csmyth3025

I believe this post is a duplicate of one posted with the same title in the Astronomy and Cosmology section. It was moved from there to "Speculations". Chris

I'm not familiar with how atmospheric circulation patterns work. The prograde and retrograde zonal winds of Jupiter seem to be an effect of known atmospheric mechanisms, though: (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Jupiter#Zones.2C_belts_and_jets ) This article and its links might provide you with an explanation. Another Wikipedia article that may shed some light on your question is the one on atmospheric circulation. It all seems pretty complicated to me but I think the major mechanism is a feature called Hadley Cells. The article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia....ric_circulation Chris

Gravitons are associated with the quantum theory of gravity - which is a theory that no one has yet been able to to devise: (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton ) For now, we're stuck with good old Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - which is a geometric theory of gravity. That is to say, it describes gravity as being an effect of the curvature of space-time: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....n.27s_equations ) Chris

You may be confusing gravitational waves with gravity. The singularity inside the event horizon of a black hole is point-like and, by definition, symmetric. (ref. http://en.wikipedia....itational_waves ) Chris

As far as I know, the big bang standard cosmological model starts about 10-36 seconds after the initiating event (the big bang itself) with the proposition that there began a very short period of extreme cosmic inflation lasting between 10-36 seconds and 10-32 seconds after the big bang. The standard model makes no assumptions or predictions prior to this very early inflationary epoch. There are several speculative theories, called Grand Unification Theories (GUT's), that attempt to describe conditions from 10-43 seconds after the big bang to 10-36 seconds after the big bang, but there is no consensus in the scientific community on the validity of any of these theories: (ref. http://en.wikipedia...._unified_theory ) In short, the big bang standard cosmological model doesn't specify anything about what existed (or how long it may have existed) prior to about 10-36 seconds after the initiating event (the big bang). The use of the term "singularity" is just another way of saying that the physical laws that we have don't work at the very earliest times after the initiating event. Chris Edited to correct spelling errors

You'll have to be more specific with your links. Can you quote the Wikipedia links you provided in the context of the paragraph in which they appear? In general, the gravity of the singularity inside the event horizon has the same effect as normal mass would have on objects outside the event horizon. A five solar mass black hole will have the same gravitational effect on planets and stars in its vicinity as a five solar mass normal star. Chris

You're both right and wrong. Distant galaxies do, indeed move apart faster than c. The problem you're having is that you're trying to apply the concepts of Special Relativity (which are only locally valid) to a phenomenon that's occurring across different inertial frames of reference. General Relativity, not Special Relativity, applies when there is no single global frame of reference. We can say that a distant galaxy is moving away from us at a speed greater than c because we're in one frame of reference - our local patch of space. You might think of it as anything within a few tens of millions of light years from us. The distant galaxy is in its own similar frame of reference - which might also be anything within a few tens of millions of light years from it. Things at the edge of our local patch of space are moving away from us according to the Hubble constant (~70 km/s per 3.26 Mly). Their velocity is small compared to the speed of light, though (maybe 600 or 700 km/s). Likewise for things at the edge of the local space of the distant galaxy. Nothing with mass can move through our local patch of space - our inertial frame of reference - at the speed of light relative to us (or relative to anything else in our local frame of reference). The same goes for the inertial frame of reference around the distant galaxy. Between us and the distant galaxy there may be a thousand other "local patches of space" (inertial frames of reference). Each one is expanding "slowly" just like ours. All that expansion adds up.

Let's start with: If you run faster, you must be running faster relative to some person or object. In that case your time is slower than the time measured by that other person. (ref. http://en.wikipedia....gth_contraction ) Chris

Maximum Mass, Minimum Period Theoretical limits from GR and causality Mmax = 4.2(ǫs/ǫ0)1/2 M⊙ Rhoades & Ruffini (1974), Hartle (1978) Rmin = 2.9GM/c2 = 4.3(M/M⊙) km Lindblom (1984), Glendenning (1992), Koranda, Stergioulas & Friedman (1997) ǫc < 4.5 × 1015(M⊙/Mlargest)2 g cm−3 Lattimer & Prakash (2005) The above partially quoted table is taken from : Neutron Star Equations of State by James M. Lattimer (pdf pg 6) which can be found here: http://www.ns-grb.com/PPT/Lattimer.pdf The most massive precisely measured neutron star is J1614-2230 - it's about 2 solar masses: In 2010, Paul Demorest and colleagues measured the mass of the millisecond pulsar PSR J16142230 to be 1.97±0.04 solar masses, using Shapiro delay.[24] This is substantially higher than any other precisely measured neutron star mass (in the range 1.2-1.45 solar masses), and places strong constraints on the interior composition of neutron stars. (ref. http://en.wikipedia...._of_discoveries ) The above formula tells me that the minimum radius of a two solar mass neutron star would be about 8.6 km, a three solar mass neutron star would be about 12.9 km, and a 4 solar mass neutron star would be about 17.2 km. It seems pretty certain that a two solar mass neutron star can exist. Beyond that, I'm not sure anyone can say exactly what the limit is. The formula for maximum mass seems to provide an answer, but I don't know what Qs and Q0 are. Chris PS - sorry about the stretched-out lay-out. Copying the pdf format table seems to have messed up the coding in this post. Edited to correct spelling errors

I'm not sure that any scientists claim to know that at the center of a black hole event horizon there is an infinitely dense object. They know that the intense gravity of neutron stars is balanced by short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions mediated by the strong force and also by the quantum degeneracy pressure of neutrons, preventing collapse. Beyond about 3 solar masses, however, the force of gravity exceeds the strength of these counteracting forces. At this point there's no force or combination of forces known to exist that are strong enough to stop the contracting force of gravity (which only becomes stronger as it further compresses the object). Since scientists can conceive of no way to prevent the ever more forceful collapse of the precursor object, they speculate that the object must continue to shink in size due to the continually increasing strength of gravity until it shinks to the absolute minimum size - which they surmise must be zero. The only reason they think that this actually happens is that they can't figure out any physical laws that would stop it from happening. Now anything that is zero in size must be infinite in density. If a paper clip were to be shrunk down in size to zero, it would have infinite density - even though we know it has only about one gram of mass. All scientists can say about what lies within the event horizon is that there is believed to be a point-like object that our physical laws are unable to describe. To avoid having to repaetedly use that rather long and embarrasing phrase, the simply call the thing a singularity. Chris

You need to consider ajb's statement as it was written:"...Anyway, the physics is the same in any inertial frame of reference, which is what we are really saying..." In this statement "physics" refers to the laws of physics as we know them and an "inertial frame of reference" can be thought of as a spaceship laboratory moving at a uniform velocity (neither accelerating or decelerating) outside of any measurable gravitational field. In this case, if an experimenter would, for instance, apply a force of one Newton (1 kg*m/s2) for one second to a stationary mass of one kilogram, it would impart a velocity of one meter per second to the mass (all of this is as measured in the spaceship lab). This experiment will turn out the same for any experimenter on any spaceship that's in uniform motion (an inertial frame of reference). More generally, any experiment carried out in such a spaceship lab that's an inertial frame of reference will produce the same results as the same experiment carried out in any other spaceship lab that's likewise in uniform motion (an inertial frame of reference) no matter what direction they're going relative to each other or how fast they're going relative to each other. This principle of relativity (in inertial frames of reference) is one of the assumptions upon which Einstein based his special theory of relativity: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....vity#Postulates ) As far as I know, there has been no experiment performed that contradicts this principle. When you ask why time isn't "universal" you're asking about how an experimenter in one spaceship would "see" the time in another spaceship as it zoomed past him. This would vary, along with the mass of the one kilogram object and the length of one meter, depending on the relative velocities of the two spaceships. By applying special relativity (particularly the Lorentz transformations) to what he "sees" in the other spaceship, an experimenter can convert his measurements to the same measurements that the experimenter in the other spaceship is getting. Chris Edited to correct spelling errors

Regarding your first statement, I would refer you the the Wikipedia article on Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the applicable portion of which is as follows: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....nucleosynthesis ) Regarding your other conjectures and your claim that "...I've never been able to find any factual information that disagrees with my theory...", I can only say that you must be reading different books than I've been reading because I've never found any factual information that agrees with your theory. On your claim that "...Well if Albert's theory is correct then The Big Bang Theory would have been out of the question a long time ago...", it's my understanding that General Relativity is an integral part of the big bang standard cosmological model. I'm completely baffled by your statement. As a general observation, I would say that your ideas fall more into the category of speculation rather than Modern and Theoretical Physics. I haven't read any mainstream science articles or papers that share your views. If you can provide us with any references or links it would be helpful. Chris Edited to correct spelling errors

I'll have to agree with Moontamann. A fairly in-depth explanation of why our observations indicate that the big bang resulted in much more energy than matter existing in the universe is contained in the Wikipedia article on dark energy, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy Basically, a number of different observations point to the mass/energy content of the universe being composed of about 73% dark energy, about 22.5% dark matter, and about 4.5% baryonic matter (regular matter in stars, planets, interstellar gas and dust). As far as I know, these proportions are given in equivalent units, so it doesn't make any difference whether you want to think of the energy as the equivalent amount of dark matter/baryonic matter or the amount of dark matter/baryonic matter as the equivalent amount of energy (by the conversion factor E=mc2). The relative proportions remain the same. Chris Edited to include Wikipedia link

As far as I know, your statement is true - provided that you know the exact volume in which the mass is contained. (ref. http://en.wikipedia....rzschild_radius ) Chris Edited to improve readability.

As I noted in my earlier post, the link you supplied says (in part): Your description of small white dwarfs as "spent HE-cores" is probably appropriate. Although there has not been enough time since the big bang for a <0.5 solar mass red dwarf star to naturally evolve to a HE white dwarf, the HE core of a larger star might remain if a nearby companion "stole" hydrogen from the outer layers of the progenitor star to the extent that it could no longer sustain nuclear fusion: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....h_very_low_mass ) Chris

(ref. http://en.wikipedia....i/Neutron_stars ) The fate of collapsed objects between 2 and 3 solar masses isn't entirely clear at this time. As far as I know, any collapsed object greater than 3 solar masses is thought to necessarily be a black hole. Chris

According to the reference you cited: (ref. http://www.astro.uma...life_death.html ) Your same reference states in the previous section, however, that: and in the subsequent section: Also, by definition, red dwarf stars have masses no greater than 0.4 solar masses. (ref. http://en.wikipedia....characteristics ) So, as you can see, although red dwarf stars can end their lives as (mostly) helium white dwarfs, there hasn't been enough time since the beginning of the universe for any red dwarf to have reached this stage of its evolution. Chris

I'm not familiar with the cosmic infra-red background. Do you mean the cosmic microwave background (CMB)? Chris

On the subject of compressibility as it relates to buoyancy, it's interesting to note the following: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....e_(bathyscaphe) ) Chris

My appologies to MigL. I re-read his post and realize that I mis-understood the point he was making. In a sort of upside-down logic I mistakenly thought he was saying that if our physical laws are valid, the must also be valid at t=0. As I now understand his post, he's actually saying that at t=0 our physical laws have no predictive power - including the law of conservation of mass/energy. This question does raise a related interesting question: How close to t=0 can we apply the laws of physics as we know them? As far as I know, we're not sure why there was an asymmetric annihilation of matter and anti-matter during the hadron epoch (~10-6 seconds to ~1 second after t=0) and the lepton epoch (~1 second to ~10 seconds after t=0). Does this make the beginning of the photon epoch (~10 seconds after t=0) the first period of time when our physical laws can be quantitatively applied to the early universe based of what we see today? [i purposely left out the preceding inflationary epoch since the physics of the subsequent matter and anti-matter annihilation aren't yet clear] Chris Deited to correct spelling errors

The standard model of big bang cosmology begins with the inflationary epoch at ~t=10-36 seconds and lasted until about 10-32 seconds. It doesn't extend to any time earlier than that. Even for this very early period the actual physics is not very well understood: (ref. http://en.wikipedia....logy)#Reheating ) You're saying that the physical laws that we are familiar with existed at t=0. I believe that the scientific consensus is that this is not true. Chris

This may be a naive question, but isn't proposing that "...time itself is a periodic rate of change of spatial dimensions..." an example of using time to define time? Chris

The "resisting force from air inside the balloon" (pressure) is not bigger than the pressure of the surrounding water - it exactly matches the pressure of the surrounding water. The balloon will not want to be bigger unless the pressure of the surrounding water is reduced. It may be easier to envision the effect that increasing pressure will have as depth increases if you think of a rock suspended from a plastic bag containing an air bubble. If this set-up is in a submerged state - but suspended in equilibrium, it will remain where it is. This state of equilibrium is balanced on a knife-edge, though. The slightest nudge up or down will cause it to continue its motion at an escalating rate. If it rises, the reduced water pressure will allow the bubble of air to expand and thus displace more water - which means that it will be more buoyant. Conversely, if it sinks even slightly, the increased water pressure will compress the air bubble and the bubble will therefore displace less water. It will become less buoyant. Chris

This is essentially what I'm wondering about, also. (ref. http://en.wikipedia..../List_of_mesons ) What happens when, for instance, a positive pion collides with a negative pion? Do the quarks annihilate and produce leptons and (perhaps) photons? Chris

It's hard to tell if you're serious. If you are, you're going to have to back up your conceptual theory with a lot of math. General relativity and its more approximate (but easier to work with) predecessor, Newtonian gravity, have the subject nailed down pretty good - both conceptually (in the case of general relativity) and mathematically. Chris