Cancer 03

I recently saw 'Stephen Hawking special- Did God create the universe? ' , a program in the Discovery channel. The great mind concluded that he believes there's no god, and before the big bang, there was no space or time to begin any creation. And that everything was made from "nothing".

So i was thinking, okay, there may not be a God, but what was this "nothing"? If the Big Bang started from an atom sized thing, how did it appear in the first place? If space is not "nothing", then what is it?

For those who want to watch the program, search the title in youtube.

Thanks in advance

Arjun,

It depends on what you mean by "God." An all-powerful individual that created everything? No. God did not create our universe. God goes against every piece of science ever known to man, including evolution, symbiosis, you name it.

Cancer

The issue of slow rotation is more than just temperature related. Rotation (and mantel convection) appear to be needed to produce a magnetosphere. Without a magnetosphere, the solar wind of the system star will strip a planet of its atmosphere and irradiate the planet with high energy particles. Light, volatile compounds and elements are stripped first (hydrogen) making the planet inhospitable to life as we know it. Venus (slow rotation) and Mars (apparent lack of mantel convection) are good examples. But there is still chances for life in the Venusian upper atmosphere and underground on Mars.

 

 

 

Very good analysis, I'm impressed.

Cancer

General relativity tells us that there is no universal time. It all depends on your frame of reference and velocity relative to other things.

 

So how can it be that time "began" at the Big Bang? - which is the conventional viewpoint.

 

If you look at time and space as one, then you may make the equation quite simply: Space = Time/Time = Space, Space Begins (Big Bang) = Time Begins (Big Bang).

Cancer

I see, no one but you brought the rotational speed into this.... but you do have a point. I'm not willing to say that a slow rotating planet would by necessity be non conductive to life but it would present some unique challenges for life.

Yes, I agree.

Cancer

What does rotational speed have to do with it? The planet is too close to it's star to support life as we know it...

If the planet were at a perfect distance from a nearby star, which it is not, its period of rotation would matter because if it is extremely slow, one side of the planet could be very cold while the other could be very hot. And yes, I do realize that is it far too close "to support life as we know it."

Cancer

I think that's called sarcasm...

 

Another take on this has to do with the nearest star having an earth sized planet. Until recently it was assumed that double stars like the Alpha Centauri system do not have planets but now we know that not only do multiple star systems have planets there is an Earth sized one just 4.5 light years away.

 

Is this statistically significant?

Actually, I believe it is a joke referencing the PC game "Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri", which was a sequel to "Civilization". Fungus and mindworms were a couple of the problems you had to deal with in the game.

Moontanman,

A planet that is the size of Earth has no reason to be in any way more inhabitable than a planet that is twice the size of Earth. Unless you believe that the period of rotation of a larger planet would be insufficient for life due to uneven periods of warmth due to starlight.

However, if it is true that this planet is much too hot to sustain any form of life, then period of rotation or revolution or any other planetary movement or characteristic would obviously be disregarded.

As for you, Janus, I now understand why "fungus" and "mindworms" were referenced.

They have confirmed it s far to hot for life as we know it...

Exactly, so why would we find/be looking for life forms that are as advanced as fungus (above)? That is absurd.

Cancer

Have they confirmed the presence of fungus and/or mindworms?

Have they confirmed more than its existence?

Cancer

Quasars tend not to be found on, or gently collide with, planets.

My apologies, it has just come to my attention that this subject of atomic blasts in nature strictly focuses on blasts that occur on Earth/other planets. I was speaking for atomic blasts in nature in general. However, do you believe that the rest of the universe is not part of nature? In other words, nature stops at the atmosphere of Earth?

Cancer

Fig1 Supernovae that exceed Oppenheimer limit (forming of black hole) gestate new universes.

 

 

Fig2 The topology among universe and multiverse are probably similar to galaxies.

The above figures were from the 28th International Astronomical Union General Assembly in Beijing.

"Galactic Alignment", also in the same meaning "One Course Similar to gestating new universe" imply one kind of fundamental event——supernovae in Mayan words.

 

 

Fig3 On-spot Photography of One of Mayan Observatory

What are you proposing?

Cancer

We already know stars can, what else in nature can?

I believe that a quasar can case an atomic blast. A quasar (quasi stellar radio source) is a source that possesses extremely high amounts of energy. Quasars tend to eject streams of light that take the form of a beam.

Cancer

The distance at which expansion overcomes gravity is about 200 million light years.

In which method is this calculated?