Big Bang Busted (Again)

alkalin · Oct 7, 2005

Fully loaded is right. Boy, I sure am glad I would have gravity only in all this scenario. Think how much harder it would be if I have to fight electro-magnetic effects also while all this is going on. But this is interesting. More than I can chew in a few minutes.

yevaud · Oct 7, 2005

Don't forget about permissivity and permeability of course. Two additional factors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

jatslo · Oct 7, 2005

I trying to tell you that the light is there it is not trapped.

yevaud · Oct 7, 2005

I don't see why it wouldn't. Light is limited to a particular velocity, and no more. Gravity is not limited in this way. So. What occurs when a photon meets a gravitational force that *exceeds* that velocity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bonzelite · Oct 7, 2005

this stands out, as it is simple and pretty much the essence of the black hole argument: "Velocity time dilation deals with the clocks of objects with mass. Gravitational time dilation deals with the clock of the space time fabric itself!" and i say again, you are giving gravity WAY too much credit for influencing things. gravity, in your premise, is then not only a property of matter(mass), but of "spacetime fabric" as well. and i say this model is incorrect. you are assuming that gravity, like in the example of "gravitational lensing," is sufficient enough to bend "spacetime" to the point of it creating a "black hole" ---WITHOUT singularity? so what are you saying? to even bring about such a collapse to create this so-called black hole, the gravity must overwhelm the object's ability to remain in it's present state of structural intergrity, thence, swallowing itself up, perpetually, indefinitely, ie, "infinitely." so you believe now in black holes that are not singularity-based? how is this possible? i mean, black holes DO NOT EXIST anyway. that is not the issue. the issue is how do you now get yet ANOTHER exotic object, a "singularity-free black hole"? you are saying "black is white." "white is black." the problem is with the entire present model of gravitational supremacy. in the present model, gravity is given carte-blanche to run amok and create "supermassive black holes of several million solar masses" at the center of EVERY galaxy! oh boy! but gravity is mechanically WEAK, as it cannot overcome separation of charge in an anode/cathode electrical field on the scale of stars and galaxies. it CANNOT. and because of this, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a star to "collapse" in upon itself, as that body is kept in a charge balance. electromagnetic forces, ie, plasma dynamics, are FAR stronger than any known gravitational field. if anything, the star will EXPLODE if this balance decays. like a

yevaud · Oct 7, 2005

but gravity is mechanically WEAK, as it cannot overcome separation of charge in an anode/cathode electrical field on the scale of stars and galaxies. it CANNOT. and because of this, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a star to "collapse" in upon itself, as that body is kept in a charge balance. electromagnetic forces, ie, plasma dynamics, are FAR stronger than any known gravitational field. if anything, the star will EXPLODE if this balance decays. like a transformer exploding after an earthquake or during an electrical storm. That's dead wrong. Yes, on the one hand, on a small scale, EM forces are stronger than the gravitational force. This is simply shown by picking something up with a magnet, which clearly overcomes the pull of gravity. But it's a matter of scale. For example, EM forces do not travel very far. Can you move an object on MArs using a magnet here on Earth? You cannot. Further, the Electromagnetic force is limited within this manifold. It cannot exceed certain limits. Gravity is not restricted in this sense, which is how, say, a neutron star is possible: gravity exceeds the exclusion force, permitting the neutrons that comprise such an object to pack closely together in such a way the EM forces cannot accomplish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

kmarinas86 · Oct 7, 2005

but gravity is mechanically WEAK, as it cannot overcome separation of charge in an anode/cathode electrical field on the scale of stars and galaxies. it CANNOT. and because of this, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a star to "collapse" in upon itself, as that body is kept in a charge balance. electromagnetic forces, ie, plasma dynamics, are FAR stronger than any known gravitational field. if anything, the star will EXPLODE if this balance decays. like a transformer exploding after an earthquake or during an electrical storm. The only reason why atoms do not collapse under normal conditions is that orbiting electrons have too much kinetic energy. However protons and electrons can be jammed together given that the particles are under very, very, very high pressure and heat - something like an atom smasher. If new neutrons form and become a huge super nucleus, what scientists called a neutron star, this implies that protons are jammed with electrons inside a star. A neutron star's gravity and heat has overcome the momentum of the negatively charged electrons, which orbit too fast to hit the positively charged nucleus on their own.

kmarinas86 · Oct 7, 2005

you are assuming that gravity, like in the example of "gravitational lensing," is sufficient enough to bend "spacetime" to the point of it creating a "black hole" ---WITHOUT singularity? so what are you saying? to even bring about such a collapse to create this so-called black hole, the gravity must overwhelm the object's ability to remain in it's present state of structural intergrity, thence, swallowing itself up, perpetually, indefinitely, ie, "infinitely." so you believe now in black holes that are not singularity-based? how is this possible? i mean, black holes DO NOT EXIST anyway. that is not the issue. the issue is how do you now get yet ANOTHER exotic object, a "singularity-free black hole"? you are saying "black is white." "white is black." Confession. It is better for me to say that no schwarzschild radius even forms. Rephrase: If a hypothetical schwarzschild radius is a point where there is infinite gravitational time dilation, since time cannot be stopped, then that means that a black hole is never formed. Never is a physical schwarzchild radius formed, because it is never met or surpassed - it is impossible to do so, otherwise it would imply photons with infinite massless momentum and infinite frequency - two big impossibilities. A mass of a certain mass will always be larger than the schwarzschild radius. Always. An absolute law. There. No more black "holes". <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> This is not to say that tachyons don't exist. It is against my religion to think that everything we don't know doesn't travel faster than the speed of light... and i say again, you are giving gravity WAY too much credit for influencing things. gravity, in your premise, is then not only a property of matter(mass), but of "spacetime fabric" as well. and i say this model is incorrect. I thi

jatslo · Oct 7, 2005

Velocity -(v) is a change in displacement with respect to time -(t), or a quickness of motion. Speed is a time rate of linear motion in a given direction, and this rate of occurrence or action is rapidity, in which rapidity is the quality or state of being rapid. Rapid is marked by a fast rate of motion, activity, succession, or occurrence. For instance, a part of a river where the current is fast and broken is referred to as rapid(s), as in whitewater rapids. [1] -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second, which is approximately the max speed that visible light can travel regardless of what color shade the wave is projecting, e.g., (blue shifted, red shifted, etc.): Speed of Light. [2] -( c i ) is something new I created to help explain my logic, so that you all know that I have math to back up my words. As I stated above, -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second; however, I attached -( i ) so that I can talk about light as if it can be invisible, whereas -( c i ) is invisible light, as in -( c i ) > 186,000 miles per second. Please do not confuse my logic with "Tachyon", because I think a tachyon is something different. [3] -( c v ) is another new variable that I created, and -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second like I stated twice already; however, I attached -( v ) so that I can differentiate between visible and invisible light, whereas -( c v ) is visible light, as in -( c v ) less than or equal to 186,000 miles per second. Please do not confuse my logic with "Anti-Light", because I think Anti-Light is something different. [4] -( c L ) is yet another new variable that I created, and -( c ) is 186,000 miles per second like I stated three times already; however, I attached -( L ) so that I can have a constant length to work with regardless of length contraction brought about by the affects of velocity -(v). -

bonzelite · Oct 8, 2005

kman, all i'm saying is be careful of infinity as part of a binding "law." these people who made up black holes are barking up ---i dunno, not even a wrong tree.... a wrong planet. there is a lot of years-ignored/shunned stuff coming to bear, going around, that is putting the heat on gravity worship --big time. gravity is important, as it bears huge pressure upon ANY star. but the nature of the interior of that star is not necessarily a huge ball of convection/fusion "waiting" to fade away or collapse into a singularity under it's own weight. there are mammoth internal electrical repulsions counteracting the weight of it's own gravity envelope, keeping the body "turgid." check this site out, dude. you will trip out: http://www.holoscience.com/index.php

kmarinas86 · Oct 8, 2005

"The only reason why atoms do not collapse under normal conditions is that orbiting electrons have too much kinetic energy. However protons and electrons can be jammed together given that the particles are under very, very, very high pressure and heat - something like an atom smasher. If new neutrons form and become a huge super nucleus, what scientists called a neutron star, this implies that protons are jammed with electrons inside a star. A neutron star's gravity and heat has overcome the momentum of the negatively charged electrons, which orbit too fast to hit the positively charged nucleus on their own." - kmarinas86 Why don't electrons get stuck in the Nucleus? http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/quantum/faq/electron-confinement-to-nucleus.shtml Why don't electrons fall into the nucleus? http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Inside_the_Atom/968623363.htm Why do electrons move? http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_exciting_physics/Inside_the_atom/940974725.htm http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/neutron_stars.html "Neutron stars are compact objects that are created in the cores of massive stars during supernova explosions. The core of the star collapses, and crushes together every proton with a corresponding electron turning each electron-proton pair into a neutron. The neutrons, however, can often stop the collapse and remain as a neutron star. Neutron stars are fascinat

jatslo · Oct 8, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I am more interested in unification, so what we see in the universe and what see at the atomic level, and visa versa, must conform into one grand unification theory. If black holes exist in the universe as massive phenomena's then black holes must exist at the quantum level as well.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />"The only reason why atoms do not collapse under normal conditions is that orbiting electrons have too much kinetic energy.This is a oddity and inconsistent with your usual ramblings. Atoms do collapse under normal conditions, and I am curious to know why you think they do not. Atoms decay and dissipate just like everything else. However protons and electrons can be jammed together given that the particles are under very, very, very high pressure and heat - something like an atom masher. Fusion and fission can occur naturally, whereas some can fuse and fizz more easily. Meaning that you do not need a biblical type event to occur. If new neutrons form and become a huge super nucleus, what scientists called a neutron star, this implies that protons are jammed with electrons inside a star. A neutron star's gravity and heat has overcome the momentum of the negatively charged electrons, which orbit too fast to hit the positively charged nucleus on their own." - kmarinas86<hr /></blockquote> Clearly, the mass has condensed into a charged mass, but to what extent? What would happen, if we stripped away the charge? Do neutron stars of equal mass and unequal ages have the same charge? How would you know this? Is the radiation leakage fission, or fusion, because when there is nothing left to fuse or fizz, then there is nothing left to charge? What happens to a neutron star that fades away into a dead mass with no work left to do? I think it is possible that</blockquote>

kmarinas86 · Oct 8, 2005

Clearly, the mass has condensed into a charged mass, but to what extent? What would happen, if we stripped away the charge? Well neutrons have no charge, and that's like stripping it away. Nothing different I suppose. Do neutron stars of equal mass and unequal ages have the same charge? There are trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of protons, neutrons, and electrons in a star. It seems nearly impossible for their numbers to be the same. How would you know this? Can't, or probably uninteresting to know. Is the radiation leakage fission, or fusion, because when there is nothing left to fuse or fizz, then there is nothing left to charge? Electrons lose kinetic energy and do so by giving of photons. The monitor you are looking at right now is doing the same thing, though with less energy output. What happens to a neutron star that fades away into a dead mass with no work left to do? http://www.geocities.com/tonylance/dwarf.html 7. CHARACTERISTICS OF NEUTRON STARS As had been suggested decades before and was clearly indicated by the Crab Nebula and Vela pulsars, a neutron star is the remnant of a supernova explosion, specifically from the collapse of a star with a mass of from 8 to 15 Suns. The neutron star that results from such a catastrophe has a number of interesting characteristics. First, conservation of angular momentum as it collapses means that the young neutron star spins very fast, at a rate of about 50 times a second. (This does not come close to the period of the millisecond pulsars, but that will be discussed later.) Second, for reas

jatslo · Oct 8, 2005

Not quite a neutron, if it has a charge. Neutron stars will disipate just like everything disipates, and the Neutrons will simply disperse to where?

bonzelite · Oct 8, 2005

kman wrote: "...Fourth, the young neutron star has an extraordinarily intense magnetic field. Since a moving magnetic field generates an electric current through a conductor, and since a young neutron star is a big powerful magnet spinning very fast, it sets up an immense flow of electrons, positrons, and ions over its surface and scatters them into space. This flow of charged particles is known as the "pulsar wind", analogous to the "Solar wind" emitted by our Sun. " -----i have to give a TCM (trajectory correction maneuver) to this sentence: you said that a "moving magnetic field generates an electric current" and this is backwards --an ELECTRIC CURRENT generates a magnetic field. magnetic fields are the RESULT OF a current. whenever there is a magnetic field detected, as in the earth's magnetosphere, this field is being created by an electrical circuit, ie, the earth itself drawing power from the interstellar plasma. this somewhat throws a wrench into the whole neutron star idea: when gravity impinges upon a star, ie, it's mass is such that it faces "collapse," this pressure of gravity induces charge separation and electrical repulsion effects within a star. because a proton weighs almost 2000 times as much as an electron, this ensures that this will occur. for example, each hydrogen atom in a star will be distorted by gravity to form a tiny radial electric dipole. the resulting electric field will ensure charge separation inside the star. free electrons will drift toward the surface and leave behind a positively charged core, ie, the anode (+). the resulting internal electric forces, the repulsive forces of positive to positive charge, COUNTERBALANCE compression due to gravity throughout the star. therefore, the star cannot collapse. if anything, as i have said earlier, the star will EJECT matter, freeing up electrons, as in the case of solar prominences. or the imbalance will be such that the

jatslo · Oct 8, 2005

Yes, implosion precedes explosion; however, the core is so dense in some cases that the core remains intact, but not always.<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />there is no collapse<hr /></blockquote> "there is no collapse" is a pipe dream, so you best do some homework.

bonzelite · Oct 8, 2005

i have done the homework. it is in the post i just made. separation of charge is OVERWHELMINGLY more powerful than gravity. so much so that, as i said, this force overcomes the gravity of the star itself, exploding it. you have done homework, too, but is based in the gravity worship that is antiquated and makes no sense unless you amend it with hundreds of exotic rules and imaginary states of matter, with made-up mathematical models that have no basis in real activity. the big bang, black holes, and neutron stars are the ulimate embarrassment to cosmology, as they are worshiped as real things that all research is trained to proceed under. yet there is no basis in reality for any of them.

jatslo · Oct 8, 2005

What makes you think that I believe that gravity is the only solution? With respect to imaginary matter, I may or may not know what it is, if it is. Nevertheless, charge may be the source too, since we can levitate, it must be true, or partially true. (S) (F) (EM), but what about (G)? Maybe there is no such animal. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> What is this Neutron BS: looks more like a large pulsar to me; do you deny the existence of pulsars?

bonzelite · Oct 8, 2005

jatslo, to answer your query: "What makes you think that I believe that gravity is the only solution?" --because you did not introduce any other explanation. and the discussion has shifted to neutron stars. and those imply gravitational implosion. and to answer this: "do you deny the existence of pulsars?" in the status quo way, yes. why? because there have been observed burst cycles from "pulsars" that are one PER SECOND ie, the star rotates once every second, some with masses that exceed that of our sun --impossible! such an object would tear itself apart. so this is why we have the "neutron star" --as this new, exotic, object's density is so "SUPER DENSE," that it can stand up to ANY rotation! even one revolution per second! ---and such an idea is laughably ridiculous!! one of the basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the “zone of stability”. this is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. you cannot physically EVER have a neutron-only object. nuclear physics prohibits such an occurrence. an atom will seek radioactive balance no matter what, even if that means EXPLODING an ustable star apart to shed charge. or in the case of pulsars, shedding charge to some other object or region of charge. pulsar discharges are ELECTRICAL phenomena. a nucleus or “charge free” atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. single neutrons "decay" into proton/electron pairs in less than 14 minutes, as atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously in seeking nuclear balance. bear in mind, some pulsars oscillate with periods in the millisecond range. you cannot tell me the star rotates once every millisecond! more realistically, a pulsar has either an optical or non-optical companion sta

jatslo · Oct 8, 2005

It is all relative to velocity, and please forgive my short response. Time dilation makes the pulsar look bigger is all. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Oh, and I never stated gravity implosion; I stated that implosion precedes explosion. Do you deny the existence of high and low pressures?

kmarinas86 · Oct 8, 2005

in the status quo way, yes. why? because there have been observed burst cycles from "pulsars" that are one PER SECOND ie, the star rotates once every second, some with masses that exceed that of our sun --impossible! such an object would tear itself apart. Not true. The escape velocity at the surface of a neutron star is half the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star One of the measures for the gravity is the escape velocity, the velocity one would need to give an object, such that it can escape from the gravitational field into infinity. For a neutron star, such velocities are typically 150,000 km/s, about 1/2 of the velocity of light. http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/sun_wind.htm That's faster than solar wind, which travels some 800 km/s over what are called "corona holes". Therefore, neutrons in the neutron star has no way of escaping unless if the neutron star was spinning 1000's of times a second - which is not the case in the Milkyway. However I can still say that at the edge of our currently observable universe, neutrons stars, which would be very tiny from that afar, could spin faster and thus release all of it's energy back into the universe (albeit very, very redshifted).

kmarinas86 · Oct 9, 2005

one of the basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the “zone of stability”. this is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. Of course. Fission works by jamming neutrons into the nucleus. Fission occurs. But in the end, if the velocity of the output does not exceed the escape velocity, then it will not exit the object. you cannot physically EVER have a neutron-only object. Of course not. nuclear physics prohibits such an occurrence. an atom will seek radioactive balance no matter what, even if that means EXPLODING an ustable star apart to shed charge. or in the case of pulsars, shedding charge to some other object or region of charge. Often, a neutron star used to be pulsar. But as its angular momentum goes down, due to the escaping massless momentum of light, it no longer spins above, or even near, escape velocity. Escape velocity is proportional to the sqaure root of the Mass/Radius ratio, i.e. Escape Velocity = sqrt(2GM/R). pulsar discharges are ELECTRICAL phenomena. a nucleus or “charge free” atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. single neutrons "decay" into proton/electron pairs in less than 14 minutes And they can also fuse back into a neutron. Depends on the conditions. as atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously in seeking nuclear balance. Again, we know that a neutron cannot exist in free space for very long. But when GM/R is very, very large, we know that gravity will able to force the opposite charges together. They are, in the form of ne

jatslo · Oct 9, 2005

What? take your gravity idea to science fiction.

kmarinas86 · Oct 9, 2005

LOL st.eve was.NT talking ab.out a gra.vity idea <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

kmarinas86 · Oct 9, 2005

Documenting the continuing decline of the SDC website into nonsense, ignorance and clueless worthlessness. There is no real difference between the above posts and the trash in Phenomena. Except the posts in phenomena are in phenomena, and the posts in this thread aren't.

Big Bang Busted (Again)

alkalin

Guest

yevaud

Guest

jatslo

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

yevaud

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

jatslo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page