Zarkov Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 Modern physics has declared centrafugal force to be fictitious. In a closed system such as a rotating weight on a string, that is correct, but this is only a special case. Centrapetal force in this case is also a special case, it is manifest as a tension only. These forces can only be demonstrated in a spinning field system, and open system where objects are free to move Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 I theorize the big bang was a near infinite amount of mass and energy being injected into our universe through a near infinitley small point and that it never got any larger. Moving faster than C it travels our universe over and over in an expanding matrix to create a hologram of existance we observe. By changing its accelerations and decelerations and infinite spins it gives us, trapped in a light speed universe the appearance of mass and forces of nature. It incrementally changes its positions and spins to give us the appearance of time moving forward. It repeatedly refreshes the universe in a time and speed scale beyond our ability to touch except with imagination. Just for thought Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 since m=E/C2, it also amounts to an increadibly fast moving amount of energy being at all points in the universe for very very short slices of time, each beyond our limits to sense. Example: I put a scale in the middle of a room. I point a regular camera at it. If I take a picture as a bullet flies through the room across the top of the scale, the camera and scale sense nothing. If I stop the bullet above the scale for a second and then accelerate it again, you will see the bullet and also be able to weigh it for only that instant. Another example could be 5000 fifty cal. machine guns in a circle pointed at one central point. If they all fired at a synchronized interval so there was always a bullet leaving the central point as another entered, we as observers would see a stationary platter of lead floating in the center. Just more for thought. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 If you have a really expensive camera with an extremely high shutter speed, it will see it.. I love those cameras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 But we still don't have a camera that can photograph an electron dropping out of its excited shell and releasing a photon of light until the photon reaches the camera. Thats quite a big chunk of microcosom time. We can touch it with math. We can explain it with quarks but we can never physically know it. We can't get past this barrier of very small slices of time into the microcosom. Except with imagination first and the math will follow. There's a lot going on beyond the universe we know. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 The reason why there was not a big crunch is 2 fold, 1 is the already stated one, and the other is that there is some force counter acting gravity, all the galaxies are accelerating away from each other meaning that there is a force pushing on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 But the question is... are the being pushed apart, or still moving apart from the initial point? Also, galaxies have collided in the past. Our own galaxy will collide with another in a few billion years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Originally posted by fafalone But the question is... are the being pushed apart, or still moving apart from the initial point? Also, galaxies have collided in the past. Our own galaxy will collide with another in a few billion years. simple it isnt that they are having a continual velocity, they have ever increasing velocity an acceleration, that is NOT something that would be caused by a singular explosion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Actually, we can't really measure the rate of change. We still haven't exactly found the current rate either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Originally posted by fafalone Actually, we can't really measure the rate of change. We still haven't exactly found the current rate either. im quite sure that we found recently something that indicated that the universe's expansion is accelerating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Yah, it seems our galaxy will be pretty lonely in the future except for the big crash coming with our neighbor. I hate it when that happens. The evidence for a big crunch though of our universe seems to be losing support due to those findings. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Just because it's accelerating now doesn't mean it will always be. If you throw a ball up in the air, there is a period of time that it's accelerating away from you, does this mean it will continue to accelerate forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Originally posted by fafalone Just because it's accelerating now doesn't mean it will always be. If you throw a ball up in the air, there is a period of time that it's accelerating away from you, does this mean it will continue to accelerate forever? no it isnt, if you throw a ball in the air, it has instantaneous acceleration, the minute it is released it is accelerating towards the ground at a constant rate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Since when is instantaneous acceleration not acceleration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NapoleonGH Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 it is but in our analogy that would be the big bang, and only the big bang, as such wouldng apply today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 I see an analogy of pouring light oil on water. A big bang drop will spread in a circle on the water and after reaching a certain thinness will after time disappear due to entropy. Or if the addition of oil never ceased the circle would get ever bigger. Also the thinner oil at the edges might seem to accelerate away from the center faster than the oil near the middle of the circle. Are there any theories that the big bang was not just a single bang but a continious flow of energy from somewhere? I think it's possible. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poena Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by Zarkov By the way black holes are a figment of the immagination also. Cosmology is in for a real shake up. Is it just me or perhaps is this wrong statement overlooked as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Originally posted by Poena Is it just me or perhaps is this wrong statement overlooked as well? none of Zarkov's statements had any relation to reality. if you find any remnants of things he said, ignore them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDaWolf Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Energy. In the first few milliseconds, an equal amount of matter and anti-matter were created, and 94% of it collided and produced a massive amount of energy as the particles annhilated eachother. Since not all anti-particles decay at the same rate as their counterparts, 6% of the original matter created was not annihilated and subject to the energy released by the rest. Also, I believe the big bang theory defines matter being created at many points, not just one. For a while now, I've been wondering about the actual % of matter that collided with anti-matter at the time of the Big Bang. Do you have a source/site with further information, or did you make up the number based on the fact that visible matter only makes up 5-10% of the accounted mass in the universe? ~Wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now