Scientific Forums


Pages: (93) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Origins Of The Universe.
Harry Costas
Posted: Nov 12 2006, 09:40 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30-April 06

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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.
Top
kaneda
Posted: Nov 13 2006, 02:19 PM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5044
Joined: 6-November 06

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
pupamancur is : Rabbit, Dallas, LearmSceince, Gizmo, Gehn, Alpha, BenTheMan, LeTUOtter, Charles Lee Ray and probably others. So little time, so much hate to post.
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Nov 14 2006, 09:54 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30-April 06

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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


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.



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.
Top
kaneda
Posted: Nov 21 2006, 11:46 AM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5044
Joined: 6-November 06

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
pupamancur is : Rabbit, Dallas, LearmSceince, Gizmo, Gehn, Alpha, BenTheMan, LeTUOtter, Charles Lee Ray and probably others. So little time, so much hate to post.
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Nov 23 2006, 03:56 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30-April 06

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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.

Top
kaneda
Posted: Nov 24 2006, 03:29 PM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5044
Joined: 6-November 06

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
pupamancur is : Rabbit, Dallas, LearmSceince, Gizmo, Gehn, Alpha, BenTheMan, LeTUOtter, Charles Lee Ray and probably others. So little time, so much hate to post.
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Nov 26 2006, 09:40 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30-April 06

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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










This post has been edited by Harry Costas on Nov 26 2006, 09:42 AM
Top
kaneda
Posted: Nov 26 2006, 10:21 AM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5044
Joined: 6-November 06

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
pupamancur is : Rabbit, Dallas, LearmSceince, Gizmo, Gehn, Alpha, BenTheMan, LeTUOtter, Charles Lee Ray and probably others. So little time, so much hate to post.
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Nov 27 2006, 07:59 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30-April 06

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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.

This post has been edited by Harry Costas on Nov 27 2006, 08:02 AM
Top
kaneda
Posted: Nov 27 2006, 02:54 PM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5044
Joined: 6-November 06

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


Harry Costas. Obviously but I thought you wanted some dialogue.

What's your opinion on old light?


--------------------
pupamancur is : Rabbit, Dallas, LearmSceince, Gizmo, Gehn, Alpha, BenTheMan, LeTUOtter, Charles Lee Ray and probably others. So little time, so much hate to post.
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Nov 28 2006, 10:19 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30-April 06

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


Hello Kaneda

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
.


I hope this answers your quetsion on Old light


Top
Ivars
Posted: Nov 28 2006, 09:12 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2206
Joined: 14-August 06

Positive Feedback: 50.7%
Feedback Score: -7


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.






Top
Nick
Posted: Nov 28 2006, 09:21 PM


-- LIGHT FELL --
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5292
Joined: 3-June 05

Positive Feedback: 58.82%
Feedback Score: -40


Universal Origin? A space-time singularity that expands as an 4D Hypersphere with matter beginning on its surface. tongue.gif
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Nov 30 2006, 08:42 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 30-April 06

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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.







Top
korosten
Posted: Nov 30 2006, 03:17 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 4-November 06

Positive Feedback: 51.61%
Feedback Score: -12


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
Top

Topic Options Pages: (93) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use