Alternative theories to Big Bang

[InfiniteNow]

I get carried away with links sorry.

Hi Harry,

 

As long as it's not copyrighted material, maybe you could quote small sections from within those links indicating what part you think is most relevant. It makes it much easier for the rest of us, and might even whet one's appetite to launch the link and read the whole article. :)

 

 

Now, here's another way that plasma is really cool: :eek:

 

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/431/oehrlein.html

 

Plasma etching is currently widely used in the fabrication of silicon-based integrated circuits. The process is used to produce high-resolution patterns in many of the thin layers of the circuits and to selectively remove masking layers [1, 2] ; it is based on the following sequence of microscopic reaction steps. Electrons are accelerated by rf or microwave electric fields and collide inelastically with suitable precursor molecules to produce ions, atoms, and radicals. A complex mixture of reactive species is produced. Neutral and ionic reactive species strike the surfaces that are in contact with them to form productsthat are volatile. The consequences of plasma-surfaceinteractions are to a significant extent controlled by the incident ion fluxes and their energies.

 

 

Cheers. :D

[Qfwfq]

That's right Harry, fair use isn't even a problem with copyright material and the essential is to say exactly why you find someone's definition of plasma to be limited. It's easy to make accusations like that without support.

[Harry Costas]

Hello all

 

Smile thank you for the info infinitenow.

 

Hello Qfwfqw we are all limited to what we know. I for one know very little and the more info i read the less I know. Boy! am I limited.

 

Still,,,,,,,,does not hurt to discuss

 

Again thnak you for your discussions.

 

I'll be back.

 

Have to pick up the kids

[FRIPRO]

FRIPRO,

 

To clarify a slight misunderstanding, Harry never attached a link to his posting. The "plasma" link you viewed is part of a new advertising system that has been implemented on Hypo to help bring in money for maintenance and server stuff. It had absolutely nothing to do with Harry's post, just was inserted by the new ad system. You will see these throughout the threads now... Hope that clarifies.

 

 

Cheers. :friday:

 

 

Thank you for the information, I really did not realize that the red underline was a link to and advertising system. I thought that it was his link HA! Live and learn FRIPRO http://www.fripro.com/Universe.html

[FRIPRO]

Hi Fellow HSF strings

You asked for more:

 

Here is more of the WIT particle Hypothesis. I tried to keep it simple, high school math--here goes

 

For a excellent demonstration of mass waves in most any medium, refer to Cerenkov's Light Radiation Movie produced by FNAL Visual Media Services. This video on-line is analogist to mass-waves in the Universe's ether atmosphere's dark matter.

 

DeBroglie's mass wave theory 1924 mc² = hƒ was converted into the (cgs metric system) by FRIPRO to show WIT particle mass in grams. My WIT particle hypothesis for the Universe's ether's atmospheric dark mass. Note: throughout these calculations v is frequency in hertz.

 

1. E^1= hv h is Planck's constant 6.62559x10-27 erg.sec

 

2. E^2= mc^2 Einstein's c = velocity of UV light = (2.99792457x10^10 cm /sec)

 

3. E^1 = E^2 or hv = mc^2 Solving for m

 

m = h v / c^2 h and c^2 are constants, thus Fairbairn's Hypothesis is k^f = h/c2

 

k^f = 6.62559x10-27erg.sec /(2.99792457x1010 cm / sec)^2 for UV light

 

k^f = 7. 371963x 10 -48 erg . sec / (cm / sec)^2

 

Note: Fairbairn's hypothesis means that the ether atmosphere of the Universe may consist of mass particles from 10^-48 grams for UV light and to 10^-33 grams for one hertz radiation in space.

 

Therefore each particle is resonant to it own particle mass. Therefore the mass of an Ether particle may be different for each wave length in the dark matter of the ether Universe. The electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves is 10^5 to ultraviolet 10^15 Hz.

 

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS SIMPLIFIED

 

 

m=k^f ν = 7.371963 x 10^-48 g . sec X 1 hertz

 

m=k^f v = 7.371963 x 10^-48 g . sec / sec = 7.371963x 10^-48 g

 

M =7.371963x 10^-48 g is Mass in grams for the UV WIT particle. M^w

 

M^w =7.371963x 10^-48 grams

 

Dimensional analysis (simplifying unit conversion) of the above formula performed by Charles L. Nicewonder, Professor of Math. at Owens Community College. (Note: the dimensional analysis of the complex units is very important, as it resolves the complex units into a simple gram unit for the mass of a WIT particle).

 

Fairbairn said: "Seeing the mass Mw in grams was electrifying. I now realized that I had the ether's basic WIT particle's mass value for transmitting ultraviolet waves....in ether atmosphere of the Universe"

 

Planck's constant implies that radiant energy in space exist in discrete quanta. Fairbairn hypothesis is the Universe's ether particles mass is different value for different Wit particle mass across the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

FRIPRO: ^ stands for exponent and sub only way I know how herein

[Mike C]

Besides the Big Bang, what are some other physical theories of how the Universe was created.

Doesnt steady state theory propose that there was no birth of the Universe?

 

Yes! My version of the SSU is that there was no beginning and there will be no end.

This is because it is in compliance with the Laws of Conservation of Matter, Energy, Charge and Momentum.

It is also in compliance with the M-M Interferometry experiments and the Arp Redshift Anomalies.

This implies that you cannot create or destroy matter, but only transform it.

 

On the other hand, the BBT has no compliance to any of these Laws and the M-M E's and Arps cosmological RSA's.

 

I have provided another explanation for the Cosmological Redshift that refutes the BB version of 'space expsansion'.

Therefore, I consider the BBT to be cosmoGONY rather than cosmology.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

We don't even know if that is the case. The questions you pose are questions which the standard theory have to deal with, and have dealt with for decades. They are not new. The big bang theory came out of Hubble's observations of redshift and the predicted cooling of the background radiation, neither if which would explain *why* the Big Bang occured.

 

However, recent news indicate that we can see back to the first trillionth of a second (see http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/5815-new-big-bang-evidence.html for more), which means that we are indeed closing in on the Big Bang.

 

As to what was before it, who knows. There are some around here who thinks that the big bang was just a local effect in an infinite universe.

 

I am in agreement with EWight in the web article that this WMAP data is based on the flimsiast evidence of what the CMB tells us.

 

I read an article in Sky & Telescope magazine (May, 2008, p 18) by a scientist that was part of the WMAP team (Gary Hinshaw) that may be of interest to some.

One illustration shows a 'sonic boom' that preceded the CMB radiation?

I also thought the fractional differences in the temperature of this radiation was .000,007 K's as earlier mentioned.

The latest figure in one illustration mentions it as .0002K in difference.

 

Cosmo

[Zythryn]

Yes! My version of the SSU is that there was no beginning and there will be no end.

 

Doesn't this break the second law of thermodynamics?

The amount of entropy in a system, over time, will increase.

[Mike C]

Doesn't this break the second law of thermodynamics?

The amount of entropy in a system, over time, will increase.

 

No. In the SSU, there is a beginning and end for the stars, galaxies and

'photons'.

 

So this is a contiuous recycling process.

 

I said the 'photons' are the sources of the cosmological redshifts as observed and are expanding.

So these photons continue on out to ifinity and oblivion while new photons are being created by the new stars being created from the intergalactic gases.

 

I do not know exactly how you are using the 'entropy' word since it is a complex of meanings.

Do you mean that disorder is increasing?

 

Mike C

 

.

[Zythryn]

I do not know exactly how you are using the 'entropy' word since it is a complex of meanings.

Do you mean that disorder is increasing?

 

Not looking into redshift or anything like that. Just a very basic question of 'does your hypothesis of the universe follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics'?

 

Here is a definition of the meaning that I think most closely fits this question:

'For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.'*

 

*from entropy - definition of entropy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[modest]

Not looking into redshift or anything like that. Just a very basic question of 'does your hypothesis of the universe follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics'?

 

Here is a definition of the meaning that I think most closely fits this question:

'For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.'*

 

*from entropy - definition of entropy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

The usual SSU answer is that new hydrogen is continually created and the universe is expanding. This would keep entropy steady but obviously violates the first law.

 

I doubt this is MikeC's position however. There seems to be a common misconception that SSU = static and not expanding.

 

Is that your position MikeC, that space is not expanding?

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Not looking into redshift or anything like that. Just a very basic question of 'does your hypothesis of the universe follow the 2nd law of thermodynamics'?

 

Here is a definition of the meaning that I think most closely fits this question:

'For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.'*

 

*from entropy - definition of entropy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

Yes.

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics says that 'in a closed system, heat can only flow from hot to cold until a state of equilibrium is reached'.

 

This would apply to the CMBR only. Not to the entire SSU system.

 

So in the SSU, the CMBR has reached a state of equilibrium except for that tiny fractional difference of just .000,007K(?)

I am not exactly sure just how small that difference is but it is very close to being in complete equilibrium.

 

Regarding the SSU, the entire system is in a state of equilibrium since what energies are lost (photons) that leave the system are replaced with new star formations radiating new photons.

This way, there is no 'build up or lost energy'.

 

Mike C

 

.

[Mike C]

The usual SSU answer is that new hydrogen is continually created and the universe is expanding. This would keep entropy steady but obviously violates the first law.

 

I doubt this is MikeC's position however. There seems to be a common misconception that SSU = static and not expanding.

 

Is that your position MikeC, that space is not expanding?

 

-modest

 

Yes. My version of the SSU is not an extension of the Hoyle et al universe.

They apperently accepted the BBT of an 'expanding space'.

 

My SSU is a flat space with no expansion or contraction because it had no beginning or will have an end like the BBT teaches..

In other words, it complies with the Conservation of Matter Law.

 

Mike C

[Zythryn]

Yes.

...

This would apply to the CMBR only. Not to the entire SSU system.

...

Regarding the SSU, the entire system is in a state of equilibrium since what energies are lost (photons) that leave the system are replaced with new star formations radiating new photons.

This way, there is no 'build up or lost energy'.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that part of the universe follows the second law of thermodynamics (SLOT) but the other part does not?

 

As I understand it, entropy does not mean the loss of energy, but how that energy is structured (ie energy available to do work).

 

If part of your universe follows this law, why not all of it?

[modest]

If an analogy would be helpful Mike,

 

If the universe is like a tub and the CMB is like the water then we can describe entropy like this:

 

The water is cold. We drop in some glowing hot chunks of lead (representing stars). Now we have a tub full of cold water and hot lead chunks. The laws of entropy tell us what will happen next. The second law of thermodynamics says heat will only go from the hotter thing to the colder thing. It will go from the lead to the water. Eventually the lead and water are expected to find an equilibrium where they are both the same temperature. This is the second law and nothing humans have ever accomplished or witnessed has broken the second law.

 

We therefore expect your universe (which is infinitely old) to have found an equilibrium. The dust in space, nebula, planets, stars - everything would be the same temperature. Clearly not the case.

 

Unless you can explain how the lead is always hotter than the water - there's an unanswered problem.

 

-modest

[Mike C]

Please correct me if I am wrong, you are saying that part of the universe follows the second law of thermodynamics (SLOT) but the other part does not?

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to the CMBR that is very close to equalibrium. Therefore, I do not see how you can extract any energy from these space particles.

This entropy thing is simply not valid as applied to the universe.

 

As I understand it, entropy does not mean the loss of energy, but how that energy is structured (ie energy available to do work).

 

If part of your universe follows this law, why not all of it?

 

The stars supp;ly practically all the energy in the universe and it is primarily absorbed by the plants for growth.

Most of the fossil fuels are from former living plants that were buried deep under.

The rest of the energy is derived fron human inventions.

 

I really do not see how you can apply entropy here except to evaluate some new ideas for energy developement.

This would not apply to the entropy thing as far as the universe is concerned.

 

Mike C

.

[Mike C]

If an analogy would be helpful Mike,

 

If the universe is like a tub and the CMB is like the water then we can describe entropy like this:

 

The water is cold. We drop in some glowing hot chunks of lead (representing stars). Now we have a tub full of cold water and hot lead chunks. The laws of entropy tell us what will happen next. The second law of thermodynamics says heat will only go from the hotter thing to the colder thing. It will go from the lead to the water. Eventually the lead and water are expected to find an equilibrium where they are both the same temperature. This is the second law and nothing humans have ever accomplished or witnessed has broken the second law.

 

We therefore expect your universe (which is infinitely old) to have found an equilibrium. The dust in space, nebula, planets, stars - everything would be the same temperature. Clearly not the case.

 

Unless you can explain how the lead is always hotter than the water - there's an unanswered problem.

 

-modest

 

Applying the idea of using entropy to solve the energy available from the universe is like doing one of Einsteins 'thought' experiments.

This would be a universal problem beyond our needs, uness maybe we were planning to take a trip around the universe and had to tap the energies in various ways to keep us travelling. Ha ha.

 

Mike C