rigney

What if Galaxies and Quasars were huge orbs of matter long before becoming their present configurations as galaxies and super-galaxies? When particles, (sub-particles) began coalescing into atoms, there must have been reasoning for becoming something other than just gasses? As a guess, I believe magnetism was responsible?

Then they don't necessarily have to be the axis of a galaxy or a quasar? I'll read on it!

Thanks again JohnB. I'm not trying to circumvent questions or answers at all. But my entire philosophy is based on ignorance, but concept and reason. Like you, I know there is briliance out there that rattles my brain. And other than the concept of what baryonic means, I'm dead in the water. Can I just ask a few questions for a while? Physics is far beyond my means. By the way, W.V. means "West Virginia", and five generations of us Rigney hicks!

Thanks JohnB. Appreciate your knowledge. As an aborigine from West Virginia, I'm not overly endowed in either Phisics or, "Snake Handling". While I do like asking questions about both, if I should outwear my welcome, just say scram! I've already been run out of W.V. But on the subject, I worry about Pandoras box. You know, the one sitting on her dresser?? Should we go so far so quickly? And then, just how far do we go before someone or something gets hurt? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThanks JohnB. Appreciate your knowledge. As an aborigine from West Virginia, I'm not overly endowed in either Phisics or, "Snake Handling". While I do like asking questions about both, if I should outwear my welcome, just say scram! I've already been run out of W.V. But on the subject, I worry about Pandoras box. You know, the one sitting on her dresser?? Should we go so far so quickly? And then, just how far do we go before someone or something gets hurt? Into this life we are let, first only asking; then to our fame. Oh! so quickly do we leave, taking not; but as we came.

Is there any real proof that black holes exist other than as axial points of galaxies?

I'm not an advocate of "bean counters or politicians", but what if after ten or twenty years of analysis we find this latest big gun "has reached" the ultimate level of matter? What then? Would our search continue beyond this point to search as to how or why the boson or quauk was created? This is the pale I'am speaking of. Even with a fabulous wealth of intelligence amassed ready to make such a search, would it be wise? Remember, we're not "in" there now just looking for an America, Greenland or China! How does the old adage go:? A coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man only once!!

Love your input JohnB, but what "if it does"? Do we then try peeking behind this onesided slice of bread?

What if this "Big Boy" in Cern finds that, either the Higgs Boson or the Quark to be a finite level of matter? Do we try going beyond this pale, or are there some things we best leave alone?

StringJunky (Atom) Today, 11:11 AM #3 Its best to imagine the Universe as only the surface of an expanding balloon with currants stuck on it...as it expands the distance between the currants increases...space is created between them. It's important to realise that there is *nothing inside or outside above or below this balloon... the surface is all there is...it doesn't expand into anything...there is no volume of space around the balloon. the surface of the balloon is all there is. This is only an analogy but it shows how the distance increases between objects without having an edge...spherical surfaces lack an edge. The Universe was much smaller than it is today but current models suggest that it was still infinite in dimension...get your head round that! *Total absence of anything..not even space. http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html ______________ "If I have seen a little further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants" -Isaac Newton " The man who never made a mistake never made anything. " Stringman(junkie) If this analysis is possible for a single surface area, could not the same be applied for multiple inside layers also? The currant thing? "Probabelity" is the thought that something may happen!

Thanks guys for your response. I'm not educated in our universe but I have a lot of questions. I'd like to keep this thread open if only to get answers to some of these ideas. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhile I hate the expanding balloon theory, what if we could look at it as a balloon inside a ballon, inside a balloon, inside a balloon, etc! Perhaps millions or even billions of levels deep? "Just not balloons". Would that make sense?

Could it be possible that a quark may be the offspring of a "QuauQ"? You know, that elusive slice of bread with only one side? I ask this simply because I know absolutely nothing of physics, other than X-Laxs.

If our universe was the result of the BB, is it spherical with everything moving away in lines of radii from a center, or is everything on the shell?