Can Space be created within space?
in [Physics]
|
From: bert on 1 Aug 2010 09:06 On Aug 1, 8:29 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 7:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/31/10 11:49 PM, Kali Hawa wrote: > > > > Can a bigbang occur within our Universe? > > > Why not? > > I find the cosmic firecracker model to be a little incomplete. > > If motions in different reference frames can be equivalent, then > cosmic expansion is equivalent to local contraction. You cannot > conclude from redshift that we neccesarily have expansion. > > If we were contracting locally you would have the same redshift. > > These things are equivalent. We are detecting in outer space explosions that use the energy of the whole universe. That is a mini big bang. Our universe was created in a universe. There are as many universes as flakes of snow in a storm that is infinite. The very first universe was created 10^39 years ago in an area of space this small. A meter devided by 10^33 TreBert
From: Y.Porat on 1 Aug 2010 09:16 On Aug 1, 2:02 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/31/10 11:49 PM, Kali Hawa wrote: > > > Can a bigbang occur within our Universe? > > Why not? -------------- idiot space is nothing so how can a nothing be created from another nothing !! you are not a physicist go deal with philosophy and even in phylosophy you dont make any sense Y.P ----------------------
From: Y.Porat on 1 Aug 2010 09:18 On Aug 1, 2:29 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 7:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/31/10 11:49 PM, Kali Hawa wrote: > > > > Can a bigbang occur within our Universe? > > > Why not? > > I find the cosmic firecracker model to be a little incomplete. > > If motions in different reference frames can be equivalent, then > cosmic expansion is equivalent to local contraction. You cannot > conclude from redshift that we neccesarily have expansion. > > If we were contracting locally you would have the same redshift. > > These things are equivalent. ---------------- the motion of light is the same in all frames!! so red shift has nothing todo with relativity Y.P ------------------
From: john on 1 Aug 2010 11:35 On Aug 1, 7:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/1/10 7:29 AM, Huang wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 7:02 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/31/10 11:49 PM, Kali Hawa wrote: > > >>> Can a bigbang occur within our Universe? > > >> Why not? > > > I find the cosmic firecracker model to be a little incomplete. > > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html You are pounding a bible, Sam. And that bible relies morethan a little on questionable assumptions, faulty logic, and outright guess; i.e. mass is a constant, gravity can cause matter to self-implode, and dark matter. The last one bothers me the most. Dark matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, here, but we are trying to determine why the matter we can see gravitates the way it does, are we not? We are trying to learn more about matter. Which we already know a lot about, since we can see, feel, hear, taste, etc. its presence. So now we invent a whole new type (class?) of matter (which we know absolutely nothing about nor can we know anything about it since it's INVISIBLE) in order to try to explain our matter??? Who's in charge here? Frick, frick, fire their frickin asses!! Fire 'em!! john
From: Jacko on 1 Aug 2010 14:23
What is the characteristic impedence of space, and why would nothing have an impedance? |