|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 3, 2013 8:01:01 GMT
Hold on, we [human kind]only just found the higgs field... what it actually does is "We just dont know", as in, the very beginning of science.....
But then maybe, as in, see above?....
From that link...
Which reads exactly the same as the article I posted?...
As in, "We just dont know", as in, again, see above.....
Archaeology exists that sort of says that the entire Mediterranean may have the answers...
Archaeology has found "Sunken ruins" below the surface?..
So the Med used to be a LOT lower than it is?...
Perhaps during an Ice age, it could have been an ENTIRE area that was above sea level.
We just dont know (see above?..) as we dont have enough archaeology to prove/disprove.
Several sites have been suggested....
When they find something, we have proof, until then..........?
I think that article was originally written before Cern's findings.
|
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Oct 3, 2013 8:40:53 GMT
Hold on, we [human kind]only just found the higgs field... what it actually does is "We just dont know", as in, the very beginning of science.....
But then maybe, as in, see above?....
From that link...Which reads exactly the same as the article I posted?...
As in, "We just dont know", as in, again, see above.....
Archaeology exists that sort of says that the entire Mediterranean may have the answers...
Archaeology has found "Sunken ruins" below the surface?..
So the Med used to be a LOT lower than it is?...
Perhaps during an Ice age, it could have been an ENTIRE area that was above sea level.
We just dont know (see above?..) as we dont have enough archaeology to prove/disprove.
Several sites have been suggested....
When they find something, we have proof, until then..........?
I think that article was originally written before Cern's findings.
The second paragraph "Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass." www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html The Higge field is part of the standard model, which deals with amongst other things the Higgs Boson. The Higgs field is central to the standard model giving energy the property of mass. The standard model I believe has been around since the mid sixties and when Higgs and others postulated the theory (1964?). Finding the Higgs bosun only confirmed what what was previously postulated. If we accept the standard model and the discovery of the Higgs boson to be true then matter can only exist within the Higgs field, photons do not exhibit a Higgs field. They have energy and momentum, playing with standard waves in boxes with perfect mirrors (no absorption of light) would be a physicist idea of a pick up line at a party. If you recall When Einstein received conformation that General relativity had accurately predicted light moving in a geodesic path it was the first in a long line of predictions including BH's. That Newtons laws with the mass equivalent of each photon could not predict the bending of light with any comparable accuracy is why we (me being a poser  ) use GR. So the properties of matter are defined by the standard model, light is excluded. The standard model is either correct or not, in which case Cern has something answer for. |
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Dec 5, 2014 5:57:17 GMT
I have a question; for the sake of argument let's go ahead and assume, all the mass in the universe came from a single point. If this is so, how is it that scientist's calculate that our, as well as other galaxies could "collide" into another galaxy? Shouldn't they all be moving away from each other? Okay that's two questions, it seems to me that they are too far apart, and traveling away too fast for gravity to eventually pull two galaxies together.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 5, 2014 12:43:30 GMT
Apparently its quite common.
Although the gravitational pull of galaxies on each other might be small, it has had a long time to take effect. The result is that not all Galxies have the same velocity nor are moving in the exact same direction. I'd also guess that the fact that galaxies spin probably also means that they are not moving in a straight line.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 6, 2014 9:51:45 GMT
And add in something like Brownian motion.... its not the exact here, but that is a good way of explaining random motion.
It is almost safe to assume there were a few major collisions in the early hours of the universe, so not all galaxies are moving in the same general direction of away from central point....
Moving away from each other is a generalisation, they are all moving, yes, in "random" directions, but some at a complete tangent to others, some at 89.9 degrees from the straight line of away from central point, but that 0.01 degree is enough that its moving away from central point.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 6, 2014 9:56:33 GMT
I have a theory, based on my own thoughts on Gravity.
Throw a ball up in the air, for a 100ft of upwards.
What happens next...
Gravity takes over, it falls back down?...
I am keeping this extremely simple.
If all galaxies are balls and they all got thrown up at the same time, from random points around this world, and we are at point 50ft in time of that 100ft throw being a random point to observe....
They all will eventually be drawn back down to the earth.
How do we know this is not true of the universe we see.
How do we all know this doesnt happen on a regular basis.
And yes, I accept, none of us will ever be around to find out, but, hang in with me there for this thought experiment...
Does my theory hold water?... will gravity stretch like an elastic band and eventually snap all those galaxies back?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 7, 2014 0:30:26 GMT
I have a theory, based on my own thoughts on Gravity. Throw a ball up in the air, for a 100ft of upwards. What happens next... Gravity takes over, it falls back down?... I am keeping this extremely simple. If all galaxies are balls and they all got thrown up at the same time, from random points around this world, and we are at point 50ft in time of that 100ft throw being a random point to observe.... They all will eventually be drawn back down to the earth. How do we know this is not true of the universe we see. How do we all know this doesnt happen on a regular basis. And yes, I accept, none of us will ever be around to find out, but, hang in with me there for this thought experiment... Does my theory hold water?... will gravity stretch like an elastic band and eventually snap all those galaxies back?... interesting theory, but it almost presumes that there will be some substantial mass that survives to become a focal point for the falling-down part of the exercise. theoretically, of course, knowing that there is no such thing as true zero gravity, one could say that eventually, the expansion will peter out, and things will begin drawing each other back together. maybe not to the center, though. would the impact be sufficient to compress it to critical mass and recycle the universe? how many cycles would it take for the whole system to grind to halt as you lost energy; or would the system actually operate at unity? (to go along with my favorite comment, "someone's already built a perpetual motion machine, it's called a "universe"") |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 7, 2014 1:10:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 8, 2014 9:04:07 GMT
Being that the light we see from the sun took a few billion years in the generation, as it takes a few years for the stuff to break the surface of the sun, and being that we have no idea how physics works under mass gravitational forces, we know not how the universe would happen if it all "Recycled" as you put it.
"We Just Dont Know", and thats where science begins.
"Big Crunch".
The universe self collapses and becomes a "Black hole"....
How do we know we aint already in one?...
Has light managed to escape the confines of the universe?...
If the answer is no, then why not?...
Its also how do you define the event horizon of a black hole?.. if it is as simple as somewhere where light has not escaped from, then perhaps our universe qualifies?..
How about the combined gravity of the whole universe actually being as much as is enough to prevent light escaping the borders?...
Going back to a previous idea of mine that the universe is one big bubble in space, where space is the greater limits of infinity, and that there are other universe bubbles out there.
What happens when two collide?....
Is the change of gravity created by two mass gravitational bubbles enough to create an incident?...
Does that self perpetuate incidents where Universes are generated?...
I am into the realms of theoretical now, but why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 16, 2014 12:24:01 GMT
I have a theory, based on my own thoughts on Gravity. Throw a ball up in the air, for a 100ft of upwards. What happens next... Gravity takes over, it falls back down?... I am keeping this extremely simple. If all galaxies are balls and they all got thrown up at the same time, from random points around this world, and we are at point 50ft in time of that 100ft throw being a random point to observe.... They all will eventually be drawn back down to the earth. How do we know this is not true of the universe we see. How do we all know this doesnt happen on a regular basis. And yes, I accept, none of us will ever be around to find out, but, hang in with me there for this thought experiment... Does my theory hold water?... will gravity stretch like an elastic band and eventually snap all those galaxies back?... interesting theory, but it almost presumes that there will be some substantial mass that survives to become a focal point for the falling-down part of the exercise. theoretically, of course, knowing that there is no such thing as true zero gravity, one could say that eventually, the expansion will peter out, and things will begin drawing each other back together. maybe not to the center, though. would the impact be sufficient to compress it to critical mass and recycle the universe? how many cycles would it take for the whole system to grind to halt as you lost energy; or would the system actually operate at unity? (to go along with my favorite comment, "someone's already built a perpetual motion machine, it's called a "universe"") What you're referring to there is actually an expansion on the Big Bang/Big Crunch theories, known as the Big Bounce theory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_BounceIt basically states that both the Big Bang and the Big Crunch thories are correct and that's how the Universe works. An endless series of bangs and crunches. Once the Universe loses momentum after a bang, it stops expanding and begins to collapse back into a singularity. When the singularity becomes so small and dense that it can't hold the energy back anymore, it creates a new bang and a new Universe, which might even come out with different laws of physics than the ones we know. That Universe then loses momentum, crunches back down to a singularity again and so on and so forth forever and ever. |
|
) use GR.
