It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Big bang just two rocks colliding. Maybr just a side glace why diffrent rotashion

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vjr1113

Even light has some weight. I know right...


Photons are believed to be massless. They do however have energy. They also have momentum.

Massless particles wiki

Since they can't slow down the next link makes no sense right?

Slower than light speed photons

Physics, who gets it?





posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leto2
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not trying to be rude but faster than light speed is impossible, in nature, as far as I've read. (the subject is very interesting and the link is great and informative)
www.preposterousuniverse.com...
Not to derail this well thought out thread but just fealt you should know


Not wishing to disparage Sean Carroll but he is basing everything on ONLY the Hubble constant between two points of reference and is not considering other factors. In the limited scenario he describes, he is correct but the waters are muddy in reality, as I will explain:

Consider the most distant astronomical object, the galaxy EGSY8p7. Its light has taken 13.2 billion years to reach us from where it was only 570 million years after the Big Bang. If we consider that for a moment, it fits within the 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang.

We can also say fairly definitely that the point of origin of that light was closer spatially to the BB singularity than we are now. Which means we have moved away from the singularity (or close to it) at less than the speed of light when averaged over the 13.2 billion years.

All seems well, but lets look in the other direction away from EGSY8p7. More distant astronomical objects, and their light has also traveled upwards of 13 billion years to get here! That looks like nearly twice the age of the universe just there.

So perhaps, instead, we are closer to that point of the BB singularity, spatially, in the middle of the expansion, so to speak? Nope, because we have already established that we are 13.2 billion light-years away from somewhere closer to the origin.

We know these far flung stellar objects aren't moving away from us at light speed or above because their light is visible. In fact, we can determine their red shift and do know the velocity that they are moving away at.

To have the extent of the visible universe in all directions, the distance and evenness of the CMB, it would suggest that at some stage, the outer boundaries of space-time has expanded faster than light. The fact that it is not happening now indicates that something put the brakes on, somehow. This reduces the time period that superluminal expansion occurred and makes the velocity, and the conundrum, even greater!

We know that objects with a zero rest mass (Photons) move at light speed. If mass is removed, there is no constraint requiring near infinities of energy to move at that velocity. Photons, after all, are not that energetic.

So, my theory allows for a superluminal expansion and also explains the current constraint on velocity once the Higgs field established a mass mechanism.

edit on 22/2/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac
If you're suggesting all of the mass in the universe was in two 'rocks'- it doesn't work that way.
Once something gets enough mass, it has enough gravity that its insides are under significant pressure- which creates heat... aka, stars.

There's a lot of interesting information about what happens to stars when they get too big- or get old, and what they turn into ...

blogstronomy.blogspot.com...


There's "brane" theory that is based on the idea of two higher dimensional planes of opposing field strength collided at a single point in space, or maybe becoming close enough for a spark to form. Like a lightning bolt between clouds or two rubber sheets vibrating and hitting each other. The "branes" (from membranes) are in at least one higher dimension than to us, so it would appear as something coming out of nowhere for us (think of flatlanders trying to comprehend up or down), but it would be obvious for anyone else.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: slayerfan

for who's sake are we rewriting the laws of physics?


...no, just the laws (sic) of grammar and spelling...



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vjr1113

Even light has some weight. I know right...


Photons are believed to be massless. They do however have energy. They also have momentum.

Massless particles wiki

Since they can't slow down the next link makes no sense right?

Slower than light speed photons

Physics, who gets it?



The speed of light was invariant, the path of light was longer in one case, meaning that it took longer to traverse.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: chr0naut
unless there is incredible force keeping it 'apart'

There is strong potential for another theory right there.

The Big Bang alludes to an internal explosive type event. What if the Big Bang was an external event that pulled the singularity (which you don't really need now) outwards into every direction (space being created) at once? Imagine holding a quantity of water in your hands and then pulling them rapidly apart. Leaves behind filaments of water when you do.

Some older reporting of high energy events at the edge of space left me wondering if the Big Bang was ever really over with.


Are you suggesting a 'super-cosmological constant' force? Perhaps one that could only operate in the conditions of the BB and shortly after?



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vjr1113

Even light has some weight. I know right...


Photons are believed to be massless. They do however have energy. They also have momentum.

Massless particles wiki

Since they can't slow down the next link makes no sense right?

Slower than light speed photons

Physics, who gets it?



The speed of light was invariant, the path of light was longer in one case, meaning that it took longer to traverse.


That is not exactly true I think, what happened there is you took the easy way to define it and used it as a fact.


Why does this happen? One way of thinking about it is that some of the light in a structured beam is moving in the “wrong” direction – sideways rather than forwards. This isn’t a strictly accurate picture of the energy distribution within the beam, warns Padgett, but it is a way to imagine what might be going on. “Personally I think that’s a useful concept, though the scientific rigour police might not welcome it.”


University of Glasgow slow photons


The researchers found that one photon reached the finish line as predicted, but the structured photon which had been reshaped by the mask arrived later, meaning it was travelling more slowly in free space. Over a distance of one metre, the team measured a slowing of up to 20 wavelengths, many times greater than the measurement precision.





posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: slayerfan
a reply to: Sillyolme

Just for sake say there was no gravity with mass before big collision. No boss higons no nothing the strike of two so huge objects created that.


Are you referring to the Higgs boson?

boss higons might be some guy in the early 20th century, not sure though.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: slayerfan
a reply to: Sillyolme

Just for sake say there was no gravity with mass before big collision. No boss higons no nothing the strike of two so huge objects created that.


Are you referring to the Higgs boson?

boss higons might be some guy in the early 20th century, not sure though.


He was in the Dukes of Hazard.




posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: chr0naut
unless there is incredible force keeping it 'apart'

There is strong potential for another theory right there.

The Big Bang alludes to an internal explosive type event. What if the Big Bang was an external event that pulled the singularity (which you don't really need now) outwards into every direction (space being created) at once? Imagine holding a quantity of water in your hands and then pulling them rapidly apart. Leaves behind filaments of water when you do.

Some older reporting of high energy events at the edge of space left me wondering if the Big Bang was ever really over with.


Are you suggesting a 'super-cosmological constant' force? Perhaps one that could only operate in the conditions of the BB and shortly after?


Bigger even. I've long held the idea that the known universe is quite small. That's something ... considering how small we are in relation to everything around us.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Very interesting. Your knowledge on these subjects far exceeds my own. I stand corrected.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leto2
a reply to: chr0naut

Very interesting. Your knowledge on these subjects far exceeds my own. I stand corrected.


No worries, I'm sure there is a better way to describe things, but it would get quite technical and mathematical. The word pictures we paint are interpretable differently and so language can confuse things.

There are so many 'weak' points in our understanding of times we cannot actually witness and the data has inferences of irrationalities and impossibilities, yet we persist basing our ideas on previous paradigms because it is our best effort. Most of the stuff integrates with the mathematical description and seems to support it. We just have quite large holes to mend.

In other words, we could be (probably are) wrong.




posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: vjr1113

Even light has some weight. I know right...


Photons are believed to be massless. They do however have energy. They also have momentum.

Massless particles wiki

Since they can't slow down the next link makes no sense right?

Slower than light speed photons

Physics, who gets it?



The speed of light was invariant, the path of light was longer in one case, meaning that it took longer to traverse.


That is not exactly true I think, what happened there is you took the easy way to define it and used it as a fact.


Why does this happen? One way of thinking about it is that some of the light in a structured beam is moving in the “wrong” direction – sideways rather than forwards. This isn’t a strictly accurate picture of the energy distribution within the beam, warns Padgett, but it is a way to imagine what might be going on. “Personally I think that’s a useful concept, though the scientific rigour police might not welcome it.”


University of Glasgow slow photons


The researchers found that one photon reached the finish line as predicted, but the structured photon which had been reshaped by the mask arrived later, meaning it was travelling more slowly in free space. Over a distance of one metre, the team measured a slowing of up to 20 wavelengths, many times greater than the measurement precision.




Have you seen a spin bowler put a curve on a bowled ball?

That is likely what is happening here: the photon has a spin applied to it (and I'm not talking quantum 'spin', which is different) and is following a curved (spiral?) trajectory through free space, i.e: a longer path.




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Who gets it? Even Einstein was bewildered by it. Nonlocal communication, spooky actions at a distance. It almost seems like magic huh?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Wow someone was paying attention in science class. I'm impressed and a bit awed.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Look at the post I was responding to. What's wrong with mine? Spelling? No. Grammar? Ok there too.
Is this Sheldon?



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I'm just replying to get this thread on my subscribed list, because it is pretty hilarious. Yeah, you know, it was just 2 rocks colliding, that's all.

Can 2 rocks colliding together create heavy metal elements as well as everything in the known universe including space-time itself?




edit on 2 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

"We'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent lifeforms everywhere and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys."

- Sub-Etha News Broadcast, The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Is always an entertaining read when someone who knows nothing about a given topic makes no effort to learn anything about says topic yet starts a thread speculating wildly and ignorantly about said topic



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl




The Big Bang alludes to an internal explosive type event.


Actually, no it doesn't. The term 'Big Bang' was originally used by Fred Hoyle to ridicule the idea. It seems he didn't understand the concept anymore than our OP for this thread. Whatever, the theory does not allude to an explosive type event - there was literally nothing to 'explode'. The image of an explosion at the beginning of time is just a rather romantic and completely misleading description useful for explanations to satisfy the curiosity of 6 year olds, but not adults.



What if the Big Bang was an external event that pulled the singularity (which you don't really need now) outwards into every direction (space being created) at once? Imagine holding a quantity of water in your hands and then pulling them rapidly apart. Leaves behind filaments of water when you do.


Some string theory proponents might be discussing something sort of like what you describe. In their hypotheses, they describe various ways that 'branes' (from membranes) would sort of act like your hands. They are a heck of a long way from making all the math work yet, but it is an interesting thought exercise for 'outsiders' like us.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join