have gone up in smoke.
Plasma is everywhere but I don't know if it is symptomatic of anything. Degenerate matter is the end state of plasma.
I have difficulties with the electrical universe too. If any planet were generating a huge current I would have thought it would hav been Jupiter, and when a probe came within a million miles of it, I would have expected it to have gone up in smoke.
The universe is infinite and all the matter has been here in one form or another of matter recyling. All the phases of matter are part of the never ending story and each part plays an important role from molecular nebula, star formation to black holes(Ultra dense plasma matter also called ultra dense degenerated matter) and so on.
Degerate matter is not the end state of plasma. Where on earth do you get that logic. Research the origin of our solar system. Degenerate matter makes the stars and black holes function without it, we would no be.
This is the reason why I have asked you to research more on
Star formation
Plasma cosmology and so on.
If you need formation, just ask.
is it possible that space is stretching due to the magnetic pull from the big bang of a future time dimension?
Hello Oricale1
To begin with the BBT is just a theory with alot of ad hoc ideas.
I do not know why the BBT became the so call standard model.
As for space, space is a word to mean all,similar to the word universe. It cannot be expanded or contracted. This does not mean the objects with space (universe) cannot be expanded or contracted.
In actual fact they all go through the process of expanding and contracting.
Space/dimensions are spoken in the 4D in a reference frame only and does not mean extra dimensions as in multidimensions and so on.
Thats what I think. My opinion.
To begin with the BBT is just a theory with alot of ad hoc ideas.
I do not know why the BBT became the so call standard model.
As for space, space is a word to mean all,similar to the word universe. It cannot be expanded or contracted. This does not mean the objects with space (universe) cannot be expanded or contracted.
In actual fact they all go through the process of expanding and contracting.
Space/dimensions are spoken in the 4D in a reference frame only and does not mean extra dimensions as in multidimensions and so on.
Thats what I think. My opinion.
korosten. A while back, gravity was measured as moving at light speed, which sounded reasonable to me as it seems to be a set speed for non-matter. As far as I know, we have no evidence of instantaneous gravitation (ie: we look for gravitational waves from violent events in the universe when we see them happening.)
Question. The sun holds Earth in place. If the sun went nova, which would mean that it would cease to function as a normal gravitational source, would that mean that instantly we would feel increasingly less gravity from the sun, and ever less as it's mass spread outwards, and be drifting away from the sun when the force of the nova reached us over eight minutes later?
Question. The sun holds Earth in place. If the sun went nova, which would mean that it would cease to function as a normal gravitational source, would that mean that instantly we would feel increasingly less gravity from the sun, and ever less as it's mass spread outwards, and be drifting away from the sun when the force of the nova reached us over eight minutes later?
oracle1. There is lots of theories up for discussion but I think everyone agrees on cause and effect, that something must have a cause to happen. What you are suggesting is that the effect is making the cause (the universe that will be is in effect making itself.)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.