COLLAPSE OF THE UNIVERSE

Most people opposing the Steady State Universe are under the impression that it would collapse because Einstein thought so when he introduced the Cosmological Constant (CC, Lambda) to prevent its collapse.
Later, when Georges Lemaitre introduced the idea that the universe was expanding and started from a primeval atom, the idea was apparently accepted after the Slipher, Hubble and Humason observations saw that most of the distant galaxies were all receding from our locality.
Of course, the idea of Lemaitres primeval atom was discarded.
This saved Einsteins need for the CC.

Would the SSU collapse? NO!
Matter is structured in such a way that it will never collapse. The hydrogen atom is an example. In its ground state in open space, it does not collapse.
This is also true of all the larger gravitational structures that are neutralized by the linear momentum of the orbiting objects. Even the enhanced galaxy clusters gravitational forces by the supposed dark matter do not collapse because the orbital linear momentums also increases accordingly.

Another very important fact to consider is that matter, the two basic components of the HA, returns to its original gaseous state even after it has been condensed in the stars.
The thing to consider is that neutrons DECAY in a free state to reform hydrogen atoms again. This tremendously powerful force that held the components together in the neutron, which originally formed from HA's in the stars, again decomposes to the original components to again reform matter to its main gaseous state. This tells me that the collapse of the universe cannot happen.

Any comments?

cyrek1

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Ever heard of Black Holes?

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Somehow the Sun collapsed out of the protostellar nebula. The Earth collapsed out of the protoplanetary nebula. How did these things happen? Inelastic collisions and radiation of energy as photons.

Would the Steady State Universe collapse? It it were infinite in size, no one part would have a prefered direction to collapse to. Otherwise, yes it would collapse.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Or (from the arguement about hydrogen) Neutron Stars?

__________________
Its better tae meddle wi the deil............

A great many things have a natural tendency to collapsing as it's been pointed out, be it molecular clouds, etc. Unless the whole universe was spinning around (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) in acomplex 3D Whorl I think we can safely put SS Theory to rest, it served it's purposes in it's days but has little relevance today.

[mirth = ON]The only non-collapsing element in the universe is the price of Gasoline.[/stupid grin]

__________________
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

A universe consisting of the 3-D surface of a hypersphere could exist without collapsing and would not need to be infinite. I'm not arguing for it, just showing other models could exist.

To All

I do not believe in 'black holes' which I consider to be a concentration of neutron star positively charged congregates to the surrounding negative charged gases as shown in the center of galaxies.
For those who are not familiar with my posts, I am a self educated amateur cosmologist who relies on real physics for support.
The BB is a creation theory initiated by Georges Lemaitre (a priest) either coincidentally with Sliphers redshift observations or possibly a seperatly developed idea.
The BB violates the 'Laws of Conservation' which is real physics. Matter always existed.

Stars do not collapse during their formation but gradually condense to the final product. There sizes depend on the amount of gases available. The planets and stars in the star systems are all created simultaneously.
My opinions.

cyrek1

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Well what if before the BB there was an absence of everything, including laws of physics, it cannot then be considered to break the laws of conservations, for there were none.

Just a thought

__________________
The impossible often has a kind of integrity which the merely improbable lacks.

Shouldn't this be moved to against the mainstream?

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

Agreed, auroa. Nice handle, by the way.
I closed this thread when I opened it after reading the first sentence. It just had that ring to it. I just got into it again accidentally. And yes, I was right to stay out the first time.

__________________
http://members.elirion.net/~maddad
There are ten kinds of people. Those that understand binary, and those that do not.

Yes, this would be more appropriate in ATM. Moved.

As has been pointed out to you before, it has been postulated that if you convert all the matter in the Universe to positive energy, add that to the other positive energy, and subtract out the gravitational (negative) energy, the total would be zero.

Start with nothing, have nothing... conservation is not violated.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Only to ask what you mean by "steady state cosmology". I don't see how you can mean the cosmology of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold, because that was never in danger of collapse. The SSC was always expanding; undergoing eternal inflation driven by dark energy, in fact.

Real scientists don't "get" to "believe" anything. They are only allowed to think what existing theories and math allow them to. Unless you happen to be very good at tensor calculus and analysis, and can show us how the things general relativity predicts are wrong, and can then use GR and quantum mechanics to show that your model predicts exactly what's observed (i.e., spectra and structures observed from black holes), then you have no idea what you're talking about. [who relies on real physics for support.]

And the big bang does not directly violate any physical theory. If it did, it would not be an accepted theory. The only problem is that you don't understand what's really going on. What you "armature" scientists fail to understand is that your lack of understanding of a theory means just that, you do not understand the theory, it does not mean that the theory is wrong. And matter isn't conserved, anyway, it never was. Mass-energy is, there's a big difference there. I can create matter all I want, in fact, i do it every day in chemical reactions that take place inside my body, because the binding energy in chains of atoms is added to its measured mass.

Stars do collapse from surrounding material. We can actually see this happening. Look into a nebula. Saying they somehow condense out of material doesn't even make sense. Temperature in the material increases due to increasing pressure caused by collapsing material until fusion starts. Or do you not believe in fusion, either?

There will be no collapse.. but there will be a fading away.
as matter reaches the outer edges of space, the rate of spatial motion raises the flow rate of time, and all matter will eventually decay and break down to the orginal spatial tension, which then gives its energy up, to return to the lower energy 3D space had when the universe was new...
thus space bleeds out all its energy back to the source outside our space, until space itself begins to emit energy and return to the zero energy state from which it all began.
see my thread.. Mosheh thezions cosmology.

its like a collapse.. but its not exactly.
-MT

cyrek reply

I cannot reply individually becauseo of all the response.

I was gone for about 2 months because of a computer virus.
Yes, there was an ATM segment that I did not see with this new website.
I see now that it is back.

According to the laws of conservation, atoms do not reproduce, only the living realm does that.

The other concept I mentioned is that the Michael-Morley experiment showed that there is no relation between light and space.
The BB portrays the space as 'expanding the light waves'. The only way it can do that is if it is intertwined with the lightwaves. The MM experiment has refuted this.
The EM fields are the carriers of these light pulses and although these fields occupy space, they are not intertwined with space but a seperate entity that occupies space.
Remove the CP's and the fields dissappear. The space though is still there.

So I cannot believe in the 'creation theory' which is a biblical concept.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

If with your last line you mean that the BB = creation theaory = biblical, then you are twice wrong. You can have a non-biblical creation theory (there are many around, most religions have one), and the BB isn't a creation theory, but an evolution theory. A creation theory says who did it, and why (if it's a good one). BB just says what happened from the moment that first "nucleus" (for want of a better word) exploded. Where the first matter (or energy) came from isn't known, and is for the moment (and perhaps forever) the realm of philosophy, speculation and religion.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

cyrek reply
Your last line above confirms what I said. Nothing but a question mark.

The BB is based on only one observation by the trio of Slipher, Hubble and Humason redshift observations which do not comply with the Doppler redshift
interpretations of the BB'ers.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

I seem to remember a doomsday theory called 'collapse of the vacuum'

publiusr Quote
I seem to remember a doomsday theory called 'collapse of the vacuum'

cyrek reply
Well, you can give that idea a doomday finish.
A vacuum, which I consider as empty space, will draw any material that may be in its vicinity toward itself to fill its space.
Can you consider the filling of this empty space as a collapse?

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

I was thinking about something else--not the Big Crunch or a particle accelerator accident. More weird ways to bite the dust here:

http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9941/links.html

ever heard of gravity?

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender