Impossibility of the universe

reply to post by spy66


The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because of dark matter. This imbalance + general entropy couldn't have forced the expansion?

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because of dark matter. This imbalance + general entropy couldn't have forced the expansion?

The universe is expanding because of Dark matter???

That doesn't make sense. The universe has to expand because everything is changing even dark matter.

Dark matter must have a pressure or a charge of some kind since it gives of a force of gravity. Unless dark matter is a state of perfect vacuum making everything else change ?

reply to post by spy66


Excuse me, I meant dark energy. The universe has been observed to expand at an accelerating rate. It is also theorised that the event that cased the first singularity to expand was due to an imbalance. I would speculate these two are linked.

Unless dark matter is a state of perfect vacuum making everything else change ?

The reason we know it's there is that there are apparent "voids" which are intensely heavy, warping the pathways of light in a similar way that black holes do. Then when you look at the math, for the galaxies to behave the way they do, they need to be like 90% larger. Scientists, for a long time couldn't not account for where 90% of the universe was for this reason, but it's now thought that dark matter makes it up.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

Excuse me, I meant dark energy. The universe has been observed to expand at an accelerating rate. It is also theorised that the event that cased the first singularity to expand was due to an imbalance. I would speculate these two are linked.

Unless dark matter is a state of perfect vacuum making everything else change ?

The reason we know it's there is that there are apparent "voids" which are intensely heavy, warping the pathways of light in a similar way that black holes do. Then when you look at the math, for the galaxies to behave the way they do, they need to be like 90% larger. Scientists, for a long time couldn't not account for where 90% of the universe was for this reason, but it's now thought that dark matter makes it up.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

I agree this makes more sense. Dark energy caused by dark Matter. Because matter IS: Energy pressured together with other energies (matter). And if it has a charge(pressure) it will give of energy.

But there is the singularity that you mention here that i have thought a lot about.

If it was never evenly charged: That would mean something must of charged it.
It must of been created by something else. That means there has to be a force or pressure greater then the singularity. But how can it explode if it is charged by a higher source. It would never exceed the pressure of its own source or creator.

And if it was evenly charged: That would mean that nothing would of ever happened. It would of been a dead matter with no real charge or pressure. No mass at all.

And it would most likely never have been made if it is a singularity with a even or no charge(pressure).

If there was no external energy or pressure to make the singularity. How can it exist as a singularity with such a great mass.

Mass=pressure. To create pressure=Mass you would have to isolate the singularity as well and push on it.

I dont know am i very far off here ?





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


They say that it was likely stable (I'm reluctant to say "at one time" but..) then became unstable.

Entropy.

How is a convoluted question since it's hard to know anything objectively outside of these four dimensions. All I can say is that using 'God' to answer the question seems a cop out, maybe because if 'God' did make the universe, it seems (s)he abandoned it just after the first cause. There seems to be no maintenance going on here.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

They say that it was likely stable (I'm reluctant to say "at one time" but..) then became unstable.

Entropy.

How is a convoluted question since it's hard to know anything objectively outside of these four dimensions. All I can say is that using 'God' to answer the question seems a cop out, maybe because if 'God' did make the universe, it seems (s)he abandoned it just after the first cause. There seems to be no maintenance going on here.

I am getting more and more confused

A singularity cant be stable at one point then suddenly become unstable on its own???

That would imply that there is a force besides the singularity at work. Or that the singularity has a mind of its own and decided that it wanted to blow it self up. That would surly demand some hard work

That would mean that the singularity is able to build pressure(mass) all on its own. But that would make the singularity quite intelligent with out doubt.

If the singularity is the only thing: The Beginning of matter(Time) and in a stable state. It would never change because there is nothing around to make the changes.

And i dont know how a singularity can get a great mass without being forced into a mass by a external source or matter greater then it self.
That doesn't make sense.

You see why i dont get it. There is no logic in the singularity being the father of all matter(Time).


I also have another question about the dark matter.

Could dark matter be so invisible as it is because there is hardly any pressure in space. Implying that it would be very close to a vacuum state?







[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
A singularity cant be stable at one point then suddenly become unstable on its own???

I never said it was on it's own. The singularity could've been a microcosm in a much much more expansive and exotic uni/multi-verse, a place where the universal rules that took effect after the big bang don't work.

We can't percieve anything beyond the BB, doesn't mean there is nothing. We can't see anything 13.5 billion light years away but it's thought that the our cosmos reaches beyond this perceived barrier.

We don't know, we are still astronomical infants, and we are now learning to crawl. Allow some time for we run.

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by spy66
A singularity cant be stable at one point then suddenly become unstable on its own???

I never said it was on it's own. The singularity could've been a microcosm in a much much more expansive and exotic uni/multi-verse, a place where the universal rules that took effect after the big bang don't work.

We can't percieve anything beyond the BB, doesn't mean there is nothing. We can't see anything 13.5 billion light years away but it's thought that the our cosmos reaches beyond this perceived barrier.

We don't know, we are still astronomical infants, and we are now learning to crawl. Allow some time for we run.

I understand Got it hehe.

Originally posted by spy66
I understand

Got it hehe.

I just think that there is a lot that we don't know, or even see, or could possibly even comprehend, it tends to happen in cosmology, just ask the people who though that earth was the centre of the universe and the solar system was the universe.

Edit:

I never said it was on it's own. The singularity could've been a microcosm in a much much more expansive and exotic uni/multi-verse

I'd like to add that in our micro universe, atoms can break down if they are too large and are unstable - perhaps the same principle occurred when the singularity broke down. 99.9999 percent of the atom is empty space. Compare that with the cosmos which is 90% empty space.... Makes you wonder (think about the end of the MIB movie).

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by spy66
I understand

Got it hehe.

I just think that there is a lot that we don't know, or even see, or could possibly even comprehend, it tends to happen in cosmology, just ask the people who though that earth was the centre of the universe and the solar system was the universe.

I know. I agree

Its all very new and we are still trying to catch up to the facts. The pieces will fall into place in do time.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
I was so impressed with the new thread on the size of the universe,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
that a very important thought came to me. The Hubble telescope photo shows stars and galaxies at 13 billion light years away, right? These galaxies have trillions of stars, and the universe is dated to be only 800 million years old in that photo, right? Now, I'm going to ask you a very obvious question: How did the material from all of these galaxies disperse throughout the 13 billion light years of distance in only 800 million years? It is, according to the Theory of Relativity, impossible. All the matter in the universe had to move such great distances, that to cover those distances and be dispersed in only 800 million years means they would have to be traveling at speeds much faster than the speed of light.

The minimum distance to travel would be 13 billion light years in 800 million years, correct? To reach these distances at the speed of light would have taken a minimum of 13 billion light years. If these galaxies dispersed in 800 million years, that means they traveled at (13 billion light years divided by 800 million light years) times the speed of light. The number is 16.5. So, the universe dispersed at 16.5 times the speed of light, then it suddenly slowed to below the speed of light, coalesced, formed living organisms etc. If you take out the last 4.5 billion years when we assume the Earth was in place and beginning to show signs of life, that means the universe would have to be dispersed in only 8.5 billion years. That makes the speed not 16.5 times the speed of light, but now makes it 25.23 times the speed of light. Whew! That is some serious moving... and then it really had to stop fast.... If you really think about it, just the stars and galaxies in the Hubble photo are over 800 million light years apart. That's impossible, right? Because you can't move matter faster than the speed of light.

I know that we're now 5 pages deep into this, but as I understand the original complaint, I think it's simply a matter of flawed logic.

Let's break this down into simple points.

A) The galaxy in question is claimed to be at least 13 billion light years away.

B) The light received from the Hubble was determined to be of a galaxy 800 millions years old.

This means that the light received in Hubble was actually 13 billion years old.

Why is this?

Because the light frequencies that created that image (of an 800 million year old galaxy) began travelling 13 billion years ago. That galaxy was already 800 million years old AT THE STARTING POINT.

That means the galaxy at the time of photgraphy was 13,800,000,000 years old, yet we can only see 13 billion year old light as it hits us. It's not a question of division....it's a quesiton addition.

New light is sent of the 800 million year old galaxy and that light travels 13 billion years until it hits the Hubble at which point it is captured.

It may literally be rocket science, but let us try not to over analyze the situation.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by randomiser]

Originally posted by Welfhard


I'd like to add that in our micro universe, atoms can break down if they are too large and are unstable - perhaps the same principle occurred when the singularity broke down. 99.9999 percent of the atom is empty space. Compare that with the cosmos which is 90% empty space.... Makes you wonder (think about the end of the MIB movie).

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

But if a atom is unstable it is because of pressure differential.

If a atom is to grow in mass it would have to be isolated and Fed more mass. And it would never grow unstable in a isolated environment. That is impossible.

But if a atom is unstable it is because of pressure differential.

If a atom is to grow in mass it would have to be isolated and Fed more mass. And it would never grow unstable in a isolated environment. That is impossible.

No, actually it's called radioactivity. Alpha and beta radiation is due to radioactive isotopes breaking into smaller and more stable particles.

It's like building a tower out of brick. Too big and it'll start to break apart.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard

But if a atom is unstable it is because of pressure differential.

If a atom is to grow in mass it would have to be isolated and Fed more mass. And it would never grow unstable in a isolated environment. That is impossible.

No, actually it's called radioactivity. Alpha and beta radiation is due to radioactive isotopes breaking into smaller and more stable particles.

It's like building a tower out of brick. Too big and it'll start to break apart.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Radiation is charged energy made into matter by pressure.

And when exposed to a pressure differential environment less then its property it will give of radiation. Its as easy as that.

In a nuclear power plant they use pressure to keep the radiation stable for example.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


No.
In a nuclear reactor the rate of the chain reaction is controlled by control rods.
Control rods are made of materials which absorb the neutrons released by nuclear fission. Neutrons from one splitting atom cause another atom to split, this is called a chain reaction. The more neutrons which are absorbed, the slower the chain reaction. If the control rods are removed the reaction will be uncontrolled. If the control rods are inserted all the way, the reaction will cease. Pressure has nothing do to with it.

Only unstable isotopes are radioactive. As pointed out by the previous poster.


[edit on 4/16/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by spy66


And yet it's the heavier atoms that will decay. Neutrally charged atoms of plutonium and uranium will eventually decay at a consistent rate. Some Atoms are so unstable that the don't occur in nature and will occur in the lab for microseconds before decaying.

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by spy66

 

And yet it's the heavier atoms that will decay. Neutrally charged atoms of plutonium and uranium will eventually decay at a consistent rate. Some Atoms are so unstable that the don't occur in nature and will occur in the lab for microseconds before decaying.

Yes but why do the atoms decay. Does it help if i put the question like this?

It has everything to do with pressure. You mention heavy atoms that should be a clue in it self.

Mass=pressure and pressure=mass ????

The rods that the other guy mentioned is just rods with a different mass then the radiation has. Its logical that the radiation goes to the lowest mass first. Or is stabled by a higher mass.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Pressure doesn't equal mass. The mass of an atom doesn't change with pressure - nothing does. The mass of an atom is base on the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Pressure doesn't change the amount of sub-atomic particles in the nucleus. An atom above a certain mass break down because the structural integrity becomes poor, so it falls apart into far more stable atoms/isotopes.

Radioactivity
List of elements by stability of isotopes

If an isotope is unstable, it is more reactive - simple entropy - but there are elements that have no stable isotopes and their nucleus may break into two smaller nuclei typically a slightly smaller nucleus and a hydrogen atom/ion (alpha radiation).

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by Welfhard
Pressure doesn't equal mass. The mass of an atom doesn't change with pressure - nothing does. The mass of an atom is base on the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. Pressure doesn't change the amount of sub-atomic particles in the nucleus. An atom above a certain mass break down because the structural integrity becomes poor, so it falls apart into far more stable atoms/isotopes.

Radioactivity
List of elements by stability of isotopes

If an isotope is unstable, it is more reactive - simple entropy - but there are elements that have no stable isotopes and their nucleus may break into two smaller nuclei typically a slightly smaller nucleus and a hydrogen atom/ion (alpha radiation).

[edit on 16-4-2009 by Welfhard]

Read some more.

The nucleus it self has energy within it working to keep it stable/nutral.

That is pressure/charges at work my friend.

The pressure/charge of the nucleus combined with the pressure charge of the satellite is what determines the distance a satellite can have.

The atom/nucleus it self was formed by depressurising cooling down of matter after the BB.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by randomiser


You are correct in your analysis of the OP, and one thing should be added: the position of these stellar objects could not have occurred in 800 million years even if they traveled at the speed of light.

I would like to propose an idea based on the E=MC^2: the objects may have dispersed at 5 times the speed of light while still in an energy state, lost enough energy to form into matter, then, as matter, began coalescing under the law of gravity.