Why, it's not that you or me can download and run it at home.Michael Mozina wrote:...as a programmer by trade, I think this is very interesting computer simulation that you might appreciate.
Three cheers for harry, the BBT theory......Bah humbug.
It even sounds dumb.
Long, long ago there was this real big bang, and that's how the universe came into being. Get real !
harry wrote:Hello rclay
The general view is that all matter including EMR are lost into a black hole,but for the slight release of radiation Hawking radiation. See Michaels link
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Carne ... e_999.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes
In my opinion Black Holes are compacted matter that shows similar behaviour as other compacted matter that is able to release energy and matter from creating spirals from within rather than from out. These spirals can only be explained by Plasma science and the forces required to produce these are part of the nucleon and serve to reform galaxies and recycle matter.
Why is this so? Well not that I think along the BBT. But the BBT allows such motion in theory as part of the Origin of the universe.
The links above refer to the BBT as part of their logic and computer model simulation.
I do not think along the BBT, but of a recycling universe.
harry wrote:Hello Neried
If it is that simple I would just copy and paste.
At this present moment, I'm trying to get my head around plasma science and the properties of plasma to explain the issues.
There is so much info on the subject.
Google for plasma cosmology and the electric universe.
I have not originated the thoughts along plasma cosmology.
Smile, I hope some scientists out there, drop in and give us a front line explanation.
As for my opinion. Do your own research.
The trouble is harry, astrophysicists have done the research, and found there's nothing in plasma cosmology (PC) and electric universe (EU) ideas*.
I have my theory of quantum turboperplexism dealing with issues of subatomic intelligence. Could you please supply papers saying my theory has nothing to offer?harry wrote:I see no evidence that tells me that Plasma Cosmology has nothing to offer.
Please supply such papers.
Yep, in the past there was some discussion about how to deal with it, I was all for explicitly forbidding any sorts of such attacks AND enforcing it, but Nereid went other way, she forbids discussion of anything not published in scientific media AND DOES NOT enforce it, hence the chaos continuesTHX1138 wrote:What‘s with this site, everyone taking shots at other peoples ideas
In the context of the standard model of particle physics, there is a definite upper limit to the density of stable compact stars. However, if a more fundamental level of elementary particles exists, in the form of preons, stability may be re-established beyond this limiting density. We show that a degenerate gas of interacting fermionic preons does allow for stable compact stars, with densities far beyond that in neutron stars and quark stars. In keeping with tradition, we call these objects “preon stars”, even though they are small and light compared to white dwarfs and neutron stars. We briefly note the potential importance of preon stars in astrophysics, e.g., as a candidate for cold dark matter and sources of ultra-high energy cosmic rays, and a means for observing them.
Their calculations suggest a preon star would form when matter reached a density of about 1017 tonnes per cubic centimetre. This makes preon balls even more likely to have formed in dense regions of the big bang fireball than in collapsing stars. To be stable, a preon star would have to have a radius of between roughly a tenth of a millimetre and a metre, and a mass up to 100 times that of the Earth (www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410417). However, these stars might not emit much light, which could explain why they have not been spotted, they say.
Return to The Asterisk Café: Discuss Anything Astronomy Related
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest