Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 13-September-2005, 01:40 PM
cyrek1 cyrek1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 679
Default Universe Collapse?

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
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 13-September-2005, 02:02 PM
Halcyon Dayz's Avatar
Halcyon Dayz Halcyon Dayz is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NLD - Sol III
Posts: 1,618
Question Collapse?

Quote:
Matter is structured in such a way that it will never collapse.
Ever heard of Black Holes?
__________________
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Join the Illuminati
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 13-September-2005, 02:18 PM
antoniseb's Avatar
antoniseb antoniseb is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 14,695
Default

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
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 13-September-2005, 02:19 PM
Astrobairn Astrobairn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halcyon Dayz
Ever heard of Black Holes?
Or (from the arguement about hydrogen) Neutron Stars?
__________________
Its better tae meddle wi the deil............
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 13-September-2005, 04:29 PM
mantiss's Avatar
mantiss mantiss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Great White North(east)
Posts: 390
Default

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.
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 13-September-2005, 05:47 PM
Iron Sun 254's Avatar
Iron Sun 254 Iron Sun 254 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by antoniseb
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.
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.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2005, 12:18 PM
cyrek1 cyrek1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 679
Default

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
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2005, 03:11 PM
mantiss's Avatar
mantiss mantiss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Great White North(east)
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrek1
To All

[snip...]
The BB violates the 'Laws of Conservation' which is real physics. Matter always existed.
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.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2005, 05:57 PM
aurora's Avatar
aurora aurora is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,641
Default

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
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2005, 07:16 PM
Maddad Maddad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royersford, Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 388
Default

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.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2005, 07:34 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 5,257
Send a message via MSN to Wolverine Send a message via Yahoo to Wolverine
Default

Yes, this would be more appropriate in ATM. Moved.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2005, 08:21 PM
Jim's Avatar
Jim Jim is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clear Lake City, TX
Posts: 4,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrek1
The BB violates the 'Laws of Conservation' ...
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
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 14-September-2005, 08:37 PM
Gerbil94 Gerbil94 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrek1
Any comments?
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.
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 15-September-2005, 01:37 AM
cfgauss's Avatar
cfgauss cfgauss is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: University of Washington, Seattle
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrek1
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
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?
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 15-September-2005, 07:26 AM
Mosheh Thezion's Avatar
Mosheh Thezion Mosheh Thezion is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Earth, Burbank
Posts: 715
Default

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
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 15-September-2005, 01:04 PM
cyrek1 cyrek1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 679
Default

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
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 15-September-2005, 01:31 PM
Fram's Avatar
Fram Fram is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buggenhout, Belgium
Posts: 3,140
Default

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
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 16-September-2005, 01:45 PM
cyrek1 cyrek1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fram
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.
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
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 21-September-2005, 05:45 PM
publiusr publiusr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,292
Default

I seem to remember a doomsday theory called 'collapse of the vacuum'
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 22-September-2005, 03:46 PM
cyrek1 cyrek1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 679
Wink

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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 22-September-2005, 04:57 PM
publiusr publiusr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,292
Default

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
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 22-September-2005, 08:30 PM
aurora's Avatar
aurora aurora is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrek1
A vacuum, which I consider as empty space, will draw any material that may be in its vicinity toward itself to fill its space.
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