Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Buffy

A vision without action is called a daydream; but then again, action without a vision is called a nightmare,
Buffy

Your response was just SOOO Good! I have to bow to your eloquence at how you
presented. I could not have said near as good let alone any better.

I beg your indulgence on to quote the last sentence above. I have got to use that
it was so lovely.





maddog

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by maddog

I beg your indulgence on to quote the last sentence above. I have got to use that it was so lovely.

I can't take credit for it: it has Buffy's Asterisk () on it, so you need to look it up!

Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns; he should be drawn and quoted,
Buffy

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

To be fee to think what you want goes without saying.

As for compact matter, as I mentioned before you can also call it and also refered to as degenerate matter, ultra dense compact matter, ultra dense plasma matter, dark matter, dark energy and there is other names.


Such as in this link

On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center
[astro-ph/0512211] On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center
Authors: Avery E. Broderick (1), Ramesh Narayan (1,2) ((1) Institute for Theory and Computation, (2) Harvard University)
(Submitted on 8 Dec 2005 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2006 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We consider a model in which Sgr A*, the 3.5x10^6 M_sun supermassive black hole candidate at the Galactic Center, is a compact object with a surface. Given the very low quiescent luminosity of Sgr A* in the near infrared, the existence of a hard surface, even in the limit in which the radius approaches the horizon, places severe constraints upon the steady mass accretion rate in the source, requiring dM/dt < 10^-12 M_sun/yr. This limit is well below the minimum accretion rate needed to power the observed submillimeter luminosity of Sgr A*. We thus argue that Sgr A* does not have a surface, i.e., it must have an event horizon. The argument could be made more restrictive by an order of magnitude with microarcsecond resolution imaging, e.g., with submillimeter VLBI.

Maddog said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
If the BBT is correct than the biggest problem that it cannot explain is the formation of the super cluster of cluster of local galaxies where in the centre lives a monster so called black hole that has jets ejecting matter far greater than the matter accreting to the black hole.

Unsupported -- not true - unfounded -- Just conjecture on your part.

What part do you think is unsupported and what part is general information?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluto
Where does this matter come from? There is no magic in this.

Basically has been said before in the last couple of posts, including mine.
Best method I can think of would be Hawking Radiation around a fast rotating
Black Hole.

This is in reference to ejected jet matter being greater than infalling matter into black holes.
It has little to do with Hawking Radiation. This is a very slow process. Even though Steven Hawkings agrees that matter can escape from a black hole.

If the matter ejected is greater than the infalling,
Where does the matter come from?
It must come from the stored matter inside the core of the black hole.
How it does this is the issue that I'm trying to understand.

As for a cyclic process

Just look at the formation of stars and phase stages and the cyclic processes that are involved. Similar with galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation. This is general information and google can give it to you.

I do not issist on anybody reading the links that I put forward, I find them interesting whether I agree with them or not.

As for the attact on my posting, I feel sorry that I have offended some, it is not done intensionally.

As fr compact objects

This link is also interesting

Electromagnetic jets from compact objects
Electromagnetic jets from compact objects

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for compact matter, as I mentioned before you can also call it and also refered to as degenerate matter, ultra dense compact matter, ultra dense plasma matter, dark matter, dark energy and there is other names.

The proper, scientific term which would avoid confusion is "degenerate matter". This refers to matter which has higher than normal density because it is compressed to such a degree that it is supported by degeneracy pressure rather than only being supported by normal thermal pressure.

Dark matter and dark energy are NOT synonymous with degenerate matter. Dark matter is unseen or 'missing' matter which has a measurable gravitational effect. Dark energy is an energy density associated with empty space which has negative pressure, also having a measurable gravitational effect.

While theories have been put forward claiming that quark matter/strange matter (which could also be a form of degenerate matter) may be responsible for dark matter effects, the terms "degenerate matter" and "dark matter" are certainly not equivalent.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Such as in this link

On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center
[astro-ph/0512211] On The Nature of the Compact Dark Mass at the Galactic Center

This paper never once says "dark matter", because the term 'dark matter' is meant to refer to something different than 'degenerate matter'. It uses the term 'dark mass' interchangeably with 'compact object' which both refer in this case to a likely supermassive black hole.

It's also notable that you've once again posted a paper that disagrees with your position completely. It argues strongly against your idea of a compact object made of degenerate matter at the galactic core.

Originally Posted by Pluto

What part do you think is unsupported and what part is general information?

It's all unsupported

Maddog is correct. You have claimed these things as fact, but done nothing to support, explain, or validate it. That's what unsupported means. It means you said something was true, but didn't offer any corroborating argument or evidence.

It's not the responsibility of everyone else to work proving your claims false. It's your responsibility to support your claims. Can you prove that supermassive black holes eject more matter than they accrete? Can you prove that galactic superclusters are incompatible with BBT? Or, is this just unfounded conjecture?

~Modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

Degenerate matter can be used, it is a matter or choice.

Many papers refer to it as compact matter or ultra dense plasma matter.

But! thats not the point.

As far as supporting general information that you can google, if there is a question I do not mind.

But! I do not like the attitude of late.

I will keep my responses as simple as possible.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

This is in reference to ejected jet matter being greater than infalling matter into black holes. It has little to do with Hawking Radiation. This is a very slow process. Even though Steven Hawkings agrees that matter can escape from a black hole.

I may have been a bit flippant and I will have to rethink what I was getting at wrt
to Jet near Black Holes (i.e. Hawking Radiation, etc). Be that as it may. Jets
CATEGORICALLY CAN NOT COME from within the Event Horizon of a Black Hole ! <<<CAN NOT>>> This limitation is physics -- plane and simple.
To do so would exceed C as escape velocity.

So any method for "cycling" in a Black Hole requires that this process be outside of the Event Horizon. Matter falling in converts a lot of energy from
potential to kinetic. Jet are viable and may even be common around BH. I
will ponder this some more and may even look up some recent theories on the
subject.

Originally Posted by Pluto

If the matter ejected is greater than the infalling,
Where does the matter come from? It must come from the stored matter inside the core of the black hole. How it does this is the issue that I'm trying to understand.

It does not as already stated above. Jets are likely process outside of the Event Horizon.

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for a cyclic process[:]
Just look at the formation of stars and phase stages and the cyclic processes that are involved. Similar with galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation. This is general information and google can give it to you.

This is where you go unfounded. Right here.
The formation of stars plus the galaxy evolution and cluster galaxy formation are all processes of an evolving nature and are definitely asymmetric with time. Whereas "cyclical processes have an inherent time symmetry where like Deja' Vu you can be somewhat repeating a part of a process from before.

You can form new stars from old star stuff yet they form NEW stars that won't be like the OLD stars. So a galaxy will change forward one way in time.

So like others have said here you need to "Qualify" your assertion above in what you Mean! Especially wrt to "Cycling".

Originally Posted by Pluto

As for the attac[k] on my posting, I feel sorry that I have offended some, it is not done intensionally.

Any such animosity has been brought on by yourself (as Buffy has said SO Well in a previous Post). If I were you I would read her post about 10 Times so maybe you comprehend what she is really saying.

I have been following your posts for some time in this thread. There is some good things in what you say. It is just riddled with such stuff that is hard to swallow. This is not about agreement. It is about following logic and forming a
conclusion. You just often state things as though a conclusion has been made
when being modest might only be a conjecture or hypothesis or sometimes even a mangled thought. Now I wonder could this be just Ignorance or just Pomposity ? Every time I read where you erred on the Nightmare side of Buffy's cohen, I keep considering the latter.

This is not so much an "attack" as you say, it is a plea for you to get Rigorous.



maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

I agree with you.

Like I said before a cyclic process has various descriptions.

I never said that a cyclic process gets you back to the same place. But! I agree with what you said.

We are fully awear of the processes in stars and galaxy eolution. Without a recyling process, the age of the parts would be infinite without rejuvination. Evolution brings change.

If I was to explain the cyclic processes with respect to the parts that make up the universe I would be taking it from general information, any book can explain.

[Little Bang]

The vast majority of the scientific community believes that the universe started with the Big Bang. That majority also includes most of the real brains, the standard model enthusiasts, and the quantum theorist. I would like to ask a rather simple question, of what was the Big Bang composed in the first 10^-43 seconds?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Little Bang

The vast majority of the scientific community believes that the universe started with the Big Bang. That majority also includes most of the real brains, the standard model enthusiasts, and the quantum theorist. I would like to ask a rather simple question, of what was the Big Bang composed in the first 10^-43 seconds?

Little Bang,

That is a Really Good Question !

Sad, that the moment is less than a good answer. To effectively answer you without mostly opinions on my part or baseless conjecture would require a greater understanding of where both GR and QFT meet (Quantum Gravity). This is because you are very near Plank Time (if not already at it). Processes that were going on in that brief moment would require this knowledge / understanding.

It is for this reason, I do not like theorizing about what the universe was doing near that moment. Too much guesswork / conjecture / unfounded theories.

I start to lose confidence below 10^-6 seconds after (let alone log -43!).



maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I never said that a cyclic process gets you back to the same place. But! I agree with what you said.

It doesn't ? What did you agree with. I have said a lot.

Originally Posted by Pluto

We are fully awear of the processes in stars and galaxy eolution. Without a recyling process, the age of the parts would be infinite without rejuvination. Evolution brings change.

???

Originally Posted by Pluto

If I was to explain the "cyclic processes" with respect to the parts that make up the universe I would be taking it from general information, any book can explain.

Let me get this straight -- you are saying I should take out some "general information" on "cyclic processes" and that is what you mean by it -- so that you can therefore make ANY Claim You Like and not have to explain or corroborate in some way.

It is this which limits your credibility. I am already Clear this general information definition of "cyclic processes" is not Yours.

Really ###





maddog