I just had a thought about the Big Bang

Oct 13, 2005, 4:04 AM ET27 posts by 6 posters
27 posts
The Flavored Coffee Guy

Hello,

I can't help but think that if there is an explosion, there will be an equal but opposite inward force and an implosion. So, during the Big Bang, the situation looks more like a star collapsing to generate a black hole during a super nova. What is that? The middle?

If that doesn't make any sense, wouldn't that produce another singularity? Something so many more times dense than a black hole that even the most imaginative super massive black holes thought to one day consume the universe, wouldn't or couldn't exist in the future? Mainly, because something that super massive has always been there in the middle.

The possiblity may exist that the universe is like a glass onion of universes, and each time the singularity exploded, it imploded, and then in that finite space, exploded again and still not in an area large enough for us to notice, in a space where the gravity was so intense, that even light could not escape, and continued on and on and on generating one micro cosmos inside of another.

I keep thinking that the mass of that singularity had to be more than any black hole ever would be in this Universe, or could be in this Universe. That had to be true before the singularity actually exploded. In steps and stages leading to that instant where the blast took place, it was or had to be out of the blue? But, the implosion still leaves a greater mass at the center than any black hole would or ever could reach or achieve. Considering, that all of the mass of this Universe came from that single point, that point had to include the mass of this Universe. So, when the explosion took place, the implosion was also taking place. How close to equal were the weights, I couldn't tell you. But, if it were half, then it was compressed by much more force than that, and still more massive than any black hole ever encountered, discovered or located. I'm more and more certain that the existance of Universes is correct, and they all exist within this one. That doesn't dictate that what happened in this space did not happen above our heads well before this Universe, and from the evidence of what is out there and how it has formed, acted and reacted, speaking of matter as a whole, would be some means of predicting, or explaining where that fraction went. So, when we see a source of gravity so intense that even light cannot escape, that the likelihood of the hole being deeper than we imagin is very likely. My thought of the Universe, is that it is as dependant on matter atoms and subatomic particles as computers are bits and bytes. But, size doesn't matter with matter, it the ratios involved and their interactions, chemical, fission, fusion, electronic, and magnetic. I would think that under much more gravitational pressure, that much smaller subatomic paritcles could stablize as some alien form of matter, alien to us. So, when that imploded, it became so much more dense, that it may have imploded again and exploded again in a much smaller space, and held there by it's gravity. So, looking towards the center is to look into the direction of another Universe. We know that the closer an object approaches the speed of light, the less time that object experiences. Therefore, it is safe to say a smaller particle weighing less, would be capable of moving faster in a smaller space, and that would be tied to the longevity of the particle. So, if the velocity of the orbit of the electron were scaled down in size, what we observe as approximately 55 miles and hour in orbit around the centeral protons and neutrons, would be maybe only off by 1/100th or maybe even 1 billionth of a mile per hour less than what we observe as light speed. In the time we've spent writing back and forth, we could have lived and died an unimaginable number of times. In the first billionth of second a hundred trillion trillion years may have passed in relation to time in this universe. Our lives would have been lived, and no question would remain concerning our Future.

nightbatThe Flavored Coffee Guy

nightbat wrote

nightbat

Coffee Guy sci fi multiverse is dead in the water for there is no observed physical evidence of same. Stop sci fi dreaming and just continue serving up the coffee.

        carry on,
        the nightbat
The Flavored Coffee Guynightbat

Black holes are observed evidence. But, then in your fictional universe matter comes from a tin cup balanced in the top of some tree, and only you know where it is. Any symetrical blast that detonated a nuclear bomb is evendence that if there's an explosion, there will be an implosion. You haven't told us where that went. But, black holes prove it has to be there.

Look here, a list of black holes, all real. http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sources/blackholes.html

So, are symetrical explosions and exactly how an implosion takes place when all you see is a blast. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/bomb3.html#c2

They are real thoughts on real science.

nightbatThe Flavored Coffee Guy

nightbat wrote

nightbat

No Coffee Guy server they are theoretical non real world possibility sci fi speculations. A black hole doesn't exist in the center of explosions get a clue. Stop falling for all that Hollywood B movie and hype sci fi and get a grip. Real world science is quite different it requires evidence not speculation. You're not to blame for they sure make it all seem real in Hollywood for that's what they get paid for. Now not another word until I have my cup of fresh brew, thanks.

        carry on,
        the nightbat
Double-Anightbat

I think I just lost your profound train of thought.

Yes as nightbat says, there is no real world conclusive evidence that black holes exist. But Hollywood and speculative Sci-Fi book writers love this sort of thing. Nothing has been observed that couldn't have an explanation other than a black hole. Black holes, Jurassic Park, and Monster Island only exist on film!

Double-A

Llertnac CireDouble-A

"Double-A" wrote in message news:[email]...

Hey, I just had an idea for a new book or possibly a movie or two. The Big Bang was initiated by a Big Spark which was caused by the collision of two big rocks. Now the questions are, 1) Who struck the rocks together, 2) What explosive gas/liquid/solid/Bose-Einstein goo was fermenting in space in the first place, 3) What happened to the guy's fingers who banged the rocks together? and 4) Are Black Holes nothing more than swirling Brownian motion eddies?

-eric

nightbatLlertnac Cire

nightbat wrote

nightbat

Subject was covered in my reply to Officer Bert, Llertnac we now know energy was always there and BB theory is now nullified as well as non real world possibility black holes. What's left is giveaway latent memory for every energy unit and fraction thereof has it. It is aware of its present position and position at or away from base field uniformity. That is the evidence of disturbance or hidden found footprints which permits to analysis. Everything else is cloaked in quantum uncertainty, past events, background physical Universe constant at odds non uniform observed movement. Effecting and attempted micro quantum observation, immense Universe observed volume, altered states, spooky action at a distance, defying logic but not to confirming giveaway energy memory. Where energy memory is and where it wants to be. The Universe is a strange beautiful physical fluke of nature energy disturbed, and its attempts back to quantum memory uniformity giveaway. How clever to have cloaked itself beyond human sub micro quantum base observation, beyond relative Einstein attempted unifying macro frame observation, beyond explicit mathematical analysis, but not to nightbat found frame memory comparison. But why memory because observed cosmic nature per Newton is reciprocal. Does the cold piercing analytic physics, mathematics, astronomy, cosmology, pure logic philosophy, unite and conform to indicating historical religious, yes, for per coded Biblical reference " What you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven and what you unbind on earth shall be unbound in heaven. " For even St. Thomas who personally witnessed the Christ on Earth miracle after miracle the non believer who yet still doubted and said, " Not until I can place my fingers through the wounds of the hands and feet of the reported risen Christ will I believe. "

Now to finally hopefully achieve my ultimate humble Earthman goal of ascertaining a Darla Sean Starship with elite Science Team to further hopefully adventure runaway with beautiful Sil and escape the bounds of Earth and go into the Heavens, ha, ha, ha, Darla reported long term cheating death and taking in the rightful ownership promised inheritance of the keys to the Universe. Don't forget to order your very rare one of a kind nightbat Science Team Glow Shirts and Glow Caps. Coffee boys your coffee serving and sanitation Starship uniforms are ready.

          ponder on,
          the nightbat
Art Deconightbat

nightbat wrote:

Idiot.

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

    * The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
    * The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data
are now very good.
    * Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe
is not special.
    * Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same
in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
    * Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

    * Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the
Universe has evolved.
    * Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has
evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
    * Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of
the evolution of the Universe.
    * Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are
all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three
Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy "The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with both male and female genitalia."
The Flavored Coffee Guynightbat

What? First, you are mixed up, I am not. You need to disconnect everything first. The black hole just represents an extreemly dense object. The Big Bang contained a singularity, which, exploded. When ever there is an explosion, there is an implosion. That is just a fact of the physics of symetrical explosions. It is just true, that since all of the matter in the known Universe, came from the initial singularity that caused the Big Bang, and as a result within our Universe, we have black holes, as massive as they are, and based upon the nature of the physics of a symetrical explosion, hard to explain that singularity wouldn't have a massive remainder in the center of the Universe, as a result of the implosive force caused by the Big Bang, event. Now, taking size into perspective, our whole Universe, came from that intensly dense point. I not posting answers, just a question. What happened to that remainder, and how big is it? By the nature of the physics of a symetrical blast, there must be a remainder. Now, taking size into perspective, and the size of the Universe we live in, the size of that remaining mass must be larger than the largest black hole, or just the biggest black hole. It may explain missing mass in alot of gravity equations that can't seem to be solved right now. But, if that were still there, then it may make plenty of sense, or we may be able to establish the mass of that object.

http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dm.html

Oh, and that Omega factor that is mentioned at the end of the article, would make the multiple Universe theory potentially more probable than not. But, then our Universe would eventually quit expanding, and rest at 1.

nightbatThe Flavored Coffee Guy

nightbat wrote

nightbat

You should use caffeine free coffee for too much of the strong brew is apparently going to your head. There is no physical evidence for sci fi multiverse so get over it already. The Universe can never stop attempting to expand because it is in non equalized momentum state get a clue. There is one observed Universe and before trying to think of multiple ones try understanding the one we have. Now be good and serve some more of that great regular coffee Flavored Coffee Guy.

        ponder on,
        the nightbat
The Flavored Coffee Guynightbat

So they take pictures of the evidence that proves beyond any reason for a doubt that Black Holes exist Check this Link http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/category/blackholes.html

And how will make these go away?

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:53:26 -0700, The Flavored Coffee Guy wrote:

Now you destroyed the saucerhead's fantasy world!

mhm 27x12 smeeter #28 Usenet Valhalla Circle #19 & #21 Bartlo's hate lits #1:
Double-AThe Flavored Coffee Guy

Could be this:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/g/gr/gravastar.htm

Double-A

The Flavored Coffee GuyDouble-A

Well, a gravastar sound's interesting, but according to the theory they are of a limited size, and can only be so big and that accounts for stability. At the bottom of the page at the link you provided Double-A, they explain that.

http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/luis.beca/phisky/PhiSky%20Wiltshire.pdf

So, that would account for small ones, or maybe some specific small ones, but wouldn't cover the massive cores of some of the most massive galaxies. There is one hole in the whole idea of gravastars, scale. It may explain some surface features, but not the scale of mass.

It is like looking at Faraday's equations without Maxwell's. I believe that the math and models that are represented and have been discovered by using the gravastar equations and results are a result of looking at the scale of a quantum soup of high energy events. A sort of atmosphere of collisions of atoms, working from the largest and most massive to the lightest and smallest. As you approach the black hole atoms would be colliding, farther down neutrons, then neutrinos, and then quarks. All of these super small particles would be orbiting in random directions around the black hole creating a high energy plasma, and still the gravity of the black hole would keep the energy encapsulated around the black hole and unable to escape it's gravity.

If there were a correction that the series of equations could prove is that in conjuction with observing the gravity and activity of stars orbiting a black hole to calculate it's mass, the series of equations used to produce a model which was discovered could also be utilized to calculate the mass of a black hole without taking the activity of moving bodies to calculate it's mass based upon radiation and the gravastar equations.

What if there is a layer, a boundery where there are alot of high energy events. But the gravity is still so intense that the light and energy is not escaping. At one level in the shell there are atoms colliding, at the next it's all hydrogen looking down. From there it just works down to protons, neutrons, then neutrinos, quarks in successive shells. Sort of like an atmosphere of nuclear collisions and the gravastar theory is really just looking at that quantum soup of high energy events well beyond the event horizon we see. At points it reminds me of Faraday's equations, and how Maxwell's equations were needed in conjuction with Faraday's for electronics to become what we know today. What I'm saying is that the math should be looked at, but only with an open mind.

nightbatThe Flavored Coffee Guy

nightbat wrote

Coffee Guy

See Officer Double-A this Flavored Coffee Guy has great potential must be the Captain's advice to him to switch to decaff sometimes. Yes, you are correct Flavored Coffee Guy the mass is the clue, what could be the cause to attract so much mass to such a singularity? Dr. Einstein and Dr. Tesla wondered about that too, how could so much mass be condensed in one place as observed by the Earth? They had no solution for they knew via Dr Chandra's upper stellar limits proof that not even a Super Nova could account for it. And yes there are little ones as well as massive ones theoretically at the center of each galaxy.

The profound nightbat " Black Comet " solution permits the accreditation of energy and mass beyond upper limits due to immense center of galaxy gravity reality. Strong gravity zones permit the exceeding of Chandra mass upper limits due to altered gravity field. The object is no longer a normal neutron star but a metamorphosed " Black Comet " that constricts space-time itself.

For your profound astuteness and science group inquiry into stellar dynamics I hereby duly appoint you FCB junior grade cadet 1st class.

         carry on,
         the nightbat
nightbatThe Flavored Coffee Guy

nightbat wrote

nightbat

The math was done but not fully understood by the husband presenting it. Check mathematician Mileva Einstein for a clue and sleep in if need be. We here give credit where credit is due get a clue.

        ponder on,
        the nightbat
Art Deconightbat

nightbat wrote:

Who is "we", profound saucerhead?

Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy "The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with both male and female genitalia."
Double-AThe Flavored Coffee Guy

How do you know that what you're seeing isn't caused by something like this:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/gravastars_020423.html

Double-A

nightbatThe Flavored Coffee Guy

nightbat wrote

nightbat

Via the old profound science news of the nightbat " Black Comet " get a clue Coffee Guy. Just ask Officer Double-A for he has a pic of that link already and it's on all Earth Science Team Glow Shirts. Get off too much caffeine brew and try decaffeinated one. There are no real world sci fi black holes just in some empty heads. The center of the galaxy which harbors Sgr A* is still too far away for confirmation to actual properties so yes, black hole sci fi still reigns. Infinite energy/mass no outlet singularities are not possible, everything has its limits except pure energy because it's non destructible. Ready for my morning cup of fresh brew Coffee Guy, thank you.

        ponder on,
        the nightbat
nightbatThe Flavored Coffee Guy

nightbat

No gifted clueless coffee Guy server one there are no real world black holes just profound nightbat deduced resolution " Black Comets ".

nightbat

No Coffee Guy the BB has been nullified via non point creation ability of energy.

nightbat

I have advised your foundation is in error there are no real world possibility black holes and BB is nullified.

nightbat

Thank you for being honest and stating you have no answers and your question was addressed that there are no real world sci fi black holes. The volume size of the Universe is beyond observation so even if theoretically mathematical deducible how will you propose scientist's peers verify it for recognition? Don't be so hung up on black holes get over it. There is no missing mass from present observable Universe just non observable reformed or dispersed energy. Approximate mass of detectable physical objects are deducible while the full or actual potential size of the present Universe is not. For what lies beyond the observable Universe, nothing, think again.

nightbat

Yes, main stream scientist's and researchers are looking for answers too, don't sweat it, continue your pondering it shows promise but forget about sci fi black holes for it appears as an obsession with you and by all means please bring on the fresh coffee.

        ponder on,
        the nightbat
Art Deconightbat

nightbat wrote:

Idiot.

What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

    * The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
    * The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data
are now very good.
    * Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe
is not special.
    * Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same
in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
    * Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

    * Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the
Universe has evolved.
    * Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has
evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
    * Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of
the evolution of the Universe.
    * Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are
all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three
Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.astronomy "The original human being was a female hermaphrodite with both male and female genitalia."