The True Origin of The Universe?

As I pointed out for the love of God [which ever one you chose] science is sometimes lazy, and sometimes things just stick...The BB for example...It was not an explosion, and likewise, and being just as pedantic, a neutron star is a stellar remnant and comprises of degenerate matter held up from final collapse to BH status by NDP.
It is not a star per se.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here are some excellent definitions from a science based site....

A star is a luminous body of gas sufficiently compressed by its own gravity for nuclear fusion to take place in its interior.

Neutron Star:
One of the possible endpoints of stellar evolution.


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/neutronstar.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All those links appear to be rather speculative assumptions...and all say "may"
Isee the BH inference as Impossible for the BH itself, and any fission, that MAY occur on a Neutron star would be fairly limited, and eventually cease.
None of it though invalidates the claim you seem to have had a problem with though...That is eventually, the hydrogen available for stellar production, will run out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With regards to post 579
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992grbo.book...89B
A model for gamma-ray bursts in neutron stars is presented in which a glitch causes a rearrangement of matter leading to a http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992grbo.book...89B. The accompanying optical flashes and absorption lines in hard X-rays can be explained in the context of this model.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

No actual observation, but a model of limited short lasting fission, maybe as inferred at the link "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992grbo.book...89B".....

The second link given.....
Explosive black hole fission and fusion in large extra dimensions
ABSTRACT Black holes are the densest form of energy, and in the presence of compact dimensions black objects may take one of several forms including the black-hole and the black-string, the simplest relevant background being R^{3+1} * S^1. Recent understanding of the first order nature of the transition indicate a powerful ``hysteresis'' curve, where black objects may undergo fusion or fission during a tachyonic decay with Planck power and duration of the order of the size of the compact dimension L. Such explosions which scale with L could be test signatures for large extra dimensions in either astronomical observations or accelerators.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Honestly not sure what it is saying.
Perhaps someone can interpret? Although what did send some alarm bells ringing was this rather spaculative comments... "tachyonic decay"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The third link given....
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607180
It has long been suggested that fission cycling may play an important role in the r-process. Fission cycling can only occur in a very neutron rich environment. In traditional calculations of the neutrino driven wind of the core-collapse supernova, the environment is not sufficiently neutron rich to produce the r-process elements. However, we show that with a reduction of the electron neutrino flux coming from the supernova, fission cycling does occur and furthermore it produces an abundance pattern which is consistent with observed r-process abundance pattern in halo stars. Such a reduction can be caused by active-sterile neutrino oscillations or other new physics.
Neutrinos, Fission Cycling, and the r-process
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
This speaks of supernovas and a definition that again had me googling, that was a "Halo Star"
It appears halo stars are not actual individual stars, [which I suspected since I has never heard of them] rather halos or nebuli surrounding galaxy clusters.
Again, someone can correct me if I misinterpret it, but that sounds like to me the supernova remnants interacting with these gas/dust clouds to produce some fission.

Again, in any respect, each of these are either just speculatory hypothesis or limited fission in very rare occurrences.

Can some one help out?

 

"...which are actually dead stars..."

Seems you accidentally proved yourself wrong...

The point being that a neutron star is what is sometimes left after a normal star dies. It is no longer undergoing the normal fusion processes of a normal star.

This is just so bizarre. This little argument over semantics (is a dead person still a person?) just highlights your ignorance and attitude problems. It doesn't matter how you label it, the point is to highlight that it isn't undergoing normal stellar fusion anymore. I'm sure paddoboy knew that, but arguing over the terminology just makes it look like you didn't. And makes you look like you care more about proving others wrong - in a vindictive way - than being right yourself. It's a real problem.

 

Yep. sure I do, and as indicated in the following, and inferred in at least two other posts.

I have listed a few of the silly claims that have been made throughout this thread at post 578.

 

Explain further

Explain the conducive reasoning and logic that BB has towards an infinite Universe

It doesn't exist

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html


To educate you rivers, with the BB model, we eventually arrive back at a point where our physics fail because of the energy density, and this is what we call the quantum/Planck era.
We know nothing from that instant to t=10-43 seconds.
In reality a physical singularity did not exist, and as our information as to the status of space and time are non existent at that epoch, it may have very well attained infinity.
In other words infinity existed at the Planck epoch.
But as yet we are only able to speculate.

Now rivers, going on your usual past records, this is just going to be followed by more questions, some maybe reasonable, others just plain inane.
So I will leave that for you to either accept or reject, although again its obvious what you will do with the agenda you are burdened with.
seeya!

 

You miss the point I've made

Any explosion innately looses energy with every explosion

Hence eventually , the explosion , can not occur , lack of energy

Hence again , you end up with nothing

And nothing is not possible

Since nothing will never manifest anything

 

No, I have not missed the point.
And the BB was not an explosion, but you have been informed of this many many times.
One can only then arrive at one conclusion, considering that fact and coupled with your past record.

 

BB is not an explosion ?

 

This crank won't give up.

 

No.

 

Are you being facetious , here , pad ?

Because from my point of view , you are

river

 

By the way , but is important is to define , the meaning of the word , facetious , applied here , by me

2nd definition : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious

From my Merriam-Webster's , electronic dictionary , 2009

 

Again, the BB was not an explosion.
It was simply an evolution of space and time.
Whether you chose to accept that or not is of no concern of mine.
But that is the standard definition.
The BB by the way, was a term of derision applied by Hoyle which just stuck.
But of course you have been told these things many times.

 

An explosion is the sudden release of energy from a central point into space. That is not what the BB was. The BB is the expansion of space at all points.

 

Exactly. Also an explosion infers a center...The BB happened everywhere at the same instant, as everywhere and everytime was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus....no center, no edge, no borders.

 

A three dimensional explosion

But the dimensionality is not the problem

The actual problem is about the infinity of existence , and the opposite , infinity of non-existence

And which is more reasonable and therefore more logical

Infinity of existence wins hands down