Is big bang proven to be solid true?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Jun 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Are you saying particles are self created.....they create themselves by themselves ?.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Billy T. Electric constant? As I have already said, nothing is just a total rather than literally nothing. Particles can appear and disappear from literally nothing and returning to literally nothing again. We then have gravity which is different on the surface of a planet to maybe 30,000 miles from the surface, and we know gravity affects photons.

    If space is defined by what occupies it (gravity, photons, atomic material, etc), gravity will occupy quite a long area beyond where we consider the boundary of the universe is, so not the real boundary. You would have to go to the edge of that and shine your laser to make the area of the universe "expand further".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    I think energy and gravity are opposite sides of the same coin.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    I got a warning too because I dared to criticise the sacred cow aka the big bang idea. I was told I had gone against the rules of the board, which is wrong since the rules are only not to insult others (like the mod did to me). Nothing about having a degree in nuclear physics or even being able to add 1+1. Nothing about you must agree with accepted science. I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum but it does seem that certain things are censored here, which is not what science is about.

    Evolution is lined with facts. Check out the talkorigins site. Cosmology has hard facts at one end and speculative ideas at the other end. They may be 100% right and they may be 100% wrong but I doubt that we can ever obtain ultimate proof, for various reasons.
     
  8. Pipes75 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    I'd say it is more like, the proven parts of Big Bang are true, but there could be much more, and not all of it is proven.

    We have the ability to observe the moment after singularity becomes everything, but that everything onl;y includes everything we can see and observe (ie: our universe only, and our dimensions only).
    What most call the beginning in their search, starts with the beginning of our universe. What we call singularity might be just a small part of an even bigger beginning, and that bigger beginning may or maynot be an even bigger singularity.
    We don't understand what limits there are, but most scientist do expect that their is a limit to how much 'singularity' can be held. But if there are more then one form of what we call singularity (ie: the center of a black hole), than their might be different quanities of forces, and therefor the limits we don't understand would likely be variable anyway!
    Many possibilities can still also exist within the proven parts of Big Bang, just as many possibilities can also exist within the proven parts of evolution. I keep many doors open, and my 'beliefs' change with knoweledge. Directly contradicting science won't work, but finding the holes and exploring possibilities can help open doors. Just don't put too much belief in the possibilities, that way opening and closing doors can become much easier to do as information available changes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You might enjoy my 'Beginning of Man' thread in pseudoscience. This is an old dream of mine that has been modified many times. It is probably my most absurd possible solution I could think of, while using the information I have available.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    - I don't 'believe' this fantasy of mans beginning is true, I 'believe' it is possible, and that is how all my beliefs work - some of my beliefs contradict themselves because I just don't know!!!!
    I am a dreamer, but if I were to test things, I would look for the most rational explaination first. My posts in forums are oppisite of that, I'm ussually posting the most absurd explainations I can think of, lmao.
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is the dielectric constant. I do not know of any "electric constant."

    In my post 236, replying to Saint, I suggested that there is no edge, just as the 2D Mobus strip surface has only one, not two sides.

    I do not understand all the math, but think the mass of the universe efectively "warps space"* so that the straight line for light is a loop arround the universe, no matter what was the direction the flash light / laser was intitally pointed. - I.e. there is no "outside" there is no edge -analogy to the one-sided 2d Mobus strip surface or "no inside" Kline bottle.

    ----------------
    *Sun's mass warps space near it to shift the seen location of star when its stright line light path to Earth is curved slightly. (Straight line is the shortest distance between two points - the "action principle of physics" applies to light - I.e. it goes from a to b is th least time, / least "action" even it that is a curve from our POV.
     
  10. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    So either you are crap at creating metaphors, or you are crap at understanding physics. Either way there seems to be a common theme.
     
  11. spookmineer Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Photons don't have mass. They are not affected by gravity as such, but they follow a straight path in curved space, the space being curved by gravity.
    It may seem the same but it's not.
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Welcome spookmineer.

    Your post 248 is stating clearly, and less technically, than my 246 footnote but the same thing. Probably my draging in the "Action Principle" is confusing to some.

    For light, "action" is an extremium in the time of flight, often the minium extreme. In the case of the ellipse, however, the extreme is the maximium time possible - flash at one focii focuses at the other as that takes the most time of flight and all wall reflection points take the same time.
     
  13. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello all

    The Big Bang (or M-brane collision as some think) may or may not be true but the idea of an expanding universe is on shaky legs. After all, when we perceive light from distant sources we are looking at old light.

    As stars age they loose mass by converting mass to energy. Reducing the mass will reduce the gravitational field and associated time rate. As the universe ages the amount of mass declines and as a result the background time rate of the universe increases. It is as simple as that. Old light comes from a time where the time rate was slower.


    Just an idea or two to make you think.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Except that the energy still contributes to space-time curvature and thus time dilation. Given the isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, the average amount of mass and energy in any large volume stays roughly the same. Only if the universe is expanding does the amount of mass and energy per unit volume decrease, resulting in a change in time dilation effects but that's directly in opposition to your attempt to explain red shifting without space-time expansion.
     
  15. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello AlphaNumeric
    I agree that the energy sequestered by the strong and weak forces within an atom do contribute to space-time curvature but is there experimental proof that EM radiation also contributes to space-time curvature? I am still looking for such an experiment.

    Until someone smarter than me can combine all the forces under one theory, I think I will still be looking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Why would energy in photons be any different from energy in weak bosons and gluons? If one kind contributes to space-time curvature then so must the others unless you can provide a reason why electromagnetism is somehow inherently different. Electromagnetic energy is basically chemical energy, because it accounts for the energy released when you burn petrol or blow up TNT.
     
  17. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    This is a "truth" as is said, but there is a law called "Conservation of Mass" that deals with chemical reactions. IE no mass is lost so there is no loss in said mass's ability to affect space-time. Which leads me to the conflicting conclusion that EM radiation has little if any affect on space-time.

    Now if there is an experiment that proves mass loss occurs in chemical reactions then the contention that EM radiation also affects space-time has a less liquid footing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    That's not correct. Energy is conserved, not mass. In nuclear processes it's clearly seen because the energy scales of the nucleus are so much higher so when you 'burn' Hydrogen during fusion, ala in the Sun, you find the mass of the products is less than the mass of the reactants, with the difference becoming energy (kinetic, radiative etc). Chemical processes are exactly the same only the change in total mass is many orders of magnitude less (factors of 1,000,000+). If you burn Hydrogen and Oxygen the resultant water will have less mass than the Hydrogen and Oxygen before burning but the change in mass will be too difficult to measure practically.

    If your logic about 'conservation of mass' were true, why isn't it true for the Sun doing nuclear fusion but it for chemical processes? You basically attempted to prove your claim by stating your claim in a reworded form.
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    To AlphaNumeric:

    I think you were one of those telling me my simple rule was not correct about a year ago. Most agree that thermal energy does contribute to the gravity field. I.e. a warm brick will make more gravity than same brick when cold. I.e. the gravity a mass makes is slghtly dependent on its temperature. Thermal energy is the same in all frames as physics is the same in all inertial frames. E.g. the melting point of lead is the same temperature for all frames, etc.

    I generalized this into following simple rule (which I still do not know for certain if it is correct or not) as follows":

    Only energy which is the same for all frames makes gravity. (or in more modern terms "warps space" as gravity is not a true force.)

    Now a freely traveling photon does not have the same energy in all frames as its energy is directly related to its frequency, which is different (red of blue shifted) in all frame it was not emitted in.

    In contrast the thermal photons inside a closed hollow isothermal box do have the same total energy in all frames, I am inclinded to think, so by my simple rule they do make gravity.

    It is true that in a frame some will be red shifted, but there are others that are blue shifted.

    The two arguing against my rule were able to show (I think) that the blue shift compensation was not exact on a photon for photon basis. It all got too complex for me, as I am not sure that in the frame where the box is moving, there are exactly the same number of photons going each way etc. so I just stopped trying to defend my simple rule when applied to black body photons trapped inside a hollow isothermal box.

    However, here in this thread, you are only speaking of the free traveling photons, which I and both of the opponents of my simple rule agreed did not make gravity (distort space, or enter into the tensor math they were throwing at me correctly describing “gravity”.)

    How sure are you that what you are telling Montec is correct?

    Even if it is true, the expansion of the universe is lowering the frequency of the photons as the travel, is it not?

    If that is true, then each is making less gravity as time passes and the stars are losing mass as they make more photons – but that part seems to be a "wash" until the newly made photon also red shift with the expansion of the universe.

    If all the above is true, then the mutual gravitation of the stars is decreasing as the photon gravity does.

    This seems to be to be a positive feedback mechanism to increase the rate at which the universe is expanding (more rapidly now than long ago as seen in the distant stars).

    Are we sure that this is not what is "dark energy" accelerating the rate of expansion?

    Lot of questions above for you and others, I hope, to comment on. I am not very sure of any of it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2009
  20. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello AlphaNumeric
    Nuclear fusion is by no means a chemical reaction so nuclear fusion will convert mass to energy.

    Stating that a result will be difficult to measure does not give me reason to accept a theory postulating said result.

    So until a theory (IE chemical reactions alter mass) is backed up by facts generated by repeatable experiments then said theory should be looked at with a health dose of skepticism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is a fine attitude, but I am nearly sure AlphaNumeric is correct on this, but will not attempt to find proof for you but think it exists. Perhaps you will trust my memory some on this as I am at least questioning AN on the "free photons make gravity point" in your support of your POV that they do not.

    You can make a strong logical case for fact oxidation products have less mass than the reactants if you accept that themal energy does make gravity (most informed people do, I think) as follows:

    Burn a metal in pure O2. Now you have a hot oxide, making the same gravity as the reactants did. When it cools it is making less but not even one atom need be lost as it cools. Ergo: The oxide is less massive than the reactants were.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 13, 2009
  22. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Pipes75. The singularity idea just has too many problems with it. Better that matter and energy comes about over a huge area. If you say that virtual particles can come from literally nothing (which is what space is), then you start with nothing and maybe energy and gravity (which I begin to think are two sides of the same coin) appear and disappear till an imbalance occurs and as each force vies to stabilise it, energy and gravity appear like wildfire across maybe billions of cubic light years, so starting the universe off. Just an idea.
     
  23. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    Scientists still argue whether there is sufficient mass to stop expansion. There is not sufficient mass to stop light, or even bend it sufficiently so it just circles the universe. Gravitational sources are located everywhere and it would need a massive bias to bend all light in such a way that it cannot eventually escape the universe.

    Space is literally nothing. It is only defined by what occupies it (gravity, photons, matter, etc.) While this would mean there was an end to the universe, photons escaping from the universe mean that what we call the universe is expanding at light speed at the edges.

    Unless you believe the universe is a completely closed system as in a 4D hypersphere with the universe it's 3D skin.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page