Jump to content
Science Forums

Cyberia

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from CraigD in Dark Matter   
    The objects are not accelerating but travelling at a constant speed so they are not being pulled towards an unknown object. The article:
     
     
     
    http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/08/dark-flow-discovered-at-edge-of-the-universe-hundreds-of-millions-of-stars-racing-toward-an-cosmic-h.html
     
     
    This show of things contracting over such a huge area is a serious blow to the big bang which talks of expansion.
  2. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from Tormod in Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation In Hubble Image   
    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/10/full/
     
     
    .
  3. Downvote
    Cyberia got a reaction from CraigD in Evaporation Of A Black Hole   
    But he may do so one day. It is just conjecture and exists without any proof to back it up and may one day be found to be wrong.
  4. Downvote
    Cyberia got a reaction from CraigD in Discussion of absolute 0 from astronomy thread "Evaporation Of A Black Hole"   
    In space at 2.7K, we may find absolute zero possible. We have too much heat to cope with in a planetary environment of getting on 300.K
     
    Then again we can use a BEC to stop photons in their tracks so possibly one day we may do the same with particles, so producing absolute zero?
     
    Zeno's paradox is stoooopid.
  5. Downvote
    Cyberia got a reaction from CraigD in Evaporation Of A Black Hole   
    Maddog. Because we are all different, don’t expect me to think as you do.
     
    The big bang relies on things that are no more than ideas to explain failings in it, like inflation and dark energy. It also relies on unproven ideas like space stretching infinitely without change. It does not have any credible origin. It is as credible as a flying elephant.
     
    I would think Hawking Radiation needs a tranquil environment to work. A black hole is anything but tranquil. A variation: Imagine two particles of quantum closeness at the centre of an atomic explosion. One falls to the ground and the other flies off into space……
     
    At so called absolute zero, molecular motion stops but atomic motion continues. This shows that more energy might be removed so lower temperatures could be possible.
     
    Why let others do all your thinking for you. Just because something is in a book or on an internet site it does not mean that it is true.
     
    Moderation note: replies to this and other posts involving a discussion of absolute zero have been moved to thread Discussion of absolute 0 from astronomy thread "Evaporation Of A Black Hole", because they are not about this thread’s main topic, black hole evaporation.
  6. Downvote
    Cyberia got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Evaporation Of A Black Hole   
    Maddog. Because we are all different, don’t expect me to think as you do.
     
    The big bang relies on things that are no more than ideas to explain failings in it, like inflation and dark energy. It also relies on unproven ideas like space stretching infinitely without change. It does not have any credible origin. It is as credible as a flying elephant.
     
    I would think Hawking Radiation needs a tranquil environment to work. A black hole is anything but tranquil. A variation: Imagine two particles of quantum closeness at the centre of an atomic explosion. One falls to the ground and the other flies off into space……
     
    At so called absolute zero, molecular motion stops but atomic motion continues. This shows that more energy might be removed so lower temperatures could be possible.
     
    Why let others do all your thinking for you. Just because something is in a book or on an internet site it does not mean that it is true.
     
    Moderation note: replies to this and other posts involving a discussion of absolute zero have been moved to thread Discussion of absolute 0 from astronomy thread "Evaporation Of A Black Hole", because they are not about this thread’s main topic, black hole evaporation.
  7. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from CraigD in Evaporation Of A Black Hole   
    SigurdV. The pair particle in Hawking radiation are said to be caused by (extreme) gravitational forces so I would think that they were made over a very wide area outside the event horizon, with more of them as you approach the EH.
  8. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from phision in M Theory   
    Several years ago there was a mass exodus of learned people from "string theory" because they saw no future in the field (which I suppose means they could never prove what they believed). Of course, people still working in the field still churn out papers on strings.
  9. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from phision in M Theory   
    lawcat. Too many unproven ideas.
     
    If there was a deeply religious planet of beings somewhere that had decided that the force that stops everything floating off into space (which we call gravity) was down to gods or demons and produced workings based on the effects, while the workings may be true in that they can be reproduced elsewhere and even used to calculate other effects and workings, the basic idea that there are gods or demons as a cause would still be wrong.
  10. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from phision in M Theory   
    No evidence of branes. No evidence of other universes. No evidence of strings. No evidence of extra dimensions.
     
    Not so much "M Theory" as "M Idea".
  11. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from phision in Universe From Nothing   
    CraigD. The fact that you can compress mass energy in no way opens the path for a BB singularity. That is like saying because cars can travel at 130 mph, that is evidence that they can travel at light speed.
     
    Compressed mass energy is called a black hole. If you accept that gravity can bend spacetime, then it can fall into a black hole and stay there, as it also keeps in matter and energy. The only difference between a black hole and a singularity is that a black hole obeys the laws of gravity (which is an internal matter and nothing to do with what is outside, if anything) and a singularity which obeys the laws of convenience like it did not even need gravity to stay together originally.
     
    The problem with a BB singularity is A: how did it happen, and B: how did it inflate and expand? B suggests that it was not in it's natural form so what could compress a whole universe into "a small ball"?
     
    As far back as 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Regener predicted 2.8 in 1933.
     
    The temperature near in space away from a star's heat is 2.7K. The temperature at the edge of the observable universe is 2.7K. Surely if we could see far enough, it should be ever higher, to 3,000.K when matter first appeared? If we look at a galaxy at the edge of the universe, no one says it is 10.K allowing for redshift, etc.
     
    I would like to believe that the Casimir effect is really something from nothing, as it would make a universe from nothing easier to believe, but maybe we are just crowding together something too small to see so they combine and form something we can see, which then promptly splits up into it's constituents again, so "vanishes".
     
    My problem with the BB is the singularity. If you could get something from nothing so that we get fundamental particles which forms hydrogen, helium and lithium, and so early stars forming over maybe millions of light years, I can accept that.
     
    But when it comes to the singularity all we have is ridiculous ideas like branes colliding "elsewhere". But why come here? Surely if a singularity was somehow made by forces beyond our comprehension, it would then inflate and expand as soon as those forces were released, where it was created?
     
    Inflation was supposed to insure a smooth universe, but that never happened. We have the Eridanus void, some 3.5 billion light years across some 6-10 billion light years away, so very old. We have a two billion solar mass black hole (ULAS J1120+0641) from a time when the universe is claimed to be just 770 million years old.
     
    I don't see earthly particle accelerators recreating the BB. Even the LHC produces just one forty millionth the energy of some protons we have had come in from space.
     
    There are niggly little things that go against expansion. Dark energy was brought in to explain one point but then it is claimed that 72% of the universe we don't know about (dark energy) and not forgetting another 24% (dark matter) leaving us with just 4% of the universe that we can detect. The BB also failed the afterglow test. Time dilation, someone finally admitted does not work at distances of six billion light years and more. It is a "local" phenomena. And the idea of stretching space does not explain how it can be infinitely stretched from quantum size to present size without changing as would be expected (ie: the concept of spacetime suggests that space is more than the distance between two objects). It still has too many things to be worked out before I can call it a theory.
  12. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from phision in Universe From Nothing   
    Evidence that a singularity can exist?
    Evidence of where this singularity came from?
    Evidence that a singularity can expand (and inflate)?
     
    It's an idea.
  13. Like
    Cyberia got a reaction from phision in Tests For A Valid Big Bang Alternative Theory?   
    The big bang is not a valid theory. It's based on various unproven ideas and some impossibilities. It has failed a number of times and needs some even stranger ideas to keep it going.
     
    There is an alternative explanation for the redshift which is more realistic than the crackpot idea of space expanding.
     
    Various religions gained respectability solely because of the numbers who believe in them. The same with the big bang idea.
  14. Downvote
    Cyberia got a reaction from JMJones0424 in Tests For A Valid Big Bang Alternative Theory?   
    The big bang is not a valid theory. It's based on various unproven ideas and some impossibilities. It has failed a number of times and needs some even stranger ideas to keep it going.
     
    There is an alternative explanation for the redshift which is more realistic than the crackpot idea of space expanding.
     
    Various religions gained respectability solely because of the numbers who believe in them. The same with the big bang idea.
  15. Downvote
    Cyberia got a reaction from CraigD in A Mini Ice Age Starting In 2020?   
    Our heat comes from the sun. Less solar radiation means a cooler Earth, and that governments now spending billions on "global warming" will be trying to encourage people to try and warm up a very cold Earth.
×
×
  • Create New...