An Analysis Of The Big Bang

[ClaudeGaiven]

Origin Starting Conditions Before Before Big Bang Event 

(Gaiven Conditions)

 

a = 1

b = 1

c = 1

 

=====================================

 

Before Event (bE)

 

 

Distance = x

x = 0

 

Time = y

y = 0

 

Mass = z

z = 0

 

---------------------

a^x + b^y = c^z

a^0 + b ^0 = c^0

1 + 1 != 1;

 

ERROR 2 != 1

---------------------

 

After Event (aE)

 

 

Distance = x

x = 1

 

Time = y

y = 1

 

Mass = z

z = 1

 

-------------------

a^x + b^y = c^z

a^1 + b^1= c^1

1 + 1 != 1

 

ERROR 

2 != 1

------------------

 

Therefore NP == NP & P == P, NP Cannot Equal P in any case unless imposed to do so.

 

bE => All values are static, cannot change a,b,c variables

aE => Can change a,b,c variables, this is where the issues arises, this is where NP can equal P and vise versa

Edited March 25, 2017 by ClaudeGaiven

[OceanBreeze]

By God, I think you are French! Am I right?

[ClaudeGaiven]

Nope American, but I get that confusion a lot 

[Darky]

Origin Starting Conditions Before Before Big Bang Event

(Gaiven Conditions)

 

a = 1

b = 1

c = 1

 

=====================================

 

Before Event (bE)

 

 

Distance = x

x = 0

 

Time = y

y = 0

 

Mass = z

z = 0

 

---------------------

a^x + b^y = c^z

a^0 + b ^0 = c^0

1 + 1 != 1;

 

ERROR 2 != 1

---------------------

 

After Event (aE)

 

 

Distance = x

x = 1

 

Time = y

y = 1

 

Mass = z

z = 1

 

-------------------

a^x + b^y = c^z

a^1 + b^1= c^1

1 + 1 != 1

 

ERROR

2 != 1

------------------

 

Therefore NP == NP & P == P, NP Cannot Equal P in any case unless imposed to do so.

 

bE => All values are static, cannot change a,b,c variables

aE => Can change a,b,c variables, this is where the issues arises, this is where NP can equal P and vise versa

Hi,

 

Why would you use x, y, z as exponents while they should just multiply leading equations of bE being : 0=0.

 

aE would then be : 2=1. So technically after the universe was created, there would be an imbalance. Therefore the universe is expanding nonstop. For every matter destroyed (I don't believe that matter can't be created or destroyed), two more matter is created.

 

Does this clear it?

 

Regards,

Darky.

[suricat]

Its been a long time since I frequented these halls, but here goes.

 

Darky.

You can't substitute a 'zero' for a 'one' without the clarification of your logic for the scenario, but the direct substitution of 'xyz' for 'abc' is plausible.

I need to state my POV on "Big Bang" here. I'm a 'constant state' kind of guy (stuff comes in, stuff goes out and an 'equilibrium' is achieved). To re-state your response:

 

"Why would you use x, y, z as exponents while they should just multiply leading equations of bE being : 0=0.

aE would then be : 2=1. So technically after the universe was created, there would be an imbalance. Therefore the universe is expanding nonstop. For every matter destroyed (I don't believe that matter can't be created or destroyed), two more matter is created."

 

Please get it together Darky. 'Matter' (mass) is interchangeable with 'energy', but 'energy' can't be 'destroyed'! Please remember this.

The "Big Bang" is presumed to be the result of "Red Shift" observations caused by the "Doppler Effect" observed between two bodies moving 'towards', or 'away', to/from oneanother. This 'isn't' the only way that "Red Shift" 'is/can be' generated.

 

"Mass" within the 'EM' (ElectroMagnetic) field causes the passage of EM energy to encounter a 'field fluctuation' (all EM propogated energy is at 'risk' of absorption) to be 'absorbed' in accordance with the 'absorption criteria' of the 'pressented mass', and the 'pressenting EM excitation'. IOW, not all wavelengths of EM radiation 'make it through' to the 'observation point/point of observation'.

 

"Distance", per se, 'includes' more mass by the increase of distance where the 'distribution of mass (though of varied makeup)' within the cosmos is ~average per 'distance covered' unless 'solid particulates, or solid structures' are included within the path of the 'observed EM radiation'. 'Absorption' of the 'shorter wavelengths' may well occour along this path, which results in an observation of 'less shortwave' from the 'source', which again displays "red shift" (a re-apraisal of 'insolation' into Earth's atmosphere will verify this phenomenon).

 

For 'solid structure' and 'solid particulate' interaction, expect a more 'gravity lensing' effect. Though our 'quantum friends' would say that no red shift is possible from this scenario, wavefronts do change direction, which alters their wavelength by way of the geometric 're-direction' of the emited energy (or would this be 'phase change' with a tiny 'red shift' increase for the longer path?).

 

Your thoughts?

 

Best regards, Ray Dart.

Edited May 26, 2017 by suricat

[suricat]

ClaudeGaiven said:

"a = 1
b = 1
c = 1"

These are 'start points' of 'arrays' for different 'fields'!

 

"Distance = x
x = 0
 
Time = y
y = 0
 
Mass = z
z = 0"

 

Now you've named the 'arrays', but unfortunately an 'xyz' nomenclature would/could be confused with a co-ordinate point.

 

"a^x + b^y = c^z"

 

An 'array' can't be 'added' to 'another array' with any 'meaningful product'. What are you trying to do???

Best regards, Ray Dart.

[suricat]

suricat said @ Posted Today, 02:26 AM:

 

"..."

 

Perhaps it would help if you altered your "a^x + b^y = c^z" equation to 'a^x @ b^y = c^z'???

 

Best regards, Ray.

[atomsplit]

An Analysis Of The Big Bang

 It is human nature that we must have a beginning and an end to everything. In this case it is the “big bang” that started it all while in fact there does not have to be a beginning. That is why we created the term “infinite”.

With the Hubble telescope

 and the James web cosmic star gazer

 We have discovered billions of suns and billions of planets circling them. 

 The above picture is just a small fraction of what is out there.

The odds are 1,000 to 1 that life exists out there.

The odds are 1,000 to 1 that our planet has been and still is being observed by aliens,

I believe the reason they have not shown themselves is based on the star trek code, the “Prime Directive”,

The Prime Directive is one of many guidelines for Starfleet's mandate to explore the galaxy and "seek out new life and new civilizations." Although the concept of the Prime Directive has been alluded to and paraphrased by many Star Trek characters during the television series and feature films, the actual directive has never been provided to viewers. The most complete attempts to define the directive have come from non-canonical works and include:

The Prime Directive prohibits Starfleet personnel and spacecraft from interfering in the normal development of any society, and mandates that any Starfleet vessel or crew member is expendable to prevent violation of this rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive

Sorry, unable to load images

Edited April 30, 2023 by atomsplit
clarity

[atomsplit]

[oldpaddoboy]

The prime directive is a imagined scenario from the excellent science fiction Star Trek series and movies. I loved them all. The reasons why we have not as yet made any contact with extra terrestrial intelligence are time and distance. Are they there? Is there any life at all out there? The facts as they stand, is that at this time we have no evidence of any life off this Earth, intelligent or otherwise, but the "near infinite" extent of the universe, and the "near infinite" content of stars and planets, plus the stuff of life being everywhere we look, has most scientists and cosmologists believing it should exist, somewhere, sometime.