Starship Asterisk*

mark swain wrote:How much energy would it take, to squeeze every particle in the known universe into something smaller than an atom?

mark swain wrote:How is this relevant to the BB? The thread is about, Before the bb mate....trying to understand something from nothing.

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:How is this relevant to the BB? The thread is about, Before the bb mate....trying to understand something from nothing.

Aside from the fact that the idea of "before" the BB is probably meaningless, because there was no time, that doesn't change the fact that nothing was "squeezed" at t=0. So your question about energy makes no sense to me.

mark swain wrote:So why is every mass, in the hole universe pointing to the t=0 ---- >O<----- that,s where it came from?

That,s where its going back too?

but there are things you can not explain with your laws,, such as physics breaks down after the event horizon...

this also tells me that, physics cant not predict matter/energy/from bb theory because of the first reason.

See discussion at Asterisk Café: MOG.

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:How is this relevant to the BB? The thread is about, Before the bb mate....trying to understand something from nothing.

Aside from the fact that the idea of "before" the BB is probably meaningless, because there was no time, that doesn't change the fact that nothing was "squeezed" at t=0. So your question about energy makes no sense to me.

Chris Peterson wrote: The best evidence says not. It looks like the Universe will expand forever.

Chris wrote: (very much like we use Newtonian mechanics to navigate most spacecraft, but need to use relativistic mechanics for GPS satellites).

JimJast wrote:I wonder why Moffat doesn't like Einstein's theory of gravitation that seems not to have those problems that Moffat solves? Einstein's theory has already a non symmetric metric tensor (see Einstein's "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", "Scientific American", April 1950), doesn't have neither black holes nor dark energy) and Einstein's theory is not responsible for axioms added to general relativity by Wheeler (see MTW, "Gravitation", 1973, p.411) like the assumption of expansion of space and the invalidity of conservation of energy that is just the necessary result of the expansion of space (apparently MTW liked better violation of conservation of energy than Einstein's cosmological constant). So Einstein's theory might be still right, especially after a viable reason for the universe being stationary has been found, which Moffat is ignoring, apparently not checking the literature available to him, before writing his book).

aristarchusinexile wrote:MOG seems to say the universe is not expanding. And who is to be the judge of what the "best evidence" is...

Except for the Pioneer anaomalies, which MOG says did not arise from the sun's influence, but probably from heat on the spaceship.

JimJast wrote:

See discussion at Asterisk Café: MOG.

Thanks for directions, but none of the posts there answers my question wich is: "why John Moffat doesn't like Einstein's theory of gravitation that seems not to have those problems that JM tries to solve?

Einstein's theory has already a non symmetric metric tensor (see Einstein's "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation", "Scientific American", April 1950), doesn't contain in it neither "black holes" nor "dark energy", etc.) and Einstein is not responsible for axioms added to general relativity by others, like eg. assumption of expansion of space and violation of conservation of energy that is just the necessary result of the expansion of space, but none consistent with Einstein's theory since "Einstein's universe" of 1917 and 1985 is stationary.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Ah - so you admit that time was created by cosmological events?

Like the spin of spiral galaxies perhaps?

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:MOG seems to say the universe is not expanding. And who is to be the judge of what the "best evidence" is...

Good for MOG. Most scientists consider it a weak theory compared with the BBT, because it has much less supportive evidence.

The place to discus MOG is in MOG. Your sedition is noted.

Except for the Pioneer anaomalies, which MOG says did not arise from the sun's influence, but probably from heat on the spaceship.

There are many possible explanations, ranging from prosaic to exotic. With no good way of selecting between them at this point, it is best to not place too much weight on this observation with respect to any theory.

Abstract: There are things we know, things we know we don't know, and then there are things we don't know we don't know. In this paper we address the latter two issues in a Bayesian framework, introducing the notion of doubt to quantify the degree of (dis)belief in a model given observational data in the absence of explicit alternative models. We demonstrate how a properly calibrated doubt can lead to model discovery when the true model is unknown.

Abstract: Magnetic reconnection is believed to be the prime mechanism to trigger solar flares and accelerate electrons up to energies of MeV. In the classical two-dimensional reconnection model, the separation motion of chromospheric ribbons manifests the successive reconnection that takes place higher up in the corona. Meanwhile, downward traveling energetic electrons bombard the dense chromosphere and create hard X-ray (HXR) emissions, which provide a valuable diagnostic of electron acceleration. Analyses of ribbon dynamics and HXR spectrum have been carried out separately. In this Letter, we report a study of the comparison of reconnection electric field measured from ribbon motion and hardness (spectral index) of X-ray emission derived from X-ray spectrum. Our survey of the maximum average reconnection electric field and the minimum overall spectral index for 13 two-ribbon flares show that they are strongly anti-correlated. The former is also strongly correlated with flare magnitude measured using the peak flux of soft X-ray emissions. These provide strong support for electron acceleration models based on the electric field generated at reconnecting current sheet during flares.

• The universe appears to be lopsided, and a new model that aims to explain this anomaly could offer a glimpse of what happened before the birth of it all.
  ...
  A new model suggests this unevenness could be caused by an imprint left over from before the beginning of the universe, that is, before the cosmos ballooned almost instantaneously from less than the size of an atom to about golf-ball size. This process is called inflation.
  ...
  The model also intriguingly hints at what might have come before inflation, since it suggests that the universe's lopsidedness may be an after effect of a great fluctuation that occurred before inflation began.

bystander wrote:Glimpse before Big Bang Possible
Space.com - 2009 January 13

• The universe appears to be lopsided, and a new model that aims to explain this anomaly could offer a glimpse of what happened before the birth of it all.
  ...
  A new model suggests this unevenness could be caused by an imprint left over from before the beginning of the universe, that is, before the cosmos ballooned almost instantaneously from less than the size of an atom to about golf-ball size. This process is called inflation.
  ...
  The model also intriguingly hints at what might have come before inflation, since it suggests that the universe's lopsidedness may be an after effect of a great fluctuation that occurred before inflation began.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

You can take it with a pich of salt or a ton of sugar.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Pseudoscience has a foot hold on the direction in which cosmology science is heading.

Journals are written up without a science editor. Evidence is here or there and based on assumptions and hear say.

Are these my thoughts or is this really happening?

This link is interesting

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2415
Introducing doubt in Bayesian model comparison

Authors: Glenn D Starkman, Roberto Trotta, Pascal M Vaudrevange
(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008)

Abstract: There are things we know, things we know we don't know, and then there are things we don't know we don't know. In this paper we address the latter two issues in a Bayesian framework, introducing the notion of doubt to quantify the degree of (dis)belief in a model given observational data in the absence of explicit alternative models. We demonstrate how a properly calibrated doubt can lead to model discovery when the true model is unknown.