Cause of the Big Bang

Where did I say it would be moving at a constant speed. It would be slowing down.

Ah, so it's something you don't understand and cannot hope to understand and because you don't like me you attempt a cheap shot.

Where's your original research then?

While my attitude might not be a good example, you'll find on these forums I'm considered fairly knowledgable. Where's examples of you discussing high level physics and maths then?

Your inability or unwillingness to accept an answer doesn't mean one wasn't provided.

He considerably simplified the search for the 'next Standard Model', thus saving physicists huge quantities of work when it comes to finding something superior to the Standard Model. No-Go theorems are often the most powerful theorems in all of physics.

How do you know? You don't know my work, I haven't discussed the details of it with you and you don't even know what's in textbooks never mind what is developed beyond that.

And undoubtedly if I did try to have a discussion with you on it, you'd just say "It's wrong, it's string theory!" so an attempt at discussion is pointless. You won't discuss it and then complain I don't discuss it. Even BenTheMan, who is as close to my area of research as anyone I know (outside of my collaberators) doesn't do what I do and I don't follow what he does.

And you still couldn't say "I was wrong, you are a PhD student". You don't bother saying "All your evidence is a conspiracy!", you just don't refer to it. Why is that?

I'm 60% the way through writing a paper which will get onto ArXiv by the end of the summer. I'll let you know.

And I'm curious, where's the link to a post where you demonstrate you can do physics? I must have missed it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for repeating exactly what i said...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AlphaNumeric. If a ball is travelling for a billion years, is it maybe losing momentum at a nanometer a year or some such nonsense? Or is it moving at a uniform speed as I pointed out?

You copy the work of others only, whether it is from an internet site or something you have learned. Nothing ever new.

The rest of the post is just more pomposity so not worth an answer.

Research? On other internet sites and in my mind. To you, research is one of those words you are not quite sure what it means since it can never involve you.

More pomposity about how smart you are. Or aren't. Your posts show your intellect so boasting is a waste of time.

Still no answer. Not that I expected one since there is none that you can copy from. Others dodge the question too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Suppose you take a sphere of material and blow it up. The outwardly expanding material will slow down it's expansion due to gravitational effects but if you blow it up 'enough', it'll never stop expanding. If you don't blow it up hard enough, it'll recollapse.

Simple enough for you?

Evidence? I suppose the work I've done but which you don't know about, which you wouldn't understand even if I posted it, somehow doesn't count?

In other words you don't want to address the fact I've proven I'm not a liar about myself because you cannot bring yourself to say "I was wrong". How sad.

I've proven I'm a postgraduate student doing theoretical physics at a university. So your comments are nothing but a display you're experience blind hatred of me and cannot bring yourself to admit you're wrong.

You're the one who never shows any physics or maths knowledge but claims to know more about relativity and/or cosmology than anyone in mainstream physics. How's that for pompous? You don't even know any relativity!

I did answer. Others replied too. All you did was demonstrate you don't bother to think about anything, you just deny it all.

If you gave a neutron star's material enough outward momentum, it would expand and spread out. So when you say "Again, you have to explain how a universe with a density like a neutron star or greater could continue to expand. Feel free to continue to evade the question." it's easily answerable without even having to stop and think about it. It's clear you don't even try to answer your own questions. I generally find that when I think "That can't be right!" about something in the mainstream, it's a good idea to leave it 'bubbling away' at the back of your mind for a while and then you'll have a sudden flash of inspiration about it. I went through a phase during April and May of it happening to me repeatedly when I made a break through in the area I'm currently working in.

We can discuss it if you want. It's a topic only a few people publish in and the area isn't in textbooks and hardly on Wikipedia. Infact, I wrote things like the Wikipedia page on orientifolds, not copied from it!

Besides, you seem to think learning from others is wrong. Did you learn nothing useful in school or from other people? Did you spontaneously develop English yourself? What about driving a car? Is all your knowledge self created or have you learnt things from other people? Do you think the human race would be as technologically advanced if we didn't pass on knowledge to one another?

What a very naive and narrow view of the world you must have. It'd be pitiful if you weren't so bitter and twisted.

 

Yes, that has been the supposition since 1929 (LeMaitre/Friedmann).

The only problem is....It is absolutely "Meaningless"!

Why, because "Naked Singualrities" do NOT even exist!

All Hawking/Penrose/Thorne/Presskill had to do was continue their work on Cosmic Censorship and this would have become self-evident. BUT, noooooooooooo, mainstream Absolutely refuses to "Falsify Itself"!!!

AND, Inflation is NOT an 'obseravtion', but a mathematical "Fix"..."Trying" to fix the horizon/flatness problem, which it doesn't even do, which Joao Magueijo made very evident in his program that aired in June.

All of the "Horizons" being used (Including those in SR) do NOT even exist!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1922873&postcount=72

Since you and James refused to respond to this, allow me to expand on what this means.

As I said, Our Universe has Never been in danger of collapsing in on itself.

I am the first person (that I know of, and I know about almost every theory out there) to show that Long GRB's (3 seconds to 500 seconds) are actually Massive Black Holes being created, creating the electrons/protons for that Massive Black Holes galaxy or Dwarf Galaxy! The Nuker Group has shown that SMBH's and Galaxy birth are intimately tied together, and those SMBH's being created are NOT because of the collapse of 'Baryonic Matter'!!! The whole universe was NOT filled with hydrogen/Helium!!!

Some where in this thread, Kaneda said that..."1 dimensional "Strings" could NOT be bent/curved"....that is absolutely Wrong!

Singularities at 0 are meaningless, and Singularities at a "Point" do NOT exist in or outside of a Black Hole!!! There are NO Non-rotating Black Holes, stellar or Super Massive!!! The Only Black Holes that even exist are Kerr Rotating Black Holes....Period!

SO, the ONLY 'Singulairties' that "Real"...That Physically Exist, are the Ring Singualrities inside of SMBH's (Forget stellar balck holes for now!!!).

SO, knowing that the electrons/protons are created when a SMBH is made to create a New Galaxy, puts a whole new spin on "Initial Conditions" of how does Our Space Get Here!!!

SO, once I figured out that 'space' could be going "Out Of Our SMBH's", then I figured that "Space Could Be coming "IN" our Universe" from outside.

When I found Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking" to Our Universe, it all suddenly made perfect sense!!!

The ONLY thing Einstein got right, is the E-R Bridges, where he was loojing for the 'electrons' coming through to our universe!!!

http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge Theory/Einstein Rosen Bridge.htm

BUT, he did NOT know about SMBH's, OR "Ring Singualrities" OR the Huge Voids between the galaxy clusters OR Neutrinos/Non-Baryonic Dark Matter!!! Think about that!

SO, the Huge Voids between the galaxy clusters are "White Holes" releasing "Continually" Non-Baryonic Neutrinos, in Straight Line Motion at "c", carrying the Cosmic Micowave Background 2.73K 'energy'...in other words "Strings"...that make up ALL of "Space" traveling at "c" in Every/ALL directions.

Those Strings become our 3 dimensional Space, expanding to infinity (Unless the go down a Black Hole) in ALL/Every Direction, going right "Through ALL baryonic Matter!!!

That IS the Aether, and Expanding Space is "Going Right Through ALL baryonic Matter!

Particle/Wave Duality is...The Neutrinos, going in straight line motion at "c",,,Carrying or maybe better worded...with the 'energy emedded/spinning' IN the Neutrinos.

AND, those Neurtinos ARE the "Strings"...So they are 6d Micro, which tallies to 3d micro for left spin, and 3d micro for right spin.

When Those Strings become "Branes", in our universe, those Branes collide about once a Day (Long GRB's 3 to 500 seconds) and Create Massive Black Holes for new galaxies and dwarf galaxies.

Dark Matter Galaxies are the 'fading of GRB's to allow the hydrogen/helium to form, just like the Big Bang says the early universe did. Then, first light for a New galaxy looks like this...

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/images/ngc2915/

Where the 'core' starts star formation first...

then the BCD's become LSB's, then HSB's, then Seyferts then Ellipticals.

It is all pertectly consistent and makes perfect sense once you unserstand it!

Smoke on that for a while.

 

Where? What observations have you used? Where are your models, your analysis of data, your predictions?

I have a couple of astrophysics postgrad friends, one of whom specialises in active galactic cores, so feel free to show me something which is possibly viable science. By which I mean it'#s publishable material, not a Geocities website which looks like it was made by a colour blind 5 year old whose trying to induce seizures in people.

Of course not and you won't find an astrophysicist who thiks otherwise. However, when you do actual computations on the Kerr-Newman metric (having restored factors of k, c and G) you find that the rotating and charged effects are tiny compared to the gravitational ones. So except for some exceptional circumstances or very very precise models you can approximate a slowly rotating, close to neutral, black hole by a Schwarzchild one.

Like with so many things in physics, it's an approximation to help make explicit calculations easier, an 'effective theory'. People who don't do calculations often don't realise that there's a huge difference between writing down the equations of motion for something and solving them. We've known the equations of motion for quarks and gluons for 30 years. We're still a long way from 'solving them'.

If you're getting your information about astrophysics from pop science TV shows then you aren't doing serious work in the area. I don't watch 'The Elegant Universe' in order to learn about string theory, I read the hep-th section of www.arxiv.org for the latest stuff in my area.

Hence why I doubt you've actually done anything valid on black holes.

Except you have no working model. When I was 16 I came up with a 'consistent and simple' way for the universe to create itself using tachyons. Now, 8 years and a **** ton of maths and physics later I look back and realise how fantastically naive I was. Simply giving a 2 paragraph arm waving 'idea' isn't 'constant and perfect', it's BS. If someone had asked me "How does your theory account for the observed levels of isotopes in the universe?" I'd have no clue how to answer it. Just like I'm sure if I asked you for explicit detailed calculations you'd be unable to provide them.

But go on, suprise me.

I suggest you stop smoking the banana skins you're obviously hitting.

 

If you would have read and responded to my first post, you would have seen a few of them.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...3&postcount=72

Great, if you cannot answer the questions I posed in the above thread (How Massive was the MW SMBH 13.2 billion years ago) then maybe they can.

In that first post above, I said that I have been on BAUT for 3+ years and understand all of this intimately.

That's funny, because the only way the Pro's on BAUT could get away from what I showed was to keep asking me to show "Proof" the SMBH and it's accretion disc in M31 was rotating...LOL

I am not going to go into this now, as it will side track the 'singularity' issues, BUT the Magnetic Field of a Kerr Rotating SMBH is MUCH more important than you or anyone even realizes!

Sorry, But that is simply BS. There is either a "Point" singularity OR a "Ring" singularity in the depths of a SMBH.

In fact, besides the fact that a Non-rotating black hole does NOT even exist, for a 'point' singularity to even have the possibility of existing, there is another problem with the Schwarzschild "Point" solution. Once the event horizon forms, then 'space' would be 'flowing over' the event horizon as water over a waterfall. SO, how does 'space' that is 'falling straight down' over the event horizon, Come to a "point"

I am/have shown that Naked Singularities and Point Singularities DO NOT even exist in our universe! Period!!!

The ONLY singularities that DO PHYSICALLY EXIST...ie; Are "Real" are "Ring Singularities "Inside SMBH's". That is very specifically Einsteins E-R Bridges...ie; the ONLY thing Einstein got right!

SO, IF the High Energy Gamma Ray Bursts are where the electrons/protons for Each Galaxy are being created, when, as the Nuker Team suggests (although they have a different, but wrong galaxy/SMBH creation scheme) the Birth of a galaxy and it's SMBH are intimately tied together, THEN the Universe did NOT start of HOT and full of hydrogen/helium....the first 3 minutes of an EFE "Inside Solution" of an Expanding "Naked Singularity", everywhere the center of a finite but unbounded universe...is just made up as is Inflation...ALL of that math is meaningless unless and until you can produce a Non-rotating SMBH!

But, just to show that I do really understand that of which I speak...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am saying/showing that "Space" (Yes, your "Strings"...which is showing how String/"M" theory CAN become..."BackGround Independent"...Yes, I understand Witten and Lee Smolin as well! The reason String/"M" theory is not being able to be shown to work or be testable is because it is following mainstream!!!) is "Coming/going straight Through" those "Ring Singularities".

SO, when considering the SMBH's in the Universe level above Ours (Fractal Universes), when 'space' goes 'past' the event horizon in those SMBH's, it gets spaghettified and goes down to it's (Torus) Ring Singularity, and "Straight Through" to the 'worm hole' and then Out at the White Hole....which is a Void in between our galaxy cluster. Each of OUR Voids, is connected to a SMBH in the universe level above ours.

SO, that is the "Constant at the "pit" of a Black Hole, that Lee Smolin predicts.

That "Constant" "Coming Straight Through" IS Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking" TO OUR UNIVERSE...Simple.

That Constant is Neutrinos/Strings/Microwave Energy that forms Branes...Trust me.......that is A WHOLE LOT OF ENERGY when those Branes Collide and GO BOOOOOM and create a GRB...the BIGGEST EXPLOSIONS since the Big Bang that never happened...a New SMBH and it's electrons/protons...a new galaxy!

Those Neutrinos are traveling at "c" in every/all directions, just like the CMB is, and is ALL of space, the aether that makes String Theory Background Independent AND "Testable"!!!

Long GRB's (3 to 500 seconds) are Strings/Neutrinos/quantum Gravity in action ie; the "Mechanism"...when "ALL THAT ENERGY" as two Branes colliding forms the SMBH and the electrons/protons to start that galaxy/dwarf galaxy.

 

Link doesn't work.

And look at people like Kaneda, Zephir, Farsight and Reiku. They've been online for years and managed to learn nothing. You don't learn and do publishable work by doing discussions on internet forums.

I would imagine that they were asking you to show it's rotating enough to be worth including in the calculations. Most calculaitons involving black holes are done on Schwarzchild ones because it's a damn sight nicer than a Kerr metric.

Space-time doesn't flow like that. Material within it would be forced to 'flow like a river' but only because the 'channel' it's in (ie the space-time) is causing it to do that.

There's no t in the Schwarzchild metric. And Killing vectors involving time in the Kerr one relates to it's rotation, not somethign flowing over it's event horizon.

If you really do understand that of which you speak, you should have no trouble turning all the arm waving in your post about the EFE and inflation and black holes into proper rigorous quantative derivations. Derive the equations of motion for the 'flowing' of space-time around a black hole and not test particles within the space-time. Go on, full blown maths. I suspect you can't.

Are you claiming to have proof to the background independence of string theory? Would you care to provide it, in explicit detail?

You do realise that strings and neutrinos are quite different, right? Quantum gravity and strings exists on energy scales trillions of trillions of times higher than neutrino rest masses or even kinetic energies.

 

''Where did I say it would be moving at a constant speed. It would be slowing down.''

Maybe you never said it, but as i have explained, i don't think you understand relativity to a great extent past the mathematical equations and expressions. From a photons point of view, yes, it will slow down, and be frozen totally in time, but since consciousness exists, there is a new member on the relativitsic map. So in reference to a photon moving through space, not only does it require a real measurement made by an observer, but this is the whole point of SR.

To a photons reference, if it had a consciousness, then it would actually see the things about it flash by, while it's environment, such as it's stucture, so in this case, we can call the structure the spaceship, it's inside here nothing actually changes. The world around it changes niether, but this is why consciousness, and the very definition of conscious-observer universe is more than just an abstraction, or should i say, psuedobabble?

So there is much more to it, than either of you have contemplated about what relative actually means, instead of some logic moving relative without a counter reference, and a third, which is causing more and more attention each day in physics... why we observe anything at all. What reference would a universe have, without an observer, as much as a photon would have without a spacetime surrounding it?

 

We are not talking a balloon here. We are talking material at black hole density expanding somehow. It is balanced at 13.7 billion years but can expand easily at 380,000 years. It seems that I cannot make it simple enough for you since crayons and drawings are impossible here.

You are gibbering again. OK we have a neutron star with an escape velocity of 2/3 light speed. How fast was expansion? If faster than that, what is going to slow it down?

This is counting how many angels can balance on the head of a pin. Anything provable?

Learning is good but it is expected that people would move on from what they have learned. You seem to find that very difficult.

The usual insults borrowed from elsewhere to end up a naturally poor post.

I see others have spotted that you are a phoney. What good is someone who can only repeat what is on internet sites and in text books? It is like debating with a wall.

 

This from a vacuous parrot who has never, ever in all his years on forums posted anything original. Not only does he post EXACTLY what is on a number of internet forums, he even copies other people's insults because he is too dim to think up any of his own.

Even Nick on physorg showed you wrong time after time so you had to use your moderator powers to get him banned. How low can you get?

 

My god that guy uses a lot of quotation marks...

 

How do you know that universe is 158 billion light years in diameter?
Didn't astronomers simply measured that the universe is 13.7 billion light years old?
There is no way than it can be 158 billion light years in diameter.

 

Gravage. The big bang idea has it that the whole universe is blowing up like a balloon. Draw spots on a balloon and blow it up and everything moves away from everything else. It is done by a four (physical) dimensional hypersphere where our 3D universe is the surface. However it doesn't explain what is on the inside or outside of the hypersphere and what would happen were it punctured. It would also suggest that there is ever more space which if endlessly stretched would change basic laws, like the speed of light.

It means that something distant can move away from us faster than light without breaking the light barrier because although expansion on a balloon's surface is even, the further you go away from any point, the faster it is expanding from that point. Difficult to explain but easy to demonstrate if you mark a balloon and blow it up or even put marks at set intervals along an elastic band and stretch it.

The BB idea however has many serious problems with it and has fallen out of favour with a fair number of people so it is pure conjecture about the size of the universe since we can only see a set distance, and that might be down to haze and not age.

 

< off topic>

@kaneda, @AlphaNumeric

Hum,
you make have use for the `Automatic Insult Generator`...

http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Insult-Generator-Download-77828.html

< /off topic>

 

Define 'easily'.

Expansion is driven by at least one scalar field, which follows the FRW metric's behaviour and in string theory the scalar field is known as an inflaton. Racetrack models lead to an explaination of inflation, the CMB, the strength of gravity compared to other forces and many other concepts in physics. I have given talks on such things.

In other words you don't understand it so you won't try.

And yet you refuse to address all the independent websites I've given which back up my claims.

Come on, if I'm a phoney why does my name appear on university websites, published papers, conference delegates, Cambridge rowing websites and as editors/posters on numerous websites?

How can I be a phoney if I go to conferences and give talks? You keep avoiding actually debunking such evidence.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Tell you what Kaneda, why don't you head over to the Physics & Maths section of these forums and discuss my work with me? I keep offering to do such things with you and Reiku but you both keep running away?

I have nothing to hide. You two seem to.

About as low as proclaiming there's an internet wide conspiracy dating back years against you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like who? Farsight once claimed Witten had chucked string theory, saying it was useless. And yet he and I went to a strings conference just last month. You'll find creationists on Youtube who dub over Hawking lectures using the Mac 'Speak out loud' program to try to make people think Hawking denounces evolution.

So rather than just saying "People say..." be specific.

Just like I keep askign you to be specific with your calculations and you never are.

 

Expansion supposedly overcame an incredible gravitational pull yet we see sparse collections of distant galaxies hanging together, ignoring expansion.

Inflation is just mythology and would have still been limited by light speed. Ideas about areas of space expanding and joining up can only be done where there are a number of big bangs in the "same area". As I tell creationists, when talking about god, first prove god exists. These other forces must be proved to exist too, to show they are more than just a convenience to make the BB work.

You must have a very light schedule if you can post on a number of forums each day. While you can repeat information on websites, you are unable to come up with anything new, even with any speculation. The few times I have talked with knowledgeable people in fields of science, they have been able to speculate and extrapolate. Something you have never been able to do.

I spend very little time here and find it difficult to believe that you reserve all your originality for debating elsewhere. Debating with you is like debating with an internet site. Anything not on the site is rejected as wrong.

Where did I claim this? Have you actually thought up something new, even if it is a lie?

It has to be wondered how useful string theory will ever be other than in the most exotic circumstances. As to misquoting Hawkings, that is typical of the depths of which creationists stoop and despicable.

Unlike you who has nothing else but calculations and quotations. Are you sure you are not a physics computer programme made to answer posts here? I don't like using the term AI as you don't seem to display any intelligence.

 

Blobrana. AlphaNumeric doesn't need an insult generator. He uses insults other people use against him, claiming them as his own.