Solar System of Universes

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

So we have to observe it from its surroundings and the properties that it
shows. Also from its possible birth. By stydying ultra dense matter such as we find in Neutron stars and quark stars

Harry, have you heard of the "no hair" theorem? It more or less states that once the black hole forms, you cannot gather any information about what it was before... and that there are only 3 things that we can find about them... mass, electrical charge, and angular momentum.

Now, some theories suggest that we could determine more about what object came before the hole's birth by studying gravitational waves, or ripples in spacetime curvature, however, we have not yet been effective at doing this on anything more than paper.

Perhaps it would be advantagous for you to start a thread on Ultra Dense matter, or neutron stars, or quark stars... as you've brought these up in each of your posts without offering back up or further ideas or anything else...

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

What do youthink I mean?
Next time do not put your own meaning into the words I say.

By default, your request is impossible. The entire universe passes through my perceptual filters before it reaches my consciousness. When I interpret your words, I cannot help but put my own meaning into them. Everyone here is the same on that matter. Even you will interpret my words only after they've passed through your filters... while I try to ensure I am perceiving accurately, it's also up to you to communicate your thoughts effectively to the world around you.

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

If you want me to respond to some issues I will on astronomy only.

Okay... whatever floats your boat.


...which of course is buoyancy...

[Harry Costas]

Hello Tomod

What part did you want me to back up?

red shift comment
quote:link:http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

"These sets of objects are not illusions or mirages - rather, they are visual proof that Arp is indeed correct in what he says: Young, high redshift objects are ejected from the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Seyfert galaxies. The images show exactly that happening.

The most (in)famous of these supposed "mirages" is the so-called "Einstein Cross" which is simply another example of objects in the process of being formed and ejected from the nucleus of an active galaxy. Arp has observed plasma clouds (whose light is strongly redshifted) connecting the ejected objects in the Einstein Cross.

So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages" (their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories. Their attitude is, "Don't believe what you see; believe what we tell you!"

Arp says we should believe our own eyes rather than the tall tales of black-holes, and gravitational lensing told by the defenders of mainstream astronomy and cosmology whose continued research funding depends on their not rocking the boat of established theory"

Big Ban busted by 33 scientists;
re link:http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

quote:
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation." and so on read the link

star fomations
see links
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/...Star+Formation
http://www2.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/StarForm.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/ga...ages_ysos.html

Nulea synthesis in stars
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...nucsyn.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ucbin2.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...fusion.html#c1

our sun the Iron star
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960521.html
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_...SunLayers.html
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm

[ryan2006]

Harry I am sorry I can not e-mail you it is flooded write now and I have to set up an entirely different account. I have enjoyed your support as a friend since we were introduced my mailing address is on the other site if you feel so inclined to write me like I said I enjoy discussing the universe with you. You can find my mailing address in the members section. Hope to hear from you Ryan.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

Nice to see you

Keep well

[InfiniteNow]

You seem to see the atom as a small solar system. Check out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

The Bohr model is not a complete model of the atom, and fails to explain many of the finer structures seen in atoms. As a theory, it has been replaced by quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics.

A more accurate depiction is a description of atomic orbitals and electron configuration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration

Classically, the atomic orbitals can be thought of as similar to the orbits of the planets around the Sun. However, it is important to note that the atomic orbitals cannot actually be described classically. In fact, explaining the behaviour of the electrons that orbit an atom was one of the driving forces behind quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, the atomic orbitals are the quantum states that electrons surrounding an atom may exist in.

Your analogies are interesting, and it's nice to see that you are trying to think of new ideas, but why waste a bunch of time thinking of things which have long since been proven otherwise? Look at some of the information and at least give yourself a level footing from which to start.


Cheers.

[ryan2006]

I don't believe my ideas interchange at all my model of the universe and its hypothesis rests. Like the earth rotatates around the sun our universe rotates around a sunburst that which supplies more than one universe in orbit with energy. Further like our solar system is in the milky way I believe it is very possible for a solar system of universes to be in a galaxy of universes I have not created but one word here and that is sunburst. Also in my model like an electron that jumps out of orbit our universe could have jumped out of orbit and went through a vacume and ended up on the other side where we are now thus the big bang all matter and energy ect exploding from some other place and time. It is a reasonable hypothesis but in our life time we will never be able to prove it just enjoy the idea and maybe you'll come up with your own idea. As far as being infinite I believe our universe is a finite circle in an infinite world of space and time.

Sincerely,

Ryan J. Henningsgaard

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

The rotation factor is common without a question.

As to the finite, no way.

As for the Big Bang, no way.

<spamlink removed>

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm


Within the next few years there will be more deep field images and with that many cosmologists are going to change their thinking huts.

Until than, belief is an emotion that can trap a person in thinking with tunnel vision.

Try to think of the Universe as one, and the parts within as just parts, regardless of their size.


Regards

Harry

[ryan2006]

Harry did you ever take geometry or trigometry? A circle or sphere with many lines or just one line drawn around the perimeter of the circle. The finite is the circle because it is a closed system but the line drawn could go on forever we'll call that infinite my description of a solar system of universes in a galaxy of universes should be able to spark enough intelligence in you to be able to say o.k. it is possible that there is a bunch of these spheres so many that they go on forever bubbles in the ocean for example until the system grows larger in scale and keeps growing I am just saying that it is ordered. Before I knew about axis research to our universe or Paul Davies multiuniverse theory I came up with the idea simply with the knowledge from a few books I had read. Draw a 90degree angle and then use corner as point zero draw a curved line and the line ends in a circle draw a straight line and it goes on forever but there are two sides a and b so that it must come back together I wish I could sit down and show you it is hard for me to explain this. To many lengths the human mind is unable and his understanding so incomprehensible to understand the infinite all you can do is let a line called infinity go on forever without end without beginning. All I am saying is that there are circles spheres that make a finite world exsist in an infinite one. Small pond or incomprehensible pond? That you have to ask Harry.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Ryan

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,love your comment.

The only problem with your logic is this. Rename your universes into units, because there is only one Universe that cannot be bent, twisted, expanded add os subtract from it. Its just a word to mean "ALL".

Now within that "ALL" you can have multi-units (universes with finite dimensions)

Do you get my drift

Keep well and cool,,,,,,,,,smile and relax,,,,,,,,,and your mind will be open,,,,
Harry

[ryan2006]

I get your drift Harry and I respect your view it isn't much different than what I said in the beginning of this topic page though. Infinite, Eternal, and "All" mean the same thing without a beginning and without an end. Since we can not measure the size of infinity, or eternity it is beyond our comprehension and thus we can not say unit one our universe unit two another universe Ok so you have a super computer put a 1 and then try to put as many zero as it can behind that 1 and run the computer for 80 years. For Example 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 and so on you have the computer process at the speed of light and you call the number light years now your talking about space and time which is a long way from what I can ever understand I have a hard enough time balancing my check book. The point is we can not fathom infinitity or eternity you can only imagine the size by thinking outside the box. and still you come infinitely short of understanding. There are no words that can describe the size of the universe or the universe for that matter.