Hmmm...

Spaghetti and Meatballs.

What is FSM?

FSM is Finite State Machine.

 

And, "no matter where you go, there you are..."

Thank you, Joey "Buckaroo Bonzai" d!

 

If two black holes are close enough, but not merging, will there be a neutral gravity region between them?

Would that destabilize both holes and create a mini bang?

 

Ok, so this question comes up and I'm not sure where to go with it, so here it is:

We have analyzed the evidence of the big bang back to milliseconds after creation. Since energy and mass are interchangeable, the early universe is essentially a hot, dense, rapidly expanding 'ball' of pure energy. But where was gravity in all this? Given the density, the early universe would have been the equivalent of the mother of all black holes. So how did the expansion continue?

My answer was that it remained energy (ie massless photons) until the expansion allowed cooling to the level that allowed mass to form, at which point gravity could no longer take over. Any other thoughts would be appreciated.

How do we describe what the universe is made of in those first milliseconds? There were not photons yet, were there? We have all the gravity of the universe in a tiny mass being pushed apart by an even greater force. Gravity being a weaker force than electromagnetic forces. What forces are causing the expansion? Do EM forces cancel each other out at this point? How do we describe the strong force and weak force? We have all the strong force in the universe being over powered by whatever force is causing the expansion but isn't obvious today.
This big bang story just doesn't make sense to me. The expansion doesn't have a force behind it. It can't describe where everything came from. It leaves us with God being the only cause here. That's not science, it's religion.

 

This might be a hijack, but I have been wondering. The current thinking is that red shift indicates the velocity away from us, and thus indicates distance. If things farther away are moving away faster, is there a point where the red shift is so great that visible light is drawn down out of visible range, where stars wink out? (They should show up as radio emitters?)

There are some contrarians out there suggesting that red shift is due to a property of light itself over long times/distances, and doesn't indicate relative velocity. It does make you wonder.

 

This might be a hijack, but I have been wondering. The current thinking is that red shift indicates the velocity away from us, and thus indicates distance. If things farther away are moving away faster, is there a point where the red shift is so great that visible light is drawn down out of visible range, where stars wink out? (They should show up as radio emitters?)

There are some contrarians out there suggesting that red shift is due to a property of light itself over long times/distances, and doesn't indicate relative velocity. It does make you wonder.

Yes. It's called cosmic microwave background...representing a temperature of a few degrees K. It is the residual energy from the "start" of the universe.

Edit: Changed "background microwave radiation" to "cosmic microwave background".

 

Oh, I never thought to connect the two. So in that microwave radiation, they can find spectral lines showing that the frequency has been shifted down?

 

Oh, I never thought to connect the two. So in that microwave radiation, they can find spectral line showing that the frequency has been shifted down?

I just did a search, and the answer is: I don't know.

What I do know is that the radiation has an almost perfect "black-body" spectrum. Are there associated hydrogen lines shifted down? Maybe. But I suspect they would have mostly "blended" into the overall spectrum since one is looking so far back into time and over an extremely broad area. There are no point sources to look at where all the energy would have been emitted at one time and place.

 

I think the absence of a point source answers my question, sort of.

 

The expansion of the universe (big bang) is justified using a spiral galaxy but the photograph of a spiral galaxy is arbitrarily created, by manipulating the photographic plate, since the original photograph of the alleged galaxy resembles a smudge. Also, the photograph of the Milky Way spiral galaxy, that contains the sun and the earth, is fictional, since to take this photograph would require that the photographer be many light years away from the earth. In addition, the photograph of the Eagle Nebula, using the Spitzer telescope is also fictitiously created, using computer imaginary, since the photograph represents the view of a celestial gas (fig 13) yet the vacuum of celestial space is void of the quantity of gas molecules implied in the photograph of the Eagle Nebula. Also, modern astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Spitzer telescope, in photographing the Eagle Nebula that has a width of more than 70 light years and represents over 8000 stars yet the Spitzer space telescope does not have the resolution power to view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. Astronomers are assuming that the Spitzer telescope has the power to resolve the stars of the Eagle Nebula that is 7000 light years from the earth. In addition, to determine the resolution, of the Eagle Nebula, requires the distance from the earth to the Eagle Nebula but the stellar universe is stationary; consequently, the distance, from the earth to the Eagle Nebula, necessary to determine the resolution, cannot be determined which is experimental proof the photograph of the Eagle Nebula is fiction. Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the expansion theory but every star, at different times and positions, forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, that ancient scientists used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the Universe is used to verify the expansion theory.

 

The expansion of the universe (big bang) is justified using a spiral galaxy but the photograph of a spiral galaxy is arbitrarily created, by manipulating the photographic plate, since the original photograph of the alleged galaxy resembles a smudge. Also, the photograph of the Milky Way spiral galaxy, that contains the sun and the earth, is fictional, since to take this photograph would require that the photographer be many light years away from the earth. In addition, the photograph of the Eagle Nebula, using the Spitzer telescope is also fictitiously created, using computer imaginary, since the photograph represents the view of a celestial gas (fig 13) yet the vacuum of celestial space is void of the quantity of gas molecules implied in the photograph of the Eagle Nebula. Also, modern astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Spitzer telescope, in photographing the Eagle Nebula that has a width of more than 70 light years and represents over 8000 stars yet the Spitzer space telescope does not have the resolution power to view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. Astronomers are assuming that the Spitzer telescope has the power to resolve the stars of the Eagle Nebula that is 7000 light years from the earth. In addition, to determine the resolution, of the Eagle Nebula, requires the distance from the earth to the Eagle Nebula but the stellar universe is stationary; consequently, the distance, from the earth to the Eagle Nebula, necessary to determine the resolution, cannot be determined which is experimental proof the photograph of the Eagle Nebula is fiction. Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the expansion theory but every star, at different times and positions, forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. The same method of deception, based on the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions, that ancient scientists used to justify the theory that the earth is the center of the Universe is used to verify the expansion theory.

How is the big bang story supported by spiral galaxies? Spiral galaxies support any theory including biblical creation. Yes, it is the best story we have unless you have another in mind. We can confirm spiral arms at general distances away.

 

There is beauty in the desert and not knowing everything and being open.


"The ancient Greeks believed the eye sent out feelers that emanated from the eye and felt the object being observed. The ancient Greeks had numerous different theories, regarding light, which was a remarkable achievement, for the openness that the Greeks allowed their scholars."

 

There is beauty in the desert and not knowing everything and being open.


"The ancient Greeks believed the eye sent out feelers that emanated from the eye and felt the object being observed. The ancient Greeks had numerous different theories, regarding light, which was a remarkable achievement, for the openness that the Greeks allowed their scholars."

< > Poetic nonsense. </ >

 

How is the big bang story supported by spiral galaxies? Spiral galaxies support any theory including biblical creation. Yes, it is the best story we have unless you have another in mind. We can confirm spiral arms at general distances away.

The theory about the formation of spiral galaxies is based on the hydro-magnetic model of the plasma during the infancy of the universe. A purely hydrodynamic model seems to be inadequate for the observed pattern of accretion.

 

It's all computer make believe since the stellar universe is stationary. You cannot determine the distance to any of the distance star. So everything you are doing is fake. Stellar gases do not make me LOL. Come on Glen be a man so you do not embarrass your mother, and face the truth. I could teach 4th graders to do circles around the physics faculty at Harvard and Stanford, at a seminar. Pin them against the wall and cut them to ribbons, little 4th graders girls with pony tails and braces. Sir, I have a question.....about....no that not true....Prof. X.........since.....

 

The theory about the formation of spiral galaxies is based on the hydro-magnetic model of the plasma during the infancy of the universe. A purely hydrodynamic model seems to be inadequate for the observed pattern of accretion.

Correct, but this applies to any origin story. It does not uniquely apply to the big bang. It fits in "God did it" just as well.

 

Has someone gotten into the cider?

 

It's all computer make believe since the stellar universe is stationary. You cannot determine the distance to any of the distance star. So everything you are doing is fake. Stellar gases do not make me LOL. Come on Glen be a man so you do not embarrass your mother, and face the truth. I could teach 4th graders to do circles around the physics faculty at Harvard and Stanford, at a seminar. Pin them against the wall and cut them to ribbons, little 4th graders girls with pony tails and braces. Sir, I have a question.....about....no that not true....Prof. X.........since.....

I don't think "fake" is the correct analysis. "Incomplete" maybe. We assume the errors of the system. We can't know for sure until we actually understand the true nature of the universe.