Starship Asterisk*

smile,again,,,,,,,,,,,,, the universe did not start from a point in space and the big bang never happened.

The universe cannot be infinitely old either, here is a mathematical reason why:

Take one second and divide it in half, and then again, and again ...
At some point you need to get to the smallest division of time. If the division of time were infinitely small it would take an infinite number of segment to equal one second. The same would be true for a billion years; mathematically one second would equal one billion years. If the age of the universe was also infinite, the same equation would pertain to that scenario also, there would have to be an infinite amount of segments. Mathematically, the universe needs to have a start time and a stop time or time reference is dealing with X/0.

Not in my universe.

Mathematical reasoning has been worked by man.

The existing mathematical reasoning does not stand up to the actual workings of the universe.

If you are working on some models than i would say go back to the drawing board.

Please read
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Supernovae Ia observations tend to rule out all the cosmologies!
R. G. Vishwakarma

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511628
----------------------------------------------------------------------
and
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611
and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive Black Hole in the Early Big Bang Universe!?

“A team of astronomers have found a colossal black hole so ancient, they're not sure how it had enough time to grow to its current size, about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun.

Sitting at the heart of a distant galaxy, the black hole appears to be about 12.7 billion years old, which means it formed just one billion years after the universe began and is one of the oldest supermassive black holes ever known.

The black hole, researchers said, is big enough to hold 1,000 of our own Solar Systems and weighs about as much as all the stars in the Milky Way.

"The universe was awfully young at the time this was formed," said astronomer Roger Romani, a Stanford University associate professor whose team found the object. "It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size."”

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 40628.html
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406252


There are many cosmologist out there that do not think that the Big Bang ever happened.

Than again you never know one of us maybe right or both wrong.

Stay Cool

Mathematical reasoning has been worked by man.

The existing mathematical reasoning does not stand up to the actual workings of the universe.

There are two types of things that can be measured; one set quantitatively, the other qualitatively. The first set can all be represented by mathematic; the second deals with perception, and can only be compared to other qualitative perceptions.

All matter is quantitative; it is not qualitative so it needs a mathematical representation, that representation cannot use X/0.

Logic 101.

harry wrote:smile,again,,,,,,,,,,,,, the universe did not start from a point in space and the big bang never happened.

...in your opinion. Need to add that.

Hello Bildeback and empeda

Both of you are always there and your responses are very logical

It is not that I disagree with you, It just that I want to know ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

harry wrote:Hello Bildeback and empeda

Both of you are always there and your responses are very logical

It is not that I disagree with you, It just that I want to know ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I would guess that empeda and myself have had these discusions before.

Are we ever going to get back to the original question: does dark matter exist or are we seeing the product of some other phenomenon?

Dark matter exists

The question is:

Is there enough to explain small and large structures
For those wanting info.

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.html
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm2.html
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm3.html
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm4.html
http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm5.html

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/research.html

http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/preprints/index.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gi ... atter.html

Image
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960202.html

It is an interesting subject and is worth looking at it more and more until we know the full implication of dark matter.

S. Bilderback wrote:Are we ever going to get back to the original question: does dark matter exist or are we seeing the product of some other phenomenon?

I think it all depends on whether supersymmetry can be proved, if it can, then there's plenty of room for all sorts of weird and wonderful types of matter such and WIMPS - in particular Photinos.

If dark matter is indeed exotic, my money (with present theory in mind - it could all be shattered out of the blue!) would be Photinos.

What about neutrinos...mass or no mass? If they do indeed have even the smallest amount of mass, they would account for a large chunk of dark matter.





So a neutrino sits down at a bar and starts drinking shots. After the 12th shot the bartender asks, "Haven't you had enough?"

"Naa, I am fine," replied the neutrino. "They just go right through me."

If Dark Matter exists, why isn't it evenly distributed, evidence seems to have it concentrated between galactic clusters?



Has anyone found any new, good nonfiction books lately? Something in the order of "The Elegant Universe" by Greene or "Hyperspace" by Kaku.

A suggestion for good sci-fi is of interest - but no dragons no magic - sci-fi for the purest.

Hello bilderback

Where is the evidence for dark matter between clusters.

The force causing the accelerating expanse of the universe, pushing galaxies clusters away from each other but not expanding the space inside the galaxies.

I like to see that evidence.

All the oberservations tell me that the universe behaves in a process.

Some parts are expanding due to the process and some are parts are collecting together.

As for the Super Clusters there is no evidence to show expansion.

If there is please show me.

Most ineterested.

Merry Xmas

Orca wrote:What about neutrinos...mass or no mass? If they do indeed have even the smallest amount of mass, they would account for a large chunk of dark matter.

Exactly - any of the 'inos' predicted by supersymmetry - though most of them would be stabel enough.

Neutrinos have mass

It seems to me that if neutrinos were massless (that is, if they had no rest-mass) they'd have to be traveling at light speed like photons. Yes?



What about the quantum mechanical concept of spontaneous particle pair annihilation? Quantum mechanics says that randomly through out the universe, particles pairs...one particle of matter and one of anti-matter...are created, fly apart, and come back together annihilating each other (this phenomenon was the basis for Stephen Hawking's work on black hole evaporation, but we'll leave that for another thread). It's been suggested that this "dark energy," even though each individual particle/anti-particle annihilation constitutes a small amount of energy, adds up to a lot over vast light years of intergalactic space. It could possibly be the force that is causing accelerated inflation of the universe.

There is plenty about QM I am still trying to grasp; off the bat I don't like the idea of "spontaneous creation from empty space." On the other hand, we are learning that "empty space" is not as empty as it at first appears.

Hello Orca

Neutrinos are one fifth that of electrons.

Expansion and inflation of the universe is a Santa Clause story.

You will get parts of the Universe expanding and other parts inflating.

It is part of the recycling process that never ends and has no start.

As for Steven Hawkins I had several discussions a few decades ago about some old issues that have now been forgotten with recent observations.

When we look at matter and electromagnetic radiation we find that the same particles are part of the same game.

Dark Matter, dark energy etc are states of electromagnetic radiation.

this is why the formula E = MC ^2



Merry Xmas

harry wrote:Hello Orca

Neutrinos are one fifth that of electrons.

Expansion and inflation of the universe is a Santa Clause story.

You will get parts of the Universe expanding and other parts inflating.

It is part of the recycling process that never ends and has no start.

As for Steven Hawkins I had several discussions a few decades ago about some old issues that have now been forgotten with recent observations.

When we look at matter and electromagnetic radiation we find that the same particles are part of the same game.

Dark Matter, dark energy etc are states of electromagnetic radiation.

this is why the formula E = MC ^2

Are you sure that the relativity equation applies to dark mater/energy?

There are reasons it may not.

Neutrinos are a possibility but Harry - it is still not known whether or not they have mass. The most recent experiments seem to suggest that they could be massless - there is a very small cap placed on the possible mass - probably much less than a fifth of an electron...

Orca, I agree about the spontaneous creation stuff - from what I remember is stems from the uncertainty principle (the energy/time relation rather than the momentum/position relationship), I don't like it either - there's still a lot we don't know...

Incidently, the E=MC^2 equation is a simplified model that does not account for any momentum.... and since we don't know about this dark matter - we cannot assume that it will hold....

What was it Albert said about Werner's ideas: "I can't believe that God plays at dicing." And somebody else responded, "Not only does she play at dicing, but she throws them under the table where nobody can see them".

Hello empeda2

I agree with you.
But! neutrinos have three charges + , - AND NEUTRAL.
As a matter of opinion.
If an object has charge and size don't you think it may have mass.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... no.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... o2.html#c2
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... o3.html#c1

Stay Cool

I agree that it may have mass, but it doesn't hold that it HAS to have mass.

After a nova explosion, neutrinos detectors spike before the photons of the nova reaches the Earth. That could be because neutrinos travel faster than light or the mechanics of a nova explosion ejects neutrinos as a precurser to the nova.