View Full Version : Beginner questions: big bang impossible in normal physics? Do black holes die? Etc..
krystof
06-01-08, 03:56 PM
Hello. I am just now in the process of viewing all the 'creation of the universe' documentaries I can find. I have some questions about the Big Bang.
1. Is the Big Bang possible under current laws of physics?
I understand that before the Big Bang, there was supposedly no such thing as space or time. The current laws did not apply. And some scientists may be making some serious proposals about what laws did apply. However, am I correct to say "The big bang could not happen again in the current reality..."?
I.e., to my understanding, the biggest explosion that we know about is that which creates a black hole. I.e., if an explosion is large enough to create the universe, then wouldn't all that matter be unable to escape, under current laws?
:idea: 2. However, some matter and energy does escape from every black hole. So perhaps the center of the universe is a black hole, and all the so-called 'known universe' is perhaps a relatively small amount of matter and energy that managed to escape...?
:confused: 3. According to an older documentary (Hyperspace with Sam Neil) black holes once formed are destructive vaccuums that never die. Is this still the current opinion of science? (I seem to recall hearing in another documentary that black holes ultimately recycle creative energy--and thus might have something to do with the creation and possible re-creation of the universe--but perhaps I am mistaken..?)
:huh: 4. According to a recent documentary series (The Universe) we have no idea where the center of the universe is. Not even the general direction. I find this hard to swallow. We can see all galaxies moving apart--and we determine that they are moving apart faster--and we support the Big Bang theory by saying that all galaxies are determined to have originated from the same point--but we have no idea where that point is...? What am I missing here?
My understanding of black holes was that when a black hole has no matter to process in itself and no longer radiates x-rays, it ceases to exist.
Forceman
06-01-08, 04:37 PM
When a black hole dies, the trapped matter is said to be transported to a parallel universe, according to Stephen Hawking, which conjured the possibilty of wormholes.
James R
06-01-08, 09:35 PM
krystof:
1. Is the Big Bang possible under current laws of physics?
Of course. The Big Bang theory is based on our current best physical theories.
I understand that before the Big Bang, there was supposedly no such thing as space or time.
Since time didn't exist, the words "before the big bang" don't really make any sense.
The current laws did not apply. And some scientists may be making some serious proposals about what laws did apply. However, am I correct to say "The big bang could not happen again in the current reality..."?
The big bang created the universe, so you're essentially asking whether the big bang could occur again in our universe. The answer is no, because our universe already exists.
I.e., to my understanding, the biggest explosion that we know about is that which creates a black hole. I.e., if an explosion is large enough to create the universe, then wouldn't all that matter be unable to escape, under current laws?
Black holes are caused by gravitational collapse, not explosions, though perhaps you're thinking of the supernova explosions that precede the formation of black holes.
The fundamental forces of nature were "fused" at the big bang, in a way that meant that gravity alone could not stop the initial expansion.
:idea: 2. However, some matter and energy does escape from every black hole. So perhaps the center of the universe is a black hole, and all the so-called 'known universe' is perhaps a relatively small amount of matter and energy that managed to escape...?
There is no centre of the universe.
:confused: 3. According to an older documentary (Hyperspace with Sam Neil) black holes once formed are destructive vaccuums that never die. Is this still the current opinion of science? (I seem to recall hearing in another documentary that black holes ultimately recycle creative energy--and thus might have something to do with the creation and possible re-creation of the universe--but perhaps I am mistaken..?)
Black holes gradually, over billions of years, evaporate, releasing energy through a process known as Hawking radiation.
:huh: 4. According to a recent documentary series (The Universe) we have no idea where the center of the universe is. Not even the general direction. I find this hard to swallow. We can see all galaxies moving apart--and we determine that they are moving apart faster--and we support the Big Bang theory by saying that all galaxies are determined to have originated from the same point--but we have no idea where that point is...? What am I missing here?
Think of the universe like a loaf of raisin bread being baked in an oven. As the bread expands, all the raisins move away from one another. The bread is the universe; the raisins are the galaxies. Now, your question is like asking "which raisin is at the centre of the loaf?" From the general expansion, there's no way to tell. And we can't see any "edges" of the loaf, either.
draqon:
My understanding of black holes was that when a black hole has no matter to process in itself and no longer radiates x-rays, it ceases to exist.
Yes. When all of the mass of a hole has been radiated away via the Hawking process, the black hole will evaporate.
Forceman:
When a black hole dies, the trapped matter is said to be transported to a parallel universe, according to Stephen Hawking, which conjured the possibilty of wormholes.
There is no evidence at all that any "parallel universes" exist. However, nobody (including Stephen Hawking) knows what happens at the centre of a black hole.
When a black hole dies, the trapped matter is said to be transported to a parallel universe, according to Stephen Hawking, which conjured the possibilty of wormholes.
No it doesn't.
This would violate the information paradox, so Hawking has retracted his statement, and says nothing can move through black holes and enter other universes.
krystof
06-02-08, 02:01 PM
Thank you everyone for your help!
I have been browsing the Wickipedia and that also has helped, but also raised one or two other questions, as follows.
1. The "Hawking Radiation" theory of black holes is that they will last much longer than anything else, but will eventually evaporate from slow leakage based partly on 'Heisenberg uncertainty theory'--according to Wickipedia. This is currently unproven but seems a dominant theory which scientists are hopeful of observing directly.
2. Super-massive Black holes are nonetheless often described as 'engines of creation' due to the formation of 'accretion discs' resulting from certain limits on the speed at which a black hole can consume. The surrounding matter gathers into a disc and can become a Quasar or similar expression of the most powerful energy-producing forces in the universe.
3. There seem many ideas but no dominant theory about how the big bang actually happened. In fact, the big bang is so problematical that it was not fully accepted until the 1960's, due to the accidental discovery of background microwave radiation. I.e., the acceptance of the big bang is based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but only the 'faith' that we may someday work out how it actually happened. (This still leaves my question unanswered: whether or not the Big Bang theory might carry direct inherent contradictions to the known laws of physics.)
4. Q: Are we ever likely to determine which way is the center of the universe? I assume James R. is right about not knowing the center, because he seems right about everything else. But, do we not know this because such knowledge is impossible, or rather because we have not yet observed enough of the universe to make this determination? It seems to me that if we observe enough of a loaf of raisin bread, we should be able to roughly determine its center--or at least which raisins were 'relatively' nearer to the center than others, based obviously on the direction they are moving.
5. Q: How certain is the 'point of singularity' idea about the original size of the universe? On the one hand, I am finding only numerous 'incomplete hypotheses' about the nature of the big bang. But on the other hand, especiall in the documentary The Universe, several noted scientists speak with certainty that the universe began at the size of an atom. Nobody clarifies how they arrived at this conclusion. In the Wickipedia there is some reference that this is derived from quantum physics. However that is way above my head. I would just like to know if this is 'just another idea'? Or is this 'point of singularity' theory for the original size of the universe strongly accepted on a level with the big bang theory itself?
6. Does anybody sincerely believe that the Big Bang theory is harder to believe than the Big God theory? I would agree that believing in the Big bang is not easy. I find no reason in science to disbelieve that the basic nature of existance is spiritual, not physical. However, what boggles my mind is people who say with a straight face, "I can't believe a big bang just happened." So instead, they claim it is much easier to believe that God just happened. In order to agree with them, I would need to believe that God is more simple than a rock. In my opinion, the very definition of God implies something at least equivalent to a complex organism. So I would list the following as my own personal order of belief.
a) Least difficult to believe: bunch of matter happend to be there and happened to explode.
b) Much harder to believe: somebody named God happened to be there and happened to decide to create the universe.
c) Hardest of all to believe: that anybody would find the existance of God which they have never seen easier to believe than the existance of inanimate physical entities such as they see all the time.
(I personally do believe in God but I think it is drastically selling him short to claim he is either 'easier to believe' or 'easier to understand' than the Big Bang theory.)
blobrana
06-02-08, 03:17 PM
>>3
One main theory involves something called symmetry breaking. Quantum fluctuations (a random event) in a highly ordered multidimensional universe caused it to break up into lower energy/disordered states creating separate space, time, forces and energy.
>>4
yes, James R. is right.
It is a bit like driving to the centre of the earth. It doesnt matter which road we take, or how far or fast we go. We are stuck on a surface. The centre is in another `direction` (dimension) that we cannot go to.
>>5
The `singularity` has a minimum size of about 10^-43 cm. (at that size space and time smear together, and out normal physics/maths just gives meaningless results/ fails.)
Cyperium
06-08-08, 10:37 AM
4. Q: Are we ever likely to determine which way is the center of the universe? I assume James R. is right about not knowing the center, because he seems right about everything else. But, do we not know this because such knowledge is impossible, or rather because we have not yet observed enough of the universe to make this determination? It seems to me that if we observe enough of a loaf of raisin bread, we should be able to roughly determine its center--or at least which raisins were 'relatively' nearer to the center than others, based obviously on the direction they are moving.Hello, about the center of the universe:
Everything moves away from everything else, so if we would measure everythings movement we would conclude that the center of the universe is the observer measuring, since everything moves away from you.
So instead of saying that there is no center of the universe, we could better say that the center of the universe is everywhere, the Big Bang happened everywhere you know :) if it happened within a space there would be a center, but it didn't happen within a space and thus happened everywhere.
Perhaps instead of saying that the center is everywhere, we could say that the center is at the observer. It could be that there is no other center than an subjective one. I'm currently trying to see if I can get around that in another thread, but it's unlikely.
machiaventa
06-09-08, 10:07 PM
The ancient german Philosiphers believe the Universe came into existance through the power of the continuim otherwise refered to as the "Q". They believed a Creator Being thought it into existance purely through the power of the mind. Even with our meager use of our brains we have learned that if you can imagine it sooner or later it will exist if one wants it bad enough. All things are possible.:o
Machiaventa Speaks
nietzschefan
06-09-08, 11:44 PM
How do we know the "Big Bang" was really not just a comparatively super large Quasar? I mean comparatively, despite our not being able to detect anything else that may have occurred or be occuring, outside this "local", "Big Bang" event.
nietzschefan
06-11-08, 09:47 AM
Comon beginner's not welcome here?
James R
06-11-08, 11:33 PM
How do we know the "Big Bang" was really not just a comparatively super large Quasar? I mean comparatively, despite our not being able to detect anything else that may have occurred or be occuring, outside this "local", "Big Bang" event.
A quasar is an "active" galaxy, with a large black hole at its centre that emits a lot of energy (well, the black hole itself doesn't emit, but its accretion disc does). Quasars keep emitting energy over a long period of time.
In contrast, the big bang was a one-off explosion of space and time.
A quasar is an object that is found in a pre-existing spacetime. The big bang was the creation of spacetime itself.
James R
06-11-08, 11:44 PM
krystof:
3. There seem many ideas but no dominant theory about how the big bang actually happened. In fact, the big bang is so problematical that it was not fully accepted until the 1960's, due to the accidental discovery of background microwave radiation. I.e., the acceptance of the big bang is based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but only the 'faith' that we may someday work out how it actually happened. (This still leaves my question unanswered: whether or not the Big Bang theory might carry direct inherent contradictions to the known laws of physics.)
It is possible that we may discover fundamental problems with the current big bang theory, especially once we develop a quantum theory of gravity. The best we can say right now is that today's known physics seems to account for what we observe fairly well, down to tiny fractions of a second after the start of the big bang.
It seems to me that if we observe enough of a loaf of raisin bread, we should be able to roughly determine its center--or at least which raisins were 'relatively' nearer to the center than others, based obviously on the direction they are moving.
The raisin bread analogy is an imperfect one. A raisin loaf has a centre and it has edges. In contrast, our universe doesn't seem to have any edges. Our current best theory says that the universe is actually infinite in extent.
5. Q: How certain is the 'point of singularity' idea about the original size of the universe?
A singularity, technically, is a mathematical idea. It is a point at which certain equations "blow up", giving apparently unphysical results. Generally, the presence of a mathematical singularity in a physical theory is a sign either that (a) there is something wrong with the theory, or (b) that the theory is being applied at a point where its basic assumptions aren't applicable.
When people take about the singularity at the centre of a black hole, or the big bang singularity, what they really mean is that the mathematics breaks down there. Physicists clearly understand that current theories are insufficient to describe what happens at the exact centre of a black hole, or at the moment of the big bang. Both those points involve very strong gravitational fields acting on a lot of matter at very high density. A complete description of such a situation requires both relativity and quantum physics, but the problem is that nobody is sure exactly how to combine quantum physics and relativity under these conditions - yet.
krystof.
1. The big bang idea is nonsense. A number of professional astronomers do not accept it. It's only support is red shift and the CMB and they have alternative explanations.
2. When a large enough star runs low on energy, usually after a super-nova, it collapses into a black hole. Most/all galaxies have black holes at their centre. The largest one found so far is 18,000,000,000 times the mass of the sun. Nothing escapes a black hole it is said but gravity does and they can have huge magnetic fields. Black hole jets are caused by magnetic fields whipping up infalling matter (which does not cross the event horizon).
3. The idea, and it is just an idea, is that black holes can lose energy where with a twin particle, one falls in and one escapes. Rubbish.
4. The big bang idea is like a balloon blowing up, so no centre. However it is a stupid idea so there may be a centre of the universe. We only very recently The idea that everything is moving away from everything else except where local attraction, even in some unlikely remote clusters, keeps them together. It is not a logical idea since we can see back almost to over 13,000,000,000 years ago and see no universe where everything is tightly clumped together. Dark energy is science's answer to creationism.
Less than a year ago, we found a billion light year wide hole in the universe where there is virtually nothing. Earlier this year we found the super-massive black hole I mention above, several times the previous record holder. There is still a hell of a lot we don't know about the universe.
krystof. As to the big bang; evidence for a multiverse, branes, singularities, FTL inflation, etc is the same as for creation. Wishful thinking. However just because we don't know how everything started, claiming a super-magician said the magic word and started it off is just making it up. The Genesis story is probably less than 3000 years old and bears many resemblances to the older Egyptian creation myths which many believe they were copied from. Certainly the ten commandments were stolen from the Egyptian Book of the Dead..
James R
06-13-08, 01:11 AM
1. The big bang idea is nonsense. A number of professional astronomers do not accept it.
A very small number.
It's only support is red shift and the CMB and they have alternative explanations.
You might want to google "big bang theory evidence". It's support is much more than just that.
3. The idea, and it is just an idea, is that black holes can lose energy where with a twin particle, one falls in and one escapes. Rubbish.
We're supposed to take your word for it that it is rubbish... why, exactly? Physicists don't think it's rubbish.
4. The big bang idea is like a balloon blowing up, so no centre. However it is a stupid idea so there may be a centre of the universe.
Again with the gut reaction! "My gut tells me it's stupid, and I haven't bothered to learn about it, so it must be stupid."
Hmm...
Not very persuasive.
Forceman
06-14-08, 12:52 AM
How else could you explain the centripetal force of the stars of the spiral arms of spiral galaxies, disturbance of light propagation, radiation emission, which also accounts for the chaotic conditions associated to the influence of extrem space-time curvature on the stars near it, in turn colliding them causing them to explode violently at rapid pastes.
AlphaNumeric
06-14-08, 02:39 AM
1. The big bang idea is nonsense. A number of professional astronomers do not accept it. It's only support is red shift and the CMB and they have alternative explanations.How is it you've been a nay sayer for the BB for years and yet you do zero research into it? As James R points out, you only have to type "Big Bang Evidence" into Google and you find more. The decrease in galaxy number and the relative abundance of particular light elements being two big ones.
How do you plan to refute evidence for a theory you don't even know the evidence for? The only argument you hurt is your own.
3. The idea, and it is just an idea, is that black holes can lose energy where with a twin particle, one falls in and one escapes. Rubbish.Why? We have no experimental evidence to doubt it because the theory is it based on, quantum field theory, has passed all tests. The test to Unruh radiation will be done soon.
We've established in the past that you don't know the details of general relativity and how they pertain to the BB or black holes.
4. The big bang idea is like a balloon blowing up, so no centre. However it is a stupid idea so there may be a centre of the universe. Why is it rubbish? The non-static nature of space-time is a natural consequence of relativity (hence prompting Einstein to put in a non-zero cosmological constant into the equations), it naturally leads to a situation where all places in the universe seem to be the centre of expansion and we have observational evidence for it.
It is not a logical idea since we can see back almost to over 13,000,000,000 years ago and see no universe where everything is tightly clumped together. Dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Galactic_evolution_and_distribution
Where's your evidence?
Less than a year ago, we found a billion light year wide hole in the universe where there is virtually nothing. Earlier this year we found the super-massive black hole I mention above, several times the previous record holder. There is still a hell of a lot we don't know about the universe.Which translates to "There's a lot about the universe we don't know so all our models for it must be wrong, even conceptually".
krystof. As to the big bang; evidence for a multiverse, branes, singularities, FTL inflation, etc is the same as for creation. There is no evidence for multiverses or branes. You create strawmen through poor research and ignorance.
And you provide nothing but "In my opinion it's stupid so it's wrong". And you also demonstrate you don't do any research into this at all. Well done. You typify crank ignorance.
AlphaNumeric. I explained to you again and again on physorg forums why the BB was wrong yet you failed at any time to show me wrong. I provided ample evidence to show it and you wrong.
You have a steep incline a thousand miles deep. You put two ping pong balls next to each other. One rolls down hill, the other rolls uphill. Hawking radiation explained.
A certAiN fool said that a living person could enter a black hole alive till I proved you wrong.
As I have pointed out endlessly to you, expansion needs a four physical dimensional hypersphere (right, Nick?). Show me that fourth physical dimension and explain what is inside and outside the hypersphere since the universe is only it's 3D skin.
We have seen galaxies 13,200,000,000 years old. They are not distorted in size. So we see back further and we see a CMB that covers everywhere. We see it as it was shortly after the BB, not as it is now. we see it at it's original size. It is also the same temperature as space not far from our sun's heat. 2.7K. Amazing.
As I pointed out elsewhere, a billion LY hole in the universe. Black hole of 18 billion solar masses. Walls of galaxies, one of which has 12,000 times our own galaxy''s mass. All in less than 14 billion years.
I was just using some of the dogma of the big bang which does not exist, like dark energy. you are like a creationist, using a god of the gaps. We don't know how the universe began so "it must be a big bang" which caused it. evidence: the universe is here, isn't it?
Lack of shadows on the early universe showed the BB wrong. A guy recently traced many of the measurements on WMAP to our own galaxy! Can it get any worse?
As I have pointed out to you so many times before, you have zero ability to think of anything new. You just parrot text books and internet sites, like the wiki (doh!). I don't know how you think you're suddenly going to grow a brain when you try for a job in research.
A very small number.You might want to google "big bang theory evidence". It's support is much more than just that.We're supposed to take your word for it that it is rubbish... why, exactly? Physicists don't think it's rubbish.Again with the gut reaction! "My gut tells me it's stupid, and I haven't bothered to learn about it, so it must be stupid."Hmm...Not very persuasive.
I tried putting it all together. It still does not make any sense. Just babble!
Look at the large picture of the galaxies on this site. Local gravity is supposed to hold together the smallest, furthest clusters in our local group against expansion which drags apart the whole universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group
Of course the universe was so compact at one time that the whole lot should have collapsed instead of expanding but that is just another kick up the ass for the BB idea.
AlphaNumeric
06-17-08, 06:26 AM
A certAiN fool said that a living person could enter a black hole alive till I proved you wrong.You never managed that. You demonstrated that you didn't understand the relationship between the distance an event horizon is from the centre of a black hole and the force felt on the event horizon. It's a counter intuitive result but the force experienced at a particular space-time curvature isn't related to the curvature, it's related to the rate of change of curvature (ie a function of the Ricci tensor and Riemann tensor). Both Rpenner and I explained it to you many times, you never accepted it but then you've never opened a book on relativity.
As I have pointed out endlessly to you, expansion needs a four physical dimensional hypersphere (right, Nick?). Show me that fourth physical dimension and explain what is inside and outside the hypersphere since the universe is only it's 3D skin.This is another result of differential geometry you refused to accept. You don't need an 'outside'. For instance, a 2-sphere is a finite space without a boundary. It is just that we represent it in diagrams by embedding it in 3 dimensional space.
This is to aid understanding for layman. It shouldn't be taken literally. Any book on differential geometry will explain this to you. But you don't want to read such things.
All in less than 14 billion years.So? Super computer simulations show it's possible. The current model can explain it.
A guy recently traced many of the measurements on WMAP to our own galaxy! Can it get any worse?Is that the well known crank Van Flanders or whatever it is?
As I have pointed out to you so many times before, you have zero ability to think of anything new.I have, thanks. But I'm sure if I explained it to you you'd not understand. And you'd make no attempt to.
You just parrot text books and internet sites, like the wiki (doh!). I use Wiki as a convenient link to provide to people. I don't use it as a big information source. I have books and lectures and supervisors for that.
Besides, as I have commented to you many many times, if these bits of information as so widely available, why don't you know about them? You didn't even know about most of the evidence for the BB, you said it was just expansion and the CMB. Even a Google would tell you otherwise.
The fact you keep saying I get this information so easily online reflects badly on you, because you are ignorant of it.
And besides, how long as you going to keep up the "You just copy and paste from websites" claim? My posts in the physics and maths forums in threads like this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78957) prove otherwise. Everyone else thinks I've got plenty of knowledge. Hell, you even know who I am (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/), you found out months ago, and yet you continue to claim I lie about being a PhD student. So that proves you're knowingly a fraud.
I don't know how you think you're suddenly going to grow a brain when you try for a job in research.A PhD is doing research.
Of course the universe was so compact at one time that the whole lot should have collapsed instead of expanding but that is just another kick up the ass for the BB idea.Another thing Rpenner and I explained to you and you refuse to learn about. It would only collapse if things could interact gravitationally. Gravitational interactions didn't have time to cause the universe to recollapse before inflation pulled it apart.
Why do you avoid reading about BB models? You complain about problems which are explained. But rather than attack those explainations you just pretend they don't exist. "It's wrong because I don't know about it" is a pretty pathetic excuse.
AlphaNumeric. Your intuitive idea was that if you fell into a super-massive black hole, you could only fall according to the speed due to gravity pull so would feel no acceleration forces. However, super-massive black holes spin at almost light speed. Entering one at tghe equator would be like pressing yourself against a grinding wheel. You pointed out that it would be possible to enter at one of the poles where there was no such forces but I pointed out that this is where the magnetic fields are which whip up infalling matter into near light speed jets, so not healthy either.
You could say that the hypersphere is expanding into nothing but that still leaves the four physical dimensional inside which you ignored. Do you agree with Nick that it was full of dark energy? However, we would be the skin on that hypersphere with the inside of the 4D sphere one 4D side of us and literally nothing on the other 4D side of us. And as I pointed out to Nick, if we make a hole in the hypersphere....watch the "balloon" go down.
Rpenner spelt AlphaNumeric. An alias you used to pat yourself on the back.
You get out what you put into a super-computer. It did not suddenly work out by itself an idea called the big bang. You put junk in, you get junk out. The programme worked by adding many unproven elements like dark energy, dark matter, quantum-whatever, etc.
The man has many decades in his work and is an authority. No need to call him a crank because he has shown that the big bang idea is creationism under another name. Sulk! Sulk!
Rubbish. You never, ever came up with nothing new and you never will. You are literally incapable of doing it. All you can do is parrot what you have been taught and what you have read. I pity your very limited mind. How clever is it to just quote what is in books or on internet sites? I can't imagine anyone being fooled by that and thinking you clever.
What evidence is there for the big bang if you are not making it up? Parrot something to me.
You always claim that someone is ignorant of something if they don't believe in it. I suppose I can expect nothing else from such a poor mind.
You had a bog standard degree as far as I remember that you get for just writing your name on a paper. How many years have you been a PhD student now? How is it that an alleged PhD student spends so much time on so many forums instead of studying?
Having a qualification and getting a job in that field is a different matter as you will find. You are literally incapable of research since you can think of nothing new.
Rubbish. If it happened, expansion has been constant since inflation, when matter was created the universe would have been small enough to collapse in on itself. Let's see. 380,000 goes into 13,700,000,000 = 36,052 times, so the universe has gotten quite a bit bigger since then. We are told that even the smallest, most remote clusters in our local group can ignore expansion and be held in place. Maybe 7x10^22 solar masses in a relatively tiny area and this same expansion will continue to pull it apart? You're either barking up the wrong tree or just plain barking. go read a book!
If you had any regard for the truth, you would admit that I had debated many times on the physorg board on the big bang idea and you who just quoted the accepted idea which I already knew, so a total waste of time as usual.
A pity you can't chuck me off of this board for showing you wrong, eh?
AlphaNumeric
06-18-08, 02:36 AM
You could say that the hypersphere is expanding into nothing but that still leaves the four physical dimensional inside which you ignored. And you could ignore differential geometry and relativity.
Rpenner spelt AlphaNumeric. An alias you used to pat yourself on the back.Never mind he joined about 18 months before I did and I posted on other forums. Paranoid and self delusion are a way of life for you aren't they?
The man has many decades in his work and is an authority. Whose definition of 'authority'. Not the physics community.
Rubbish. You never, ever came up with nothing new and you never will. You are literally incapable of doing it. All you can do is parrot what you have been taught and what you have read. I pity your very limited mind. How clever is it to just quote what is in books or on internet sites? I can't imagine anyone being fooled by that and thinking you clever.Funny, you don't know the work I do. So you just are stating your opinion as fact.
You had a bog standard degree as far as I remember that you get for just writing your name on a paper. How many years have you been a PhD student now? How is it that an alleged PhD student spends so much time on so many forums instead of studying?So you deny that page is mine? Did you even look at it? I'm a second year. And the degree certificate for Cambridge doesn't put your grade or subject. Feel free to check that. And all degrees from Cambridge are 'BA'. It's tradition. We pretty much predate 'BSc'. Feel free to check that. And feel free to find out what a Cambridge degree certificate looks like and that it looks like mine.
Having a qualification and getting a job in that field is a different matter as you will find. You are literally incapable of research since you can think of nothing new.Would you care you outline my area of research, just so you can show you grasp it well enough to know I'm not going to contribute to it.
Rubbish. If it happened, expansion has been constant since inflation, when matter was created the universe would have been small enough to collapse in on itself. Let's see. 380,000 goes into 13,700,000,000 = 36,052 times, so the universe has gotten quite a bit bigger since then. We are told that even the smallest, most remote clusters in our local group can ignore expansion and be held in place. Maybe 7x10^22 solar masses in a relatively tiny area and this same expansion will continue to pull it apart? You're either barking up the wrong tree or just plain barking. go read a book!I can't help but notice your arm waving.
For instance, you ignore that the motion of galaxies around their mutual centre of mass will help stable them over long periods of time. Those which get too close collide. Something we see a lot of. Or do you not understand conservation of angular momentum. A detail you conveniently ignore.
If you had any regard for the truth, you would admit that I had debated many times on the physorg board on the big bang idea and you who just quoted the accepted idea which I already knew, so a total waste of time as usual.But you didn't know it. Even now on these forums you claimed the evidence for the BB is just the CMB and expansion. Even a Google tells you otherwise. Why do you ignore it if you know it? Surely it'd be better to debunk it rather than pretend it doesn't exist?
A pity you can't chuck me off of this board for showing you wrong, eh?Where's your evidence I'm a mod on PhysOrg? Noone posted like me before I joined. I posted on other forums. I've just demonstrated I am a PhD student. You demonstrated you continue to avoid accepting that and you either didn't pay enough attention to my explaination about my degree certificate or you lied. Either way you feel short of the truth.
All you have is that multiple people disagreed with you and therefore it's a multiple account. Do you still think you were the only reason I posted outside of 'New theories' on PhysOrg? You really must think the world revolves around you.
AlphaNumeric. If you don't understand hypersphere, you could always ask Nick. Wait. You had him banned too.
The astronomy community. I think after 50 years of posting results, the man might have an idea in his field of speciality what is in our galaxy and what is at the edge of the universe.
All you have ever done is quote the works of others. You have never, ever posted anything remotely original. All of your posts could have been posted by a bright teenager with a search engine since you only post accepted stuff. Why don't you prove me wrong and post something original now?
I did at the time you originally showed it, so what's changed?
Again, you have shown no ability of original thought so how can you work in any field of research?
I see. Far more than sufficient mass will not collapse into a black hole if it is orbiting a central mass. Sure. Well, that's original. I can't see anyone else claiming that.
You have still to give any creditable arguments for the BB that can be shown to exist. Vaguely pointing to internet sites is not an answer.
Over several months of debating on the Physorg forum, I debate with you and for no reason get 3 (out of a possible 5) warnings within a space of two weeks.
And you started posting on astronomy, as you have done here, in a bitter and twisted effort to try and show me wrong.
Again since you will not answer it, and never did, how is it a PhD student (allegedly) has so much time to post on so many internet forums?
AlphaNumeric
06-19-08, 02:53 PM
All you have ever done is quote the works of others. You have never, ever posted anything remotely original. All of your posts could have been posted by a bright teenager with a search engine since you only post accepted stuff. Why don't you prove me wrong and post something original now?I don't need anything original to post you wrong. You ignore things which are well known. You didn't explain why you ignore particular evidence for the BB. Why did you claim the evidence was only the CMB and expansion? Either you know there's more and you ignore it or you can't come up with a retort.
Over several months of debating on the Physorg forum, I debate with you and for no reason get 3 (out of a possible 5) warnings within a space of two weeks.And? I didn't report you and I'm not a mod. I have 3 warnings. People like Alpha are banned. People I consider wastes of spaces like Precursor, Farsight and StevenA are still members there. If I ran the forums don't you think I'd make rules about needing to be less BS pseudoscience? Why did people like Nick and Zephir last so long?
All signs point to me being a normal member there. You posted pseudoscience and paranoid unsupported claims. And eventually even the rarely seen mods got tired of having people report you.
Come on, where's you evidence? 'Circumstancial' doesn't count.
Do you still think I lied about going on holiday to Canada and Alaska for 6 weeks, even when you weren't post there? Why would I lie about that?
Again, you have shown no ability of original thought so how can you work in any field of research?I don't post my work on forums. Firstly, posting research in progress isn't wise, though I doubt many people would steal it. Secondly, the resultant discussions wouldn't be particularly useful. I did it once (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20009) and the discussion was vacuous.
You have still to give any creditable arguments for the BB that can be shown to exist. Vaguely pointing to internet sites is not an answer.You point at one crank. There's plenty of evidence online. Is there a reason you don't go looking for it?
And you started posting on astronomy, as you have done here, in a bitter and twisted effort to try and show me wrong.That isn't what I asked.
Again since you will not answer it, and never did, how is it a PhD student (allegedly) has so much time to post on so many internet forums?I have answered it previously. Obviously you prefer to ignore it when people give answers.
It's called time management. Today I've been to an hour long seminar, I've done 4 hours of work, an hour of reading, been online on forums and doing emails for about 3 hours. And that's just 8 of the 13 hours I've been awake for and I'll be awake for about another 4.
And why do you ignore the fact I linked to my website. Do you think it's a fake website? How about my name on the staff and students of universities (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/hepwww/staff/) list? Or my picture as a Cambridge rower rowing (badly) for my Cambridge college (http://www.firstandthird.org/tables/crews/rower.phtml?id=806)? Or acknowledgements in papers (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1508)? Or chairing discussions (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~c.albertus/SHEPJournalClub.html) on papers outside my research but which are interesting to myself and other postgraduates/postdoctorates/physicists?
There is no centre of the universe.
I've heard this before, and find it a little confusing. If the universe has a diameter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html), then it must have a center to that diameter ?
As for the big bang, I think there's still just theories out there, nothing confirming one model against others as to it's origin.
James R
06-21-08, 12:58 AM
Cazzo:
I've heard this before, and find it a little confusing. If the universe has a diameter, then it must have a center to that diameter ?
When people talk about the diameter of the universe like that, they mean the diameter of the visible universe. Our universe is thought to be around 14 billion years old. You might therefore expect that the radius of our visible universe would be 14 billion light years, since that is how far light can have travelled since the big bang. However, the universe is also expanding, and that expansion carries light along with it, so in fact our visible universe is a bit larger than that. As for the actual physical size, nobody knows, but our best current estimates suggest our universe is spatially infinite.
As for the big bang, I think there's still just theories out there, nothing confirming one model against others as to it's origin.
Yes.
AlphaNumeric. You bore me with your silly and bitter attacks so I'm not going to respond yet again. Go find someone else to stalk.
I've heard this before, and find it a little confusing. If the universe has a diameter (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html), then it must have a center to that diameter ?
As for the big bang, I think there's still just theories out there, nothing confirming one model against others as to it's origin.
Right. No matter the size, the universe must have a centre. However the big bang idea has everywhere expanding so not from a central point of origin.
There are a number of other models and even the steady state theory is making a comeback.
The big bang relies mainly on the redshift and the CMB but they have other explanations which are ignored. Explanations of the BB are like saying that invisible demons hold us down so we don't float off into space. Proof of the invisible demons is that we do not float off into space. The problem is that most of the money is thrown at the big bang idea so that if it is finally proved wrong, then so many years will have been wasted going down the wrong path.
You have billions of trillions of stars shining for billions of years, giving off energy and solar winds. Even going nova and super-nova. Over time, some condense out to planetary systems and even clouds of gas and dust but how about the rest?
It was very recently found out that the intergalactic medium is a lot denser than first thought. Might this not be what we see as the CMB?
I have a long view out over fields lower than I am. Some mornings there is a mist in them but drive to them and you see nothing. Only distance makes the mist appear "solid". Could the CMB be similar where distance makes the mist of particles and gas appear "solid"?
Temperature of the CMB is 2.7K . Temperature of space (away from a star) after billions of years of expansion is....2.7K . If something expands, isn't it supposed to cool?
Legend has it that the big bang created almost only hydrogen and helium. There are a number of problems here:
If the material is too close together which sounds most likeliest, as soon as matter is created, it would collapse into a black hole.
If it is beyond that point, why should hydrogen and helium "coagulate" to form stars? What are the binding forces on single atoms that can overcome expansion?
In a nova or super-nova we have ever heavier elements created. Why would that not happen in a big bang? If we have ripples (somehow) forming concentrations of matter, why not mostly heavy elements created?
AlphaNumeric
06-22-08, 03:26 PM
AlphaNumeric. You bore me with your silly and bitter attacks so I'm not going to respond yet again. Go find someone else to stalk.In other words I answered your questions, proved I do what I claimed and you cannot explain why you specifically don't mention evidence for the BB which can be found online easily.
What a shocker :rolleyes:
And do you think you're the reason I post on SciForums? No, showing you a paranoid delusional liar is just a pleasant extra. ;)
In other words I answered your questions, proved I do what I claimed and you cannot explain why you specifically don't mention evidence for the BB which can be found online easily.
What a shocker :rolleyes:
And do you think you're the reason I post on SciForums? No, showing you a paranoid delusional liar is just a pleasant extra. ;)
This is what I hate about creationists. The moment you get fed up with answering their babble, they crow about a victory.
You're a loser AN. Always was, always will be.
AlphaNumeric
06-23-08, 04:31 PM
You're a loser AN. Always was, always will be.Do you still think I'm lying about being who I say I am? Do you still think I'm lying about being a PhD student, doing research, discussing work with other physicists (http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1508), doing research (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=20009)?
Funny. As soon as I demonstrate you're full of delusions, you stop wanting to play. What's the matter Kaneda, can you not even say "It turns out I was wrong, you are doing a PhD. You did do a maths degree at Cambridge. Can can do field theory and relativity.".
And you didn't explain why you are ignorant of the evidence for the BB when you claim it's easy to find online. Come on, if you're so cock-sure of your position, you should be able to put me in my place.
Why, if the information online is so easy to find that you think I did nothing but copy and paste my posts, don't you know it? Must be embarassing to have such flaws in your logic to be pointed out by a loser like me. Must be embarassing to be shown to be paranoid and delusional and throwing baseless accusations around by such a loser like me.
Like all cranks, once backed into a corner and shown to be wrong you stop wanting to engage in discussions anymore. Now you've got nothing to say other than "Turns out I was wrong", you just throw and insult and run for the hills. I'm always willing to discuss things if you are Kaneda. I'm always willing to show calculations for my claims, to provide evidence and sources, to demonstrate I can actually do the things I talk about. Why aren't you? Obviously you're happy to spend time whining about the BB, why aren't you willing to demolish my comments about you? Could it be you don't have a leg to stand on?
OmegaNumeric. Still the same old loser guff. I see people on physorg have seen through your copying from internet sites and books and posting it as your own work. And like here, you rant at them, insulting them and calling them cranks.
I put you in your place on physorg in your chosen field. Have you learned yet that a 1D superstring cannot bend?
I know about the BB but because I disagree with a number of aspects about it (that you do not answer but just rubbish), you claim I am wrong. Let's try you on some of the things you evaded like the plague on physorg:
Proof for the following: Superstrings? Branes? Extra dimensions? Dark energy? Gravitons? Higg's bosons? Super-symmetry? Singularities? Other universes?
So I've asked you to post something new and original and your answer is just more vain boasting. You're still running headlong down a cul-de-sac field that many have left.
AlphaNumeric
06-24-08, 11:26 AM
OmegaNumeric. Still the same old loser guff. I see people on physorg have seen through your copying from internet sites and books and posting it as your own work. And like here, you rant at them, insulting them and calling them cranks.You mean Ub, who claims I'm a chatbot and Precursor who claimed he knows quantum field theory but doesn't?
They are liars, just like you.
I put you in your place on physorg in your chosen field. I must have missed that.
Have you learned yet that a 1D superstring cannot bend? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/string.html
http://home.austin.rr.com/jmjensen/JeffString.html
Chapter 2 (http://www.hep.phys.soton.ac.uk/~g.j.weatherill/lecturenotes/IB/Methods.pdf)
Opened a book on basic mechanics yet?
I know about the BB but because I disagree with a number of aspects about it (that you do not answer but just rubbish), you claim I am wrongNo, I claim you're wrong because your sources are invalid and your rebutals flawed.
And you continue to ignore my question about why you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of evidence like the ratio of elements. And why do you claim that dark energy is just put in because the universe is expanding? Why did dark energy not come into mainstream work until the last 10 years, despite the expanding universe model being mainstream for about 80 years?
Proof for the following: Superstrings? Branes? Extra dimensions? Dark energy? Gravitons? Higg's bosons? Super-symmetry? Singularities? Other universes?Only two of which have anything to do with the BB. Nice straw men.
And do you think that just because we have no evidence for something it doesn't exist?
So I've asked you to post something new and original and your answer is just more vain boasting. You're still running headlong down a cul-de-sac field that many have left.I linked to my work. Notice how the cranks didn't actually respond to my work?
Besides, would you understand it? All you'd do it just say "It's based on extra dimensions, so it's wrong".
Tell me, what do you know about Lie algebras, flux stablisation, T duality and algebraic geometry? Because if the answer is "Nothing" then my work is meaningless to you.
And it's funny how you now accept I'm a PhD student, because you're asking for my work. Nice of you to turn around on that but be unable to say "I was wrong". :roflmao:
OmegaNumeric. People who expose you are liars, are they?
Of course you are "an actual physicist" according to your signature on physorg (or is it PhD student according to here), which doesn't explain how you can spend so much time here, on physorg and a number of other science forums. You are the liar as is apparent from this.
I explained to you why a 1D superstring cannot bend and all your cut and pastes were all wrong, as I pointed out. Something without a 2D (at least) component cannot bend. Logic!
I never said that they were all to do with the BB. They are accepted science without any physical evidence to back them up. Very like creationism in fact.
The ratio of elements is nonsense as I pointed out in another BB thread. They should all be heavy elements.
Your work? Nice copies from somewhere. How do you work when you are on forums all the time?
Evidence for extra-dimensions is that they MUST exist to make things work, as with creationists that their God MUST exist, to make things work. the word is FUDGE.
Of course you are a PhD student and I'm Napoleon. Bon jour, Monsieur Numerique.
AlphaNumeric
06-24-08, 12:31 PM
Of course you are "an actual physicist" according to your signature on physorg (or is it PhD student according to here), which doesn't explain how you can spend so much time here, on physorg and a number of other science forums. You are the liar as is apparent from this.You really don't understand the life of a PhD student do you? Today I've spent an hour doing paper work due to a conference I attended. I did 3 hours work. I spend an hour talking to someone to start a project with and I wasted the rest. It's 5.30pm now and I've got 3 hours of cricket starting in 30 minutes. 3 hours of work a day is WAY more than enough!
Oh look here (http://www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/LIV08/part.shtml) is my name again. And here (http://www.math.upenn.edu/StringPhenom2008/people.html) I am again! It's almost as if I'm part of the physics community.
Why do you continue not to address all those bits of corroberating evidence Kaneda? Do you have something you don't want to admit?
I explained to you why a 1D superstring cannot bend and all your cut and pastes were all wrong, as I pointed out. Something without a 2D (at least) component cannot bend. Logic!So the entirity of the physics community is wrong but you're right? Your logic is 'Anything I say is right, for I am Kaneda'.
If you're right, why aren't you publishing your work?
I never said that they were all to do with the BB. They are accepted science without any physical evidence to back them up. Very like creationism in fact.There's a difference between being areas of research as possible things to be found in nature and being accepted as existing. You do know that a lot of exploring the unknown involves thinking up what might be out there, working out what that would do to experiments and then looking for those effects?
The ratio of elements is nonsense as I pointed out in another BB thread. They should all be heavy elements.Wow, what logic. Let's see your calculations.
Your work? Nice copies from somewhere. How do you work when you are on forums all the time?Do you think I spend all of the 18 hours a day I'm awake on forums? I post between 0 and 4 hours a day. I eat, shower and **** for another 1.5~2 hours. That's another 12 hours to do with as I please.
How do you explain people who post a lot and work jobs? How do you explain all the evidence I keep providing you but you keep refusing to acknowledge?
Evidence for extra-dimensions is that they MUST exist to make things work, as with creationists that their God MUST exist, to make things work. the word is FUDGE.Noone states we have extra dimensions but since it's possible they will affect the LHC or cosmology we look for them. Einstein predicted the Sun would bend the paths of photons, so we went looking for it. And there it was. Dirac predicted that negative energy solutions of the Dirac equation in QFT predicted the existence of an antielectron. It was found a year later.
It almost seems like theorists provide ideas for experimenters to try...
Of course you are a PhD student and I'm Napoleon. Bon jour, Monsieur Numerique.Still refusing to even try to address the link after link after link I provide. Why am I on the list of members of a theoretical physics department? Why am I rowing for Trinity College?
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.