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 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary, and those who 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

I think that the idea that you're referring to is the worrying possibility that what we think of as the vacuum is not the true ground state of the vacuum. It could be in a state analogous to a supercooled liquid. All it would take would be a small patch of "real" vacuum to nucleate the collapse of the rest of our vacuum into the true ground state. If this were to happen, it would likely be worse than letting the beams cross in Ghostbusters.

To publi
Those 2 doomsday sites you posted can be reduced to a couple of real scenerios like the population bombs (the popes and Islam) or a trigger happy politician eager to nucleate our planet.

Aurora Quote
ever heard of gravity?

cyrek reply
I mentioned above that gravity is neutralized by 'linear momentum'. No problem here.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

While I don’t agree with all of cyrek1’s ideas, I do think that in many of his posts the content of what he is trying to say doesn’t always come across clearly. In this case ‘collapse’ seems to have come across wrong. Nebulae may collapse back on themselves to form new suns and planet (and the sun collapse from the out the protosteller nebula, if you will), but the individual atoms themselves aren’t collapsing, which I think is his real point. In this case, the matter simply coalescences to form a new solar structure, cyrek1 is focusing more on subatomic structure.

My thought, cyrek1 can discount me if I misunderstood his post.

__________________
Photons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.

Can you show us your math on this please?

I'm interested in two different perspectives:
1) what do you consider the massive, condensed object to be, that astromomers refer to as 'black hole', wrt to good observations (e.g. in certain X-ray binaries, SagA*, the nuclei of M31 and NGC 4258)?
2) what prevents the collapse of a neutron star, to a BH, once the gravitational pressure exceeds the neutron degeneracy pressure?

If you are rejecting at least part of General Relativity (GR), please say so.OK, so from this I infer that you are, indeed, rejecting at least part of GR (pace "I am a self educated amateur cosmologist who relies on real physics for support").

Collapse is inevitable, at least locally, for all bodies in mutual orbits (per GR, as verified by Hulse and Taylor). Collapse is also inevitable once the gravitational pressure exceeds certain thresholds - to various solid states (upon cooling), to electron degenerate states, to neutron degenerate states, ... so all H atoms 'in open space' will, sooner or later, no longer be 'in open space'.

I seem to remember that in Sci Am or Discover--anyone remember that?

To Nereid
Your questions will rquire some research. So I will not be able to reply for a few days, but I will answer.

To Sidmel
Sidmel quote
While I don’t agree with all of cyrek1’s ideas, I do think that in many of his posts the content of what he is trying to say doesn’t always come across clearly. In this case ‘collapse’ seems to have come across wrong. Nebulae may collapse back on
themselves to form new suns and planet (and the sun collapse from the out the
proto steller nebula, if you will), but the individual atoms themselves aren’t collapsing,
which I think is his real point. In this case, the matter simply coalescences to form a
new solar structure, cyrek1 is focusing more on subatomic structure.

My thought, cyrek1 can discount me if I misunderstood his post.

cyrek reply
I was referring to the Universe and the counter forces that prevent its collapse.

Interstellar gas clouds that condense to form stars, do not have any or sufficient momentum to counter this condensation. I also wrote an article on this process in the past that these condensations are given an electric (coulomb) boost to assist these star formations.

As the central gases heat during this process, some electrons start skipping to the outer cooler gases. This creates a positively charged central region which then draws the outer gases toward this central region to strengthen and speed up the condensation.

My conclusion is that gravity alone does not have sufficient force to cause these star condensations.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Hello,

What do you mean exactly by collapse ? If you take a chunk of matter and apply enough compression, you get different states of matter. If your compression is extreme, you might overcome natural barriers (coulomb barrier, etc) so that quark bonds become more and more loose (imagine a rubber band for the strong force bond). Eventually, your chunk of matter won't look too good since it will become some sort of quark-gluon plasma. There are numerous experiments and papers on the subject. Just check out www.bnl.gov/rhic and you'll understand what's at stake. They collide heavy ions (like gold) inside a big ring shaped collider to create this particular state of matter and prove experimentally that matter can undergo a phase transition from hadronic to partonic. Also check out the LHC (large ion collider) project at CERN.

Now, if you mean a collapse due to gravity overcoming the nuclear push inside a star, we now have good evidence of the existence of black holes and neutron stars. In the latter case, the term 'neutron' is a bit misleading. It is true that the star is composed of highly compressed matter in which neutrons are a big part of, but don't get fooled by this. In fact, this state of matter is better described as : highly compressed hadronic matter. Hydrogen would not survive at all in this environment. In fact, there was recently a claim that certain neutron stars could even have in their core some quark-gluon plasma, namely the state of matter of the very early universe. But it turns out that the claim was a bit too enthusiastic ... too bad ...

Finally, if you now mean the collapse of all matter in the universe, as opposed to stationary state theories, that remains to be proved. Don't forget that the big bang theory is experimentally evidenced by mainly two observations :
1- red-shift
2- cosmic background radiation

But even these two observations are now under scrutiny and many physicists claim or even made observations that contradict the common interpretation of these two key proofs. I don't have any link to provide right now but if anyone is interested I can look it up at home (I am still at work now).

Nereid 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.

Nereid quote
Can you show us your math on this please?

Cyrek reply
I do not consider math to be more important that experimental evidence
or visualizations of phenomenon. Math can be erroneous when certain unseen
components are left out.
Example:…Newtonian math as used by science says that the HA will collapse.
Yet this does not happen.
I explained why this does not happen with ‘visualization’ of the HA.

I also do not accept the ‘String Theory’ and the ‘Inflation Theory’ because they will
never be proven. Yet they are widely accepted.

Nereid quote
I'm interested in two different perspectives:
1) what do you consider the massive, condensed object to be, that astronomers refer
to as 'black hole', wrt to good observations (e.g. in certain X-ray binaries, SagA*, the
nuclei of M31 and NGC 4258)?

reply
Since I do not believe that matter will collapse to an infinite nothing, I sought other
Solutions.
The residual remains of stars are the neutron stars which are the densest forms of
matter known. Since I consider these stars to be unstable and decay, that could be
the source of radiations attributed to the ‘black holes’. I also consider the GRB’ers
as the sources of neutron star decay.
In the above galaxies and others, I previously explained that neutron star congregates
in the central regions are positively charged in relation to the ‘circling’ gases to create
the high velocities that create the assumption that enormous mass is present.

Nereid
2) what prevents the collapse of a neutron star, to a BH, once the gravitational
pressure exceeds the neutron degeneracy pressure?

reply
I looked up the definition of degeneracy and could not even try to understand it’s
meaning.
I explained above that matter cannot collapse into an infinite nothing space.
This would give the BB credibility. Ha ha. .

Nereid
If you are rejecting at least part of GR, please say so.

Reply
Yes. Since I consider space to be ‘flat’, That would automatically refute GR which
also eliminates the need for a cosmological constant.

Nereid
Collapse is inevitable, at least locally, for all bodies in mutual orbits (per GR, as
verified by Hulse and Taylor <http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/press.html>)
Collapse is also inevitable once the gravitational pressure exceeds certain thresholds
to various solid states (upon cooling), to electron degenerate states, to neutron
degenerate states, ... so all H atoms 'in open space' will, sooner or later, no longer be
'in open space'.

Reply
True. I explained above to Sidmel that these clouds do condense to stars with a
‘coulomb force’ boost to gravity.
Better yet, these clouds condense to form galaxies with billions of stars and ‘star
systems’.

.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek