David Levy

In Wikipedia it is stated: "While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin ofcosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions" We should focus in: "the earliest moments of the Universe's history". The Big bang theory had been established based on "several assumptions". . We must understand the those earliest moments and assumptions (or even pre-earliest moments)... By understanding the pre-starting point we would also get an answer to your question: moment of the Big Bang Let's start by verify the source of the energy which has started the whole process… We might find a real breakthrough in our history, if we could get better understanding on those assumptions.

Very good question! Just think about a black hole. even light can't escape from it. Now, let's think about supper massive black hole. Let's put millions over billions of supper massive black holes in a singular point and add to it the whole observed universe mass. At last phase, let's add also the dark matter which is about 20 times bigger than the observed mass. So, what is the chance that someting will escape???

Thanks for your message. In Wikipedia it is stated: "While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin ofcosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions" My main focus is exactly about "the earliest moments of the Universe's history". The Big bang theory had been established based on "several assumptions". My questions relate directly to those assumptions. I would like to thank you all for the valuable answers which were based on those assumption. Never the less, shouldn't we try to verify those earliest moments and assumptions (or even pre-earliest moments)??? Therefore, I have asked to verify some key points in those earliest moments, including the source of the energy which has started the whole process… We might find a real breakthrough in our history, if we could get better understanding on those assumptions.

Let's stat with - "What is the source for the Big Bang energy???

Thank you all for your replies. Unfortunately, so far, I didn't get a real answer for the feasability of the Big Bang... There are also new subjects to verify. (Which will be follow…) Never the less, at this phase, I will address only one issue: What is the source for the Big Bang energy??? The answer was ---" The energy needed to generate the observable universe is not infinite, and has in fact been calculated. There is nothing irrational about it. The energy generated by the decay of the inflation field which drove inflation is more than enough to account for the matter inthe observable universe." My reply is as follow: 1. Calculated energy – Do we realy have the calculated energy which is requested to generate the matter in the sun? In the Milky Way? In the universe? Where canwe see it? 2. Inflation & decay - It is a new theory which should support the current theory of the Big Bang. Do we know for sure that there was inflation??? Where it's come from? Why we do not call it the Big Inflation Bang??? If the inflation generates the energy which was needed for the big bang, than what was the source for the inflation energy??? You might say that this energy comes out of a new magnetic field or Abra-Cadabra theory… But please, energy should come out of something real… 3. Dark Matter - What about the energy which is needed for the dark matter. (20 times bigger than the observed universe).

1. Energy/Mass conversion – E = mc2 "The speed of lightin vacuum,usually denoted by C. Itsvalue is 299,792,458 metres per second. M= Mass." In Nuclear energy, a few grams of mass generatea huge energy. Therefore, in a reversible process, a huge energy is needed tocreate just few grams of mass. Hence, in order to generate the whole mass of theuniverse in a split of a second an infinite and irrational energy is needed. Therefore, is it a feasible process??? 2. What is the source for this energy??? Is it possible that it was an outcome of Nuclear energy (which came of of mass) so there was a mass before the big bang... 3. Overcomingthe force of gravity (escape velocity) – The requested escape velocity fromblack hole is so high that even the light can't escape. In the universe thereare billions of black holes. If we placed all of them in one singular point andwe also add the whole mass of stars in the universe, than the estimated therequired escape velocity would be so high that nothing could escape. Therefore,even if there was the energy that created the whole mass in the universe in a fractionof a second, than the requested escape velocity would be so high that notingcould escape. Anyhow, the requested escape velocity should be million or even billontimes faster than the speed of light. Is it feasible??? 4. Mass travel at a speed higher than the speedof light – let's assume that there was an energy that create the whole mass of the universe and there was the power to overcome this ultra highescape velocity... In this case, the escape velocity should be much, much higherthan the speed of light. Therefore, the Mass should travel at a speed higherthan the speed of light. So is it feasible that there are some galaxies whichare traveling at this ultra speed of light? Hence, there are some galaxies which wecan't see. is it possible? 5. Is it possible that the steady state theory is correct? Just as Fred Hoyle have stated: " In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands"

I personally do belive that there is no need for dark matter or dark energy. The "dark" came as an estimation solution for some astronom fenomina. Never the less, it is just an estimation.

Any feedback???

Cold Blooded or Hot Blooded Dino... Lets compare it to the known animal based on size and diet. 1. Mammoth Size - Wikipedia "Like their modern relatives, mammoths were quite large. The largest known species reached heights in the region of 4 m (13 ft) at the shoulder andweights up to 8 tonnes (9 shorttons), while exceptionally large males may have exceeded 12 tonnes (13short tons)". The Mammoth was bigger than the elephant. It is known that thisanimal lived in very cold aria. Hence, I assume that it's quite difficult to support so big size and still control the temp. Anyhow, even the Mammoth (as the biggest hotblooded animal) is tinny comparing the huge dinosaurs. Hence, There is no possibility to hot blooded animal to reach the Dino size, unless it's a cold blooded (Or living in a freezing water...). 2. CrocodileDiet - Hebrew version of Wikipedia "Diet - The crocodile is a supper predator… It feeds on small insects to buffalo, and its annual consumption is a tenth of theaverage meat consumption of a lion, so the bison filling the alligator for afew months. Because the slow metabolism of the crocodile enough, it can fastfor two months on average. It can also fast for the whole winter time". Hence, a cold blooded animal can gain a hugesize comparing its diet to hot blooded animal. Therefore, a cold blooded dinosaur might eat even less than an elephant and still gain a huge size.

In the Hebrew version of Wikipedia it is stated that there is no need for dark matter at the elliptical galaxy due to the low velocity: "כאשר נערכו תצפיות דומות בגלקסיות אליפטיות,היה נראה שהחומר האפל אינו נחוץ שם, וניתן להסביר את התנועה בתוך הגלקסיה בהסתמך עלהחומר הנראה בלבד" In English: "When similar observations were made in elliptical galaxies, dark matter would seem there is not needed, and can be explained by the movement within the galaxy, based only on visible matter " בגלקסיות אליפטיות קיימת תנועה מן המרכז והחוצה, שאינה מתגלה בקלות עלידי אפקט דופלר על-פי גישה זו, מהירותם של הכוכבים בגלקסיות אליפטיות גבוהה מזו שנדמית לנו, ולכן גם בהן מתחייב קיומו של חומר אפל In English: "In elliptical galaxies there is movement from the center and out, is not easily revealed by the Doppler effect - this approach, the speed of stars in elliptical galaxies is higher than that seems to us, so also are committed to the existence of dark matter" So, the idea is that based on Doppler effect verification, the velocity is normal - no need for dark matter. Never the less, they consider that there might be some difficulties to measured correctly the speed, therefore, they estimate that the velocity should be higher than the test result... Do you agree?

Yes, fully agree with you about the drift. Darwin had already stated that what we see is the outcome of a small drift. The big ocean is an outcome of a small drift of land --- 2 cm. per year. So, my question is : let's assume that there is a small drift… Where was the sun 4 billion years ago? Where it will be in the next 4 billion years?

Thanks Klaynos As we know, an object keeps themomentum in space. Therefore if the solar system flung out of star forming regions with some quite impressive relative speeds, than itshould keep the momentum. Hence, the solar system was at a different location in the past.... And… it'sstill moving out from the current location. Do you agree?

Thanks So let's assume that the solar systemwas formed at one of the nearby Nebula. As the closest one is far way – over 1000light years, than it is clear that there was some kind of movement. (For the solar system or the nubile) Hence, by definition the sun or the nubilehad moved. Therefore, the following statement mustbe correct – Some stars at the milky way galaxy are moving away from each other…. As an outcome - The solar system birth location might be different from the current location!!! Do you agree???

The Milky Way was formedrelatively soon after the Big Bang – about 13.5 billion years ago. In contrast, the solar system was formed just about 4.5 billion years ago. So, where the solar system was formed? Suppose that it was formed at thesame location as it is today. In this situation, we would expect to see anactive star formation at various locations throughout the galaxy. But this isnot the case. A star forming activity had been found only near the galactic nucleus. Wikipedia - "The region where the Scutum–Centaurus Arm connectsto the bar of the galaxy is rich in star-forming regions". "The current hypothes is isthat the bar structure acts as a type of stellar nursery, fueling star birth at their centers". In fact, there is no evidence for birth star activity other than near the nucleus of the galaxy. Hence, the next question is as follow: Is it possible that thesolar system was formed near the nucleus or even outside the galaxy?

Why all the dinosaurs have disappeared? Dinosaurs were cold blooded. Hence,they had a very efficient energy consumption (they did not have to waste unnecessary energy heating their bodies). Therefore, they were able to reach huge size. It's quite clear that if they were hot-blooded, they would probably reach a maximal size of elephant... A sun light was needed to charge their power. Some had developed huge blood radiators panels on their back in order to get a fast heat charger. Those panels also gave them the ability to stay the whole day long in the lake and still achieve the heat which is needed for their body function. A crocodile for example, can't stay more than about three hours in the water. National Geographic don't understand the meaning of those heating panels till this moment. Well, the asteroid impact had created darkness for a long period. Therefore dinosaurs lost their ability to function andactually died of starvation. The only survivors from the cold blood must have developed in the past the ability to fast for quite long period - such as crocodiles and certain reptiles (as they are the wizards of strategy -"Wait for food to come in your mouth"). Obviously, the majority of the survivals were hot blooded. Those animals were relatively small in size because they had to hide from the mighty dinosaurs. They could mainly obtain their food at night.Therefore, they had to develop a warm-blooded system. A few year ago, a fossil dinosaur which is quite similar to turkey (with feathers) had been found in China. The feathers are evidence that it was a hot blooded dinosaur. Later on the feathers had been used for flying (as now he had to protect his life from the new mammalian predators). This dinosaur became the father of the birds. Therefore, we should thank this dinosaur for giving us a boiled egg and chicken schnitzel...

Yes it is!!! Please reverify the following statment from Wikipedia about newton low: "Object's orbit in the space is mainly influenced by the gravitational pull of nearby objects to him". So each ball is attracted to the nearest ball. And that one is attracted to the other one... and so on. A chain of balls under a gravity power. In the solar system there is a minor example: The moon is attracted to the earth. The earth is attracted to the sun. The sun is attracted to a *** star which will be hopefully find soon...

Thanks. Do appriciate your support. What a wonderfull world we have...

If this is the best of what you can say... Than, you need to reconsider what you say...

TAGC52 I'm not going to argue with you. The dark matter is a pure theory. If you see a man' shadow it does not mean that you see a real man... The dark matter theory is some sort of faith. As I said: good for you... I'm quite sure that we have the technology to find those dark stars. Houston,we have a problem!!! We need a help to find those dark stars...

To ACG52 Did you see the following statement: "Although dark matter is the most popular theory to explain the various astronomical observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters, there has been no direct observational evidence of dark matter." Why do you prefer this theory which has --- no direct observational evidence. Is it just because of "thousands of scientists" think so??? Good for you... How come that so far no one had found this dark matter??? They will never find as it is not there... It's much easier to find the dark stars which should be much closer to the solar system... One day you will appriciate this valuabale info...

Answer to Janus And This is exactly why your idea falls apart. Let's take a closer look why: The nearest star to the Sun, Alpha Centauri at 4.3 ly. So this is the individual star that would have the strongest gravitational effect on the Sun Now the Sun is ~2/3 of the way,about 27,000 ly, out from the Galactic center. Using your own estimate, there are 400 billion stars in the Galaxy. If we are conservative, we will say that 40% or 160 billion of them are closer to the center than the Sun is. No, the calculation should be as follow: Most of the 400,000,000 stars are located at the spiral arms. Let's say about 70,000,000 stars per arm. The length of each arm is about 50,000 years light. So there are more than 1000 stars per year light. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power!!! Hence, the following statment is incorrect: The nearest star to the Sun, Alpha Centauri at 4.3 ly. So this is the individualstar that would have the strongest gravitational effect on the Sun There must be several stars which are much closer to the sun than the Alpha Centauri. We just need to find them... Please be aware that not all the stars are simmilar to the sun. Some of them might be a dark stars. therefore, it is quite difficult to find them. But they are there. One day (hopefully in our life time..) we will find them all....

Newton low: Wikipedia: Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. http://en.wikipedia....sal_gravitation Your question: First of all, you realize that Newtonian gravity is only a low-velocity weak-field approximation to general relativity, right? Answer: No, There is no limit for power or velocity. Your question: The main issue, however, is that you provide absolutely no quantitative resolution to the problem. It's not enough to say in words that you solved something, you need to provide numbers. Answer: Yes, we can set the guantitive resolution if we just knew the correct locations of all the stars in the spiral arms. Please be aware that even at a distence of one year light its highly difficult to see a sun... so now think that you need to see a dark star at a distence of 1000 years light... One more question - Do we have any absolutely no quantitative resolution - for the current dark matter theory???

There is no need for a new form of force. It's the old good Newton!!! "It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other." doesn't sound like Newtonian gravity". In This example each ball is a star. the elastic core between two stars is a Newton gravitetion power! Therefore, the high velocity is an outcome of the spiral arm interaction power. It's quite amazing that "thousands of scientists" didn't find this simple answer.... Please transfer this topic to Astronomy and Cosmology.

History anddescription of the problem Wikipedia: "In1932, Jan Hendrik Oort was the first to discover that the stars in thearms of a spiral galaxy (the Milky Way in thiscase) moved faster than expected when a mass distribution based upon the visible matter is assumed. "Although dark matter is the most popular theory to explain the various astronomical observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters, there has been no direct observational evidence of dark matter." So, how would Newton explain this Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy? Newton hadalready gave the answer:Wikipedia: "Object's orbit in the space is mainly influenced by the gravitational pull of nearby objects to him". Spiral arm is the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus. The Spiral arm acts as a chain of star which is connected to each other by the gravitational power. This maintains the flat & high velocity. In fact, the galactic nucleus of an active galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of millions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and creates a circularmotion for all the stars which are relatively close to it. Thus, rotation of a star near the galactic nucleus causes a higher speed to another star which is a little farther from the nucleus, but is related to his faculties of gravity. It can be simulatedas series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In oneside the cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis. The balls in this example are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power. Note that all the stars in an active galaxy which might contain about 400 billion stars revolve a uniform direction. This is different from the solar system as some of the stars rotates in the opposite to others. Therefore, unlike our solar system where the velocity of each star is affected by only by the distance from the sun, here the velocity is determined by the velocity of the spiral arm. Hence, there is no need dark matter to explain the phenomenon of the high velocity of the stars which are far away from the galactic nucleus. Conlusion - there might be some dark stars which areneeded to keep the chain gravitational power. But, there is no real need fordark material outside the galaxy or dark energy to maintain this velocity!

There is a way to verify the star age!!! It is state very clearly at Wikipedia how they do it. With Regards to the Stellar nucleosynthesis: Did you find any info that it is considered as a valid system for star age verification? Anyhow, Ifyou have better knowledge how to verify the star age, then please let Wikipedia know about it. I would mostly appriciate to get a reply from Wikipedia about this highly important issue.