Bang or No Bang

[Chris Peterson]

Halton Arp
Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, 85740 Garching, Germany
Received 2000 July 18; accepted 2000 October 24

When you list papers in support of something (I note that you rarely state the point you are trying to make, however) you should at least check if they are still valid. This and similar work by Arp has been rather solidly shown to be incorrect, based on multiple types of observation. Arp saw (and still sees, which is why he has lost standing) connections between structures that don't hold up to more rigorous observation.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Chris you fail to understand what's going on.


If you want to question the paper do so.

But! do not put aside the observations and the scientific evidence.

If you want to learn about cosmology than get out of your comfort zone.

[JimJast]

This paper is quite important in understanding dark matter and dark energy in so doing to have a better understanding of the universe and its make up.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3610
Axionic dark energy and a composite QCD axion

In what way is this paper important? Do you remotely understand it? I'm unfamilar with heterotic orbifold compactification as described in this paper. Could you explain it, please?

My wilde guess is that harry meant the same thing that Feynman meant while writing from a conference on gravitation a letter to his wife (published in his book, What Do You Care What Other People Think, page 91)

I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzzz

I just got one word to say.


SMILE

[makc]

My wilde guess is that harry meant the same thing that Feynman meant while writing from a conference on gravitation a letter to his wife (published in his book, What Do You Care What Other People Think, page 91)

I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. It is not that the subject is hard; it is that the good men are occupied elsewhere. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

I did not know that there were poor people on this planet.

[aristarchusinexile]

Some billionaires, it is said, live lives of extreme spiritual poverty .. but I can't guess if this is true or not.

There a beggar goes
heaven and earth he's wearing
for his summer clothes

Takarai Kikaku, Japan, (1600s?)

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

I'm in a lucky position or not so lucky.

I have many people working for me and the happiest person is the guy with little money and plenty of time.

The richest is stressed out and poor with time.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Sometimes trying to understand the complexity via observation may give a better insight to the Ongoing evolution of the universe rather than thinking along the lines of just origin.


Hubblesite
The Universe "Down Under" is the Latest Target for Hubble's Latest Deep-View
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 8/41/text/

Turning its penetrating vision toward southern skies, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has peered down a 12 billion light-year long corridor loaded with a dazzling assortment of thousands of never-before seen galaxies. The observation called the Hubble Deep Field South (HDF-S) doubles the number of far-flung galaxies available to astronomers for deciphering the history of the universe.

This new far-look complements the original Hubble "deep field" taken in late 1995, when Hubble was aimed at a small patch of space near the Big Dipper. The new region is in the constellation Tucana, near the south celestial pole.

The 10-day-long observation was carried out in October 1998 by a team of astronomers at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), Baltimore, MD, and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD. It is being made available today to the worldwide astronomy community for further research, and to the general public interested in the most distant reaches of the cosmos.

"The southern field promises to be the most studied area of the sky over the next five years," says STScI astronomer Robert Williams, when as STScI Director, he used his discretionary time to undertake the first deep field campaign, and has overseen the latest observation.

"We have eagerly awaited this new set of images ever since the first HDF, which had a dramatic impact on the entire science of astronomy. Hubble's deep field views revealed a large, heretofore unseen fraction of the universe and opened it up to interpretation and understanding."

[JimJast]

My wild guess is that harry meant the same thing that Feynman meant while writing from a conference on gravitation a letter to his wife (published in his book, What Do You Care What Other People Think, page 91)

a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot)

Hi makc, I wonder whether you also think that Feynman meant the principle of conservation of energy that he considered an "obvious and correct fact" but BB theorists consder it "in fact, false"? Or you mean some other fact?

I can't think about any other "correct fact, accepted and checked for years" that could be "in fact, false" in opinion of BB theorists. That are not that many "correct facts" in gravitation that are known to be considered false by BB theorists.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Black Holes have many definitions and are very complicated.

This link is interesting


http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3850
Black holes and black hole thermodynamics without event horizons

Authors: Alex B. Nielsen
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2008)

Abstract: We investigate whether black holes can be defined without using event horizons. In particular we focus on the thermodynamic properties of event horizons and the alternative, locally defined horizons. We discuss the assumptions and limitations of the proofs of the zeroth, first and second laws of black hole mechanics for both event horizons and trapping horizons. This leads to the possibility that black holes may be more usefully defined in terms of trapping horizons. We also show how Hawking radiation can also be seen to arise from trapping horizons and discuss which horizon area should be associated with the gravitational entropy.

If we can understand the workings of black holes maybe we can work out whether the universe went Bang or many bangs at various times in an eternal evolution of changes. This could explain all the observations without any ad hoc theories.

[Chris Peterson]

If we can understand the workings of black holes maybe we can work out whether the universe went Bang or many bangs at various times in an eternal evolution of changes. This could explain all the observations without any ad hoc theories.

How so? The paper discusses a slightly different approach to the theoretical treatment of black holes, but not to the actual physicality of them. While a better understanding of black holes may provide insight into fundamental processes like quantum gravity, it isn't clear to me how this tells us anything about cycles of Big Bangs. Where is the connection there?

What is an "ad hoc theory"? Or maybe a better question, what isn't?

[The Code]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Black Holes have many definitions and are very complicated.

This link is interesting


http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3850
Black holes and black hole thermodynamics without event horizons

Authors: Alex B. Nielsen
(Submitted on 23 Sep 2008)

Abstract: We investigate whether black holes can be defined without using event horizons. In particular we focus on the thermodynamic properties of event horizons and the alternative, locally defined horizons. We discuss the assumptions and limitations of the proofs of the zeroth, first and second laws of black hole mechanics for both event horizons and trapping horizons. This leads to the possibility that black holes may be more usefully defined in terms of trapping horizons. We also show how Hawking radiation can also be seen to arise from trapping horizons and discuss which horizon area should be associated with the gravitational entropy.

If we can understand the workings of black holes maybe we can work out whether the universe went Bang or many bangs at various times in an eternal evolution of changes. This could explain all the observations without any ad hoc theories.

Thanks harry Great post...

How many Big Bangs been the one.

hypothetically: Big Black Holes can never exist? Why not? Is there a cut off point where they can not become larger than 2000 billion solar mass size? What is stopping them? Every object is working on re-joining, that is evident. Gravity. Every finite part of 13.7 billion years-Mass/energy comes together.. work out the physics for such on object? Hyper implosion followed by a gravitational supreme nova .... hypothetically possible?

mark

[makc]

JimJast, you know perfectly what I mean Any way, I said it to you in the very 1st thread you have posted here, put up or...

[harry]

G'day mark swain

How many bangs?

How long is a string?

In an eternal universe there is always a kind of bang going on.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0405083
Another origin of cosmological redshifts
Authors: Michael A. Ivanov
(Submitted on 5 May 2004)


Quote:
Abstract: If gravitons are super-strong interacting particles which fulfill a flat non-expanding universe, we would have another possibility to explain cosmological redshifts - in a frame of non-kinematic model. It is shown by the author that in this case SNe 1a data may be understood without any dark energy and dark matter. A value of relaxation factor is found in this paper. In this approach, we have Newton's law of gravity as a simplest consequence, and the connection between Newton's and Hubble's constants. A value of the latter may be theoretically predicted.


and can some one tell me whats wrong with the science in the following paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)
(Submitted on 20 Sep 2005 (v1), last revised 26 Sep 2005 (this version, v2))


Quote:
Abstract: Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)^-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, mu=kz^0.026+-0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-surface-brightness galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.


When looking through all the galaxy images near and far there is a clustering effect that does not show any indication that the universe is expanding or accelerating as a UNIVERSE. Looking at the parts you can see the contracting objects via infalling matter and you can also see the jets that are created that eject matter near and far. Some super jets eject matter for millions of light years.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/3c273/
3C273:
Black Hole Spills a Kaleidoscope of Color
Chandra :: Photo Album :: 3C273 :: 20 Jun 06
Chandra Observes Cosmic Traffic Pile-Up In Energetic Quasar Jet
November 6, 2000


Chandra Press Room :: Chandra Observes Cosmic Traffic Pile-Up In Energetic Quasar Jet :: November 6, 2000
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/00_rel ... 3c273.html

'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy
For Release: December 17, 2007
Chandra Press Room :: 'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole Fires at Neighboring Galaxy :: 17 December 07
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/07_rel ... 21707.html


Spectacular X-ray Jet Points Toward Cosmic Energy Booster
June 6, 2000
Chandra Press Room :: Spectacular X-ray Jet Points Toward Cosmic Energy Booster :: June 6, 2000
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/00_rel ... 00pic.html

Looking into deep field is like an eye openner in understanding the complexity and how eternal the universe is.


HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View Ever of the Universe Unveils Earliest Galaxies (03/09/2004) - Release Images
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 7/image/d/



The Secret Lives of Galaxies Unveiled in Deep Survey
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - The Secret Lives of Galaxies Unveiled in Deep Survey (06/19/2003) - Release Images
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 8/image/b/

The Universe "Down Under" is the Latest Target for Hubble's Latest Deep-View
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - The Universe "Down Under" is the Latest Target for Hubble's Latest Deep-View (11/23/1998) - Introduction
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/1998/41/

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

I forgot to post these links in the last post


The Secret Lives of Galaxies Unveiled in Deep Survey
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - The Secret Lives of Galaxies Unveiled in Deep Survey (06/19/2003) - Release Images
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 8/image/b/

The Universe "Down Under" is the Latest Target for Hubble's Latest Deep-View
HubbleSite - NewsCenter - The Universe "Down Under" is the Latest Target for Hubble's Latest Deep-View (11/23/1998) - Introduction
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... s/1998/41/


a great image of jets is from M87

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... et&x=7&y=5

and

Very Long Baseline Array Reveals Formation Region of Giant Cosmic Jet Near a Black Hole

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 3/image/a/

We live in the modern ERA where we know that the KING does wear invisible robes.
No longer do we take the word without science evidence.

[JimJast]

JimJast, you know perfectly what I mean

That's right I just hoped that you may have different opinion on Feynman's quote so to be sure I had to ask. Apparently you also can't think about anything else beyond the principle of conservation of energy.

And here is another Feynman's quote against BB theorists: "it would be kind of crazy to have something happening to space, without the time being involved in the same thing." ["Feynman lectures on physics"]. It is about the belief of BB theorists that the time can be absolute (a.k.a. "cosmic time") while Einstein's GR denies such possibility.

And another quote from the same book: "Whenever the predictions o Einstein have been found to differ from ideas of Newtonian mechanics Nature has chosen Einstein's." Of course the "cosmic time", the one in which this famous 14 billion years is counted, is possible only in Newtonian mechanics of BB. In Einstein's GR there is no absolute time.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I think along the lines of static universe. As you know the BB model is the standard and because it's the standard it has to withstand the storm of questions and research and evidence and so on.

These links are quite interesting. I may have posted them before.

[0901.4169] No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data
No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4169
Authors: David F. Crawford
(Submitted on 27 Jan 2009)

Abstract: Gamma-Ray Bursts have been observed out to very high redshifts and provide time measures that are directly related to intrinsic time scales of the burst. Einstein's theory of relativity is quite definite that if the universe is expanding then the observed duration of these measures will increase with redshift. Thus gamma-ray burst measures should show a time dilation proportional to redshift. An analysis of gamma-ray burst data shows that the hypothesis of time dilation is rejected with a probability of 4.4$\times10^{-6}$ for redshifts out to z=6.6. Traditionally the lack of an apparent time dilation has been explained by an inverse correlation between luminosity and time measures together with strong luminosity selection as a function of redshift. It is shown that the inverse correlation between luminosity and some time measures is confirmed, but using concordance cosmology strong luminosity selection cannot be achieved. It may be possible to explain the apparent lack of time dilation with a combination of gamma-ray burst selection, some luminosity evolution and some time measure evolution. But this requires a remarkable coincidence in order to produce the apparent lack of time dilation. However the data are consistent with a static cosmology in a non-expanding universe.

and

[physics/0701104] Harmonizing General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics
Harmonizing General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701104
Authors: Antonio Alfonso-Faus
(Submitted on 9 Jan 2007 (v1), last revised 19 May 2007 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Gravitation is the common underlying texture between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We take gravitation as the link that can make possible the marriage between these two sciences. We use here the duality of Nature for gravitation: A continuous warped space, wave-like, and a discrete quantum gas, particle-like, both coexistent and producing an equilibrium state in the Universe. The result is a static, non expanding, spherical, unlimited and finite Universe, with no cosmological constant and no dark energy. The Principle of Mach is reproduced here by the convergence of the two cosmological equations of Einstein. From this a Mass Boom concept is born given by M = t, M the mass of the Universe and t its age. Also a decreasing speed of light is the consequence of the Mass Boom, c = 1/t, which explains the Supernovae Type Ia observations without the need of expansion (nor, of course, accelerated expansion). Our Mass Boom model completely wipes out the problems and paradoxes built in the Big Bang model, like the horizon, monopole, entropy, flatness, fine tuning, etc. It also eliminates the need for inflation. Finally the relation proposed by Weinberg in 1972 is here explained in terms of a gravitational cross section for all gravitational masses.

and

[astro-ph/0612155] Eppur si espande
Eppur si espande
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0612155
Authors: Marek A. Abramowicz, Stanislaw Bajtlik, Jean-Pierre Lasota, Audrey Moudens
(Submitted on 6 Dec 2006 (v1), last revised 11 Apr 2007 (this version, v3))

Abstract: The rather wide-spread belief that cosmological expansion of a flat 3D--space (with spatial curvature k=0) cannot be observationally distinguished from a kinematics of galaxies moving in a flat and non-expanding space is erroneous. We suggest that the error may have its source in a non relativistic intuition that imagines the Universe not as a spacetime but separates space from time and pictures the cosmological expansion as space evolving in time. The physical reality, however, is fundamentally different -- the expanding Universe is necessarily a curved spacetime. We show here that the fact that the spacetime is curved implies that the interpretation of the observed cosmological redshift as being due to the expansion of the cosmological 3D--space is observationally verifiable. Thus it is impossible to mimic the true cosmological redshift by a Doppler effect caused by motion of galaxies in a non-expanding 3D-space, flat or curved. We summarize our points in simple spacetime diagrams that illustrate a gedanken experiment distinguishing between expansion of space and pure kinematics. We also provide all relevant mathematics. None of the previously published discussions of the issue, including a recent popular Scientific American article, offered a similarly clear way out of the confusion.

The BB model keeps on shifting the goal posts every time it has to explain and supoort the theory.

This creates variations in the model. Such as the change from on single BB to an infinite number of Big Bangs. Which creates the problem of TIME. How can all these BB come together at the same time over billions of light years. When we observe deep field images 13.2 Gyrs we see existing galaxies in various stages of evolution just like the local galaxies with metla properties. Most scientists have said this should not have been so. We should have seen the birth and young galaxies with minimum metal production.
Hubble site and Chandra site made these statements from deep field images.

The BB people will use ad hoc ideas to produce the end result, by saying the conditions of evolution were diffferent than and the speed of light was exceeded to produce the young universe.

We now live in the modern ERA where people can express their opinions without being jailed or their projects holted by current thinking.
Ok jail my be too far but people have lost their jobs and their projects stopped because they talked and provided evidence against the BBT.

[Chris Peterson]

The BB model keeps on shifting the goal posts every time it has to explain and supoort the theory.

That's a good thing. That's how scientific theories are supposed to work. It's the theories that can't adapt to new observations that get tossed.

This creates variations in the model. Such as the change from on single BB to an infinite number of Big Bangs.

That isn't a prediction of any standard BB theory. It is little more than speculation, not a substantive theory at all.

The BB people will use ad hoc ideas to produce the end result, by saying the conditions of evolution were diffferent than and the speed of light was exceeded to produce the young universe.

Seems like "ad hoc" is your new favorite expression. But basically, it's what all theories are- chosen to fit the observations of the moment. That the conditions of galaxy evolution might have been different in the early Universe doesn't seem very far fetched. After all, the actual conditions were different- higher densities of regular and dark matter, different scale for dark energy, etc. There is nothing in any standard BB theory that suggests the speed of light was exceeded at any time. There's a theory that isn't very well accepted that argues that the actual speed of light has changed with time; is that what you are referring to?

Ok jail my be too far but people have lost their jobs and their projects stopped because they talked and provided evidence against the BBT.

There seem to be quite a few scientists proposing alternate cosmologies, and they aren't losing their jobs or their funding. Arguing against the BB doesn't get you in trouble, but when you argue against a well supported theory, you'd better have your arguments in good order, and you'd better be prepared to make a good case why your ideas are better. And above all, you'd better be prepared to abandon some or all of your theories if new evidence weighs heavily against them.

[JimJast]

There seem to be quite a few scientists proposing alternate cosmologies, and they aren't losing their jobs or their funding. Arguing against the BB doesn't get you in trouble,

It got me in trouble for discovering only that Einstein's cosmology (Einstein's universe) fits better the observations than BB and I got banned for life from two moderated fora, one astronomy and one physics. "Scientists" don't like to be reminded that Einstein's universe fits the observations (e.g. "accelerating expansion") better than BB.

[Chris Peterson]

There seem to be quite a few scientists proposing alternate cosmologies, and they aren't losing their jobs or their funding. Arguing against the BB doesn't get you in trouble,

It got me in trouble for discovering only that Einstein's cosmology (Einstein's universe) fits better the observations than BB and I got banned for life from two moderated fora, one astronomy and one physics. "Scientists" don't like to be reminded that Einstein's universe fits the observations (e.g. "accelerating expansion") better than BB.

Well, I've got to say that if I were moderating this forum, I'd probably ban you as well. Not because of your ideas themselves, but because of your apparent inability to make a case for them, and for playing the same tune no matter what response you get. You seem quite alone in believing that the standard cosmological model and GR are somehow at odds with each other. GR is built into lambda-CDM as one of its core components.

Any professional scientist who operates that way should quite rightly find it difficult to get grants, or get much respect from his peers.

[JimJast]

Any professional scientist who operates that way should quite rightly find it difficult to get grants, or get much respect from his peers.

I'm not a professional scientist (just a sculptor) but knowing enough physics to recognize the fact that Feynman was right saying "it would be kind of crazy to have something happening to space, without the time being involved in the same thing" and derive "general time delation" that fits the Hubble constant and its acceleration and conservation of energy (which BB fails to do). "Phys. Rev. Lett.", and "Science" didn't publish my article not because it was wrong (referees didn't find any formal errors) but to save room in their journal that was needed for more important articles than supporting Einstein's gravitation and show that "general time dilation" is, as Feynman expected, exactly the same as the curvature of space. And so the Einstein's curvature of space is enough to produce the illusion of accelerating expansion. But of course to see it one has to forget about Newtonian mechanics and switch fully t Einstein's relativity, which is the tough part.

[makc]

...because of your apparent inability to make a case for them, and for playing the same tune no matter what response you get.

true, true. the rules, however, do not have this as a valid reason for banning I wish we could have phpbb plugin to filter posts from certain users in account settings - then the forum would only have to ban spammers. they would still pop up in quotes on occasion, but much less noise any way...

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

When the control of information is determined by one party thats when science goes out of balance.

Hello Jimjast, just keep on going, understanding cosmology sometimes means understanding people and overcoming hurdles of the status around you.

Hey! thats half the fun.

===================================================================
By reading and reading, I'm just hoping that one day I may get to actually understand a bit of the workings of the universe. Even a bit is good enough.

This paper tries to expalin how stars and what ever excape the galaxy. Sometimes knowing how people thought over 9 years ago gives us a foundation of what we know today.
Not only that to thank them for the foundations of what we have to today. The paper is some what limited, but still great reading.

The evolution of a network of cosmic string loops
Authors: E.J.Copeland (Sussex), T.W.B.Kibble (Imperial), D.A.Steer (Cambridge)
(Submitted on 21 Mar 1998 (v1), last revised 19 Oct 1998 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We set up and analyse a model for the non-equilibrium evolution of a network of cosmic strings initially containing only loops and no infinite strings. Due to this particular initial condition, our analytical approach differs significantly from existing ones. We describe the average properties of the network in terms of the distribution function n(l,t) dl, the average number of loops per unit volume with physical length between l and l + dl at time t. The dynamical processes which change the length of loops are then estimated and an equation, which we call the `rate equation', is derived for (dn/dt). In a non-expanding universe, the loops should reach the equilibrium distribution predicted by string statistical mechanics. Analysis of the rate equation gives results consistent with this. We then study the rate equation in an expanding universe and suggest that three different final states are possible for the evolving loop network, each of which may well be realised for some initial conditions. If the initial energy density in loops in the radiation era is low, then the loops rapidly disappear. For large initial energy densities, we expect that either infinite strings are formed or that the loops tend towards a scaling solution in the radiation era and then rapidly disappear in the matter era. Such a scenario may be relevant given recent work highlighting the problems with structure formation from the standard cosmic string scenario.

[JimJast]

then the forum would only have to ban spammers. they would still pop up in quotes on occasion, but much less noise any way...

And then you would have a society of mutual adoration of creationists believing in good old Newtonian mechanics with no crazy Einsteinian interdependence of time and space, and with no guys like Feynman to disturb your selfsatisfaction that you are not propagating creationism but "science". So before it happens and you find a way to ban me for life from here I bring you another quote from Feynman which might or might not make you think or maybe you even start learning Einstein's physics: "Whenever the predictions o Einstein have been found to differ from ideas of Newtonian mechanics Nature has chosen Einstein's."

When you start learning Einsteins physics try to explain to your granmather how in Einstein's physics the "gravitational force" is generated. In my university no physics professor knows how to explain it even to another physics professor. Each of them say "I don't understand gravitation" (the simplest physics around). Isn't it starange? And according to Einstein: "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother".

Can you understand Einstein's physics and believe at the same time that energy is created (as in BB) while in Einstein's physics it is conserved automatically?