north

It's not about fear, it's about your claims not being proven, and the discussion speaks of speculations.

 

This forum (Speculations) is not about a punishment limbo. It's the right place for speculating about things that are not proven.

 

Which is exactly what your claim is. There's nothing wrong with that, and these sometimes lead to valid theories that science may one day accept.

 

But not yet.

 

~moo

what have I to prove then ?

Originally Posted by north

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time. ...

This is a false statement, north.

 

The classic model does not define any pre-BB state.

the classic model may not , but what about today

Merged post follows:

Since it has singularity and high dencity we could assume Big Bang disc as black hole.

 

If we assume BB disc as Black hole, pre-BB state is compression proses.

 

Also standart explenation of BB is meaningless according to dencity (pressure) of the enviroment.

 

Even if protons were occured immidiately, they must be turned to neutrons because of high pressure.

 

When we assume BB expanded (uniformly) with light speed, we found that;

 

Time (sec.) ----- Radius(m)-----Dencity -------Composition

0 --------------- E-25 -------- E+130 ------- Unknown (Possibly Elementry Particle)

E-11 ------------ 3E-3 -------- E+62 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

1 --------------- 3E+8 -------- E+29 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

10 -------------- 3E+9 -------- E+26 ------- Unknown (Black Hole)

100 ------------- 3E+10 ------- E+23 ------- Quarks (Preon stars)

1000 ------------ 3E+11 ------- E+20 ------- Quarks

5000 ------------ 2E+12 ------- E+18 ------- Quarks (Quark stars)

10000 ----------- 3E+12 ------- E+17 ------- Neutron (Neutron stars)

100000 ---------- 3E+13 ------- E+14 ------- Proton (Stars)

 

Dencity(kg/m^3)

 

Proton is never observed or predicted in very high dencity environment because of degeneration pressure.

 

To say that universe occured at E-11 second, you must accept universe dencity as E+62 kg/m^3 and at this dencity main composition could not be proton. Because we assume neigligible amounth of proton in Neutron stars which has E+17 kg/m^3 average dencity.

I had this discussion on another site and they reject the Black-hole theory

what of before the BB though ?

Merged post follows:

you guys haved moved my thread

interesting

from Cosmology to speculations

what do you fear ?

The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time.

do all meanstreamers think this..

Would the CMB not be more red-shifted than any radiation from stars or galaxies?

no , and to quote from my physics dictionary ;

" The microwave background radiation ( 60cm-0.6mm ) is that of a black-body radiator at a temperature of 2.76 kelvin. it is believed to consist of photons remaining after the universe had cooled appreciably , after the big-bang, and having insufficient energy to undergo interactions . It is thus considered evidence for the BB theory. The microwave background has a constant strength in all directions ( i.e. it is isotropic ) ; this indicates that the universe is expanding at a uniform rate and also that different parts of the universe had the same same initial temperature "

I thought this was how astronomers took into account other sources?

above

now you know

get a dictionary it is very , very useful in thinking upon things such as this topic

I know I have about 10 dictionaries on various ologies

Not only that; stars and other astronomical bodies also emit radiation in the same WMAP frequencies, they should eliminate all stars and dust clouds etc…

 

They eliminated SUN , Planets, Moon, Galaxy disk. COBE by design collects samples of radiation not in the direction of COBE to SUN, but perpendicular to that direction. Other stars also like SUN, why should they keep stars?

and we go on and on about the problems of using microwave evidence for the support of the BB theory

but does mainstream astronomy and astrophysics get it , is the question ?

I doubt it

That depends how you define space. If I define space as that which doesn't have shape, then space has no borders, since borders only apply to objects(that which has shape).

 

For anyone who claims space has shape, what gives shape to space? What contours it?

energy/matter shapes and contours space

think three dimensions , 360 degrees

Originally Posted by north

Originally Posted by north

they havn't eliminated more than two or three galaxies because they don't have the capability!!

 

so supporting BB with WMAP is an extremely weak argument if not really pointless

 

of course not many people know this

You are correct sir...

 

CMB is generated from Stars, Galaxies, Dust & clouds other astronomical bodies. What do you say?

until we can at least eliminate 10,000 galaxies ( three dimensionaly) as the sourse of microwave radiation

we can't use microwave radiation as evidence of BB theory

Surely not.

...

Mercury is moving away from the Sun (at an extremely small rate).

but is Mercury actually doing so

is there physical dynamic evidence for what you suggest ?

Originally Posted by north

I didn't check as of yet

so are saying that NASA has eliminated ALL sources of microwaves from beyond say 3-4 galaxies away from us ?

thats new

I asked NASA how many galaxies they have eliminated as a source of microwaves , and the said , besides are own galaxy , maybe two or three , no more

You are correct sir,

Why eliminate only one or two…, they should remove all. Similarly all radiation from stars, all astronomical bodies and galaxies they should eliminate…

 

Then only we can see if any thing remains!

they havn't eliminated more than two or three galaxies because they don't have the capability!!

so supporting BB with WMAP is an extremely weak argument if not really pointless

of course not many people know this

What gives you the idea that it would?

because of the gravity by the sun

surely the gravity by the sun is strong enough to eventually draw in Mercury and Venus is it not ?

space ends at the edge where energy/matter is no longer created

why doesn't Mercury simply fall into the sun ? eventually ?

The dish antennae used MEASURES radiation from distant objects. For local you have to use some immersion thermometers, some thing like we put into our mouth, when we get fever.

 

Galaxies EMIT :-)microwave radiation, so do stars and other astronomical bodies. You are correct here. All this radiation should be eliminated, it was not done till now from say 1965. If you know any instance of such elimination, please let’s discuss….

 

I don’t know what you have asked NASA, what you have understood.

 

Check for “ Galaxy Catalogs” in Google…

I didn't check as of yet

so are saying that NASA has eliminated ALL sources of microwaves from beyond say 3-4 galaxies away from us ?

thats new

I asked NASA how many galaxies they have eliminated as a source of microwaves , and the said , besides are own galaxy , maybe two or three , no more

[moderation]

 

Am I correct in saying that all your references in posts #22 and #24 to "above" and "again above" mean "agreed"? If so, please don't do this again, just say "agreed". Is agreeing so disagreeable that you have to mask it in confusion?

 

[/moderation]

no

above means that I have already answered the response

imagine a universe consisting entirely of particles that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.

 

to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.

 

now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.

I hate to repeat and disagree with you but how could any " bit " exist without space though ?

you see space " allows " for the existence of things any thing

space gives " room " into which a bit or thing can manifest its self into

North,

If you want to respond to points of mine which you quote, please give an explicit response. Here you just say "above". This apparently refers to some sentences above which don't make sense to me.

 

And it isn't clear what your reaction is when you say "above", or how the earlier sentences are suppose to respond to what I said.

" above " is in reference to my first response in post # 22

the thing is about WMAP is that the microwave back ground radiation is only local

for there is only so many galaxies , which admit microwave radiation , which can be eliminated from being any source of microwave radiation

I know beacuse about two years ago I asked NASA this direct question

and there are very few galaxies , very few

Is there such a thing? How could it be figured?

I don't quite get you here

so are you suggesting a quantization of force with no mass ?

just asking

Unless it becomes published by a reputable publisher and/or in a peer review journal and/or becomes well supported by the physics community I would leave it alone.

I disagree

too keep an open mind is important

peer reviews and the physics community can be politically motivated

therefore bias

I understand the point you are making, north. But I think it involves a questionable unstated assumption.

You seem to be saying that space cannot have any geometric properties because it is not a substance.

no this is not what I'm saying

space by its very nature will have a geometry(s) associated within it . it is SPACE after all

it just that you can't use space in and of itself by itself to change the geometry of a particular angle

the angle can only be changed by calculation

I agree that space has no fundamental substance. But it can still have geometry.

agreed

For example the sum of angles of a triangle can either be 180, or it can be something else. If it is always 180 then space has a flat or Euclidean geometry. It can have this geometry even though it is not made of substance. If it is different from 180, then space has a non-flat or non-Euclidean geometry, which also does not require substance.

 

Likewise with radius and volume. If the volume of a sphere always increases as the cube of the radius then space has a flat or Euclidean geometry, and it can have this even though it is not made of any substance! Likewise the volume can increase as some other function of the radius.

above

In cosmology, using redshift surveys, CMB and BAO (baryon acoustic oscillations) data what people are doing in effect is measuring the angles of very large triangles or comparing large radii and volumes. The data show that curvature in largescale geometry cannot be ruled out, not yet anyway.

again above

I do not think your claim is based on logic.

 

my claim is not based on logic but reason

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that geometry can be curved, or not.

And space is nothing but geometry.

Therefore space can be curved, or not.

 

again above

 

 

 

 

 

 

If space has no substance, then what does it consist of besides the sum total of all geometric relations? The catalog of all the distances, areas, angles etc.

This has been a traditional view of what space is, in Western philosophy, going back as far as Aristotle. So what I'm telling you is pretty ordinary stuff.

Einstein's special contribution was to equate the gravitational field with geometry itself. The gravitational field is nothing else but the geometry of spacetime (in his 1915 GR theory.) So he was the first to give a dynamical explanation of geometry---to discover that it has causes, and can change, and even oscillate. He began the effort to explain what determines where it is going to be flat and where and when it will be curved. In this way, he made geometry a real part of physics.

 

Martin

 

I see your point

 

but what Einstein didn't include was the WHY

 

the WHY being while the geometrics said this or that and then came to a conclusion

 

he forgot or didn't include or couldn't include( because of the knowledge then known ) the physical dynamics of objects and their interactions, which is the essence of the geometrics

 

for the most part Einstein was right he just did not understand fully WHY he was right

 

for instance can we fully explain beyond geometrics why Mercury does what it does ?

 

not that I know of

Originally Posted by north

light is curved or bends because of the energy and/or matter in that region of space

Dude, light is curved because it is going through curved space, which is a manifestation of gravity.

"Gravity manifests itself as the curving of spacetime." -swansont

 

Is that relevant in determining whether you post was true or not?

the difference between you and I is this ;

for me energy and/or matter bends because of the energy/matter in that space

for example the suns atmosphere

for you however ;

light is curved by gravity and as you say manifests by curving space-time

but since neither space nor time has any substance associated with it , light cannot be bent because of space-time

that is the difference between me and you

If space is being created with the expanding universe, can it be destroyed as well.

space could be created

lately it come to my awarness that mainstrem astrophysics has now come around to , looking at the Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven

where galaxies , new made galaxies , are formed and pushed out by older galaxies

about time really

I don't think it can be explained in simpler terms.

 

Regardless, the fault does not lie with me but with you, so it is not my explanation to give. You are the one who needs to explain why your fallacious statement has any bearing on this discussion.

 

If you can't then I suggest that you don't try, because you can't afford any more infractions. Refer to the site rules if you are in any doubt as to why infractions are given out.

ah I see

and good night

Originally Posted by north

explain

I am not about to teach you Logic 101. If you don't understand its structure or purpose you should not be making sweeping statements about it.

no need to teach , I've taken logic 101 yrs ago

just explain where your coming from

I am not about to teach you Logic 101. If you don't understand its structure or purpose you should not be making sweeping statements about it.

 

You identify an attribute of A and then point out that B does not have that attribute, without showing any necessity for B to have that attribute.

 

Ergo, a false comparison.

 

In any case, your statement was utterly meaningless since most forms of logic are formalisations of reason.

well does A represent and what does B represent to you

this is important

Originally Posted by north

Reason evolves in and of its self

 

logic does not evolve in and of it self

 

because logic is based on the info given

No, it's because logic doesn't need to "evolve in and of itself".

explain

What you propose is a false comparison.

how so ?