Scientific Forums


Pages: (93) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Origins Of The Universe.
kaneda
Posted: Nov 30 2006, 06:32 PM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
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: Dec 1 2006, 09:28 AM


Advanced Member
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


Hello Keneda

Mate what are you trying to say.



Top
kaneda
Posted: Dec 1 2006, 03:09 PM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
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: Dec 3 2006, 07:28 AM


Advanced Member
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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.
Top
kaneda
Posted: Dec 3 2006, 01:30 PM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
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: Dec 4 2006, 10:40 AM


Advanced Member
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


Hello Kaneda

Can you please explain further.

Top
kaneda
Posted: Dec 4 2006, 04:10 PM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


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.


--------------------
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
amrit
Posted: Dec 4 2006, 07:30 PM


THE ONLY TIME EXISTS IS INNER TIME
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2770
Joined: 17-March 05

Positive Feedback: 30.86%
Feedback Score: -203


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


--------------------
The universe is in a continuous change. A change n gets transformed into a change n+1, the change n+1 into a change n+2 and so on. Clocks measure a frequency, velocity and numerical order of change. Changes do not occur in time, changes occur in space only. Time is not a part of space. In the space there is no past and no future. Past and future belong to the inner time that is a result of neuronal activity of the brain.
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Dec 5 2006, 08:37 AM


Advanced Member
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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.

This post has been edited by Harry Costas on Dec 5 2006, 08:39 AM
Top
Nick
Posted: Dec 11 2006, 03:08 AM


-- LIGHT FELL --
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 58.82%
Feedback Score: -40


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 --


Top
korosten
Posted: Dec 11 2006, 03:22 AM


Advanced Member
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 51.61%
Feedback Score: -12


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
Top
Nick
Posted: Dec 11 2006, 03:34 AM


-- LIGHT FELL --
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 58.82%
Feedback Score: -40


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. tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH
Top
Harry Costas
Posted: Dec 11 2006, 06:59 AM


Advanced Member
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 45.61%
Feedback Score: -100


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.

Top
Nick
Posted: Dec 11 2006, 07:24 AM


-- LIGHT FELL --
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 58.82%
Feedback Score: -40


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. tongue.gif

Where else did the universe come from?

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --
Top
korosten
Posted: Dec 11 2006, 03:57 PM


Advanced Member
*****

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

Positive Feedback: 51.61%
Feedback Score: -12


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
Top

Topic Options Pages: (93) 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use