Gravity is the universal energy source

Hmm, I would have thought heat (thermodynamics) would be a bit more fundamental.

In an open universe it is postulated that eventually the universe would expand to a point and time where entropy rules the day and the temperature of the universe eventually reaches absolute zero (or something close to that).

Gravity may still exist (and why not?), but if the temperature is at absolute zero, so is the energy!

I have to agree with Anonymous Hero on this matter.

What is the main source of heat in our universe?

Ultimately it is nuclear fusion, that takes place in stars,

and this fusion is powered by gravity.

gravity, by equation, is defined in terms of acceleration, which is defined, by equation, in terms of time.

I don't recall time being defined, by equation, in terms of gravity.

:)

Do you recall that time can be warped and twisted by gravity?

So acceleration,which is measured against time, is dependent on the local gravity.

Therefor time is relative, and indirectly influenced by gravity. Gravity also affects space, so distance is also relative.

Where is the immutable yardstick by which you measure acceleration if both of the parameters are influenced by gravity?

Hi,

There is an interesting paper by Haisch and Rueda on arXiv showing that the same body moving under constant velocity will have an altered mass when accelerating.

alienx

Equations model they do not define.

Hi,

Newton's F = ma = m d^2v/dt^2 is just a way to calculate force. So to is Newton's famous equation F = GmM/d^2. The force exerted by gravity is not gravity but just its effect.

Taking it one step further, in General Realativity, gravity is just spacetime curvature so that all bodies follow geodesics and not straight lines, which is not what Newton claimed in his First Law of motion.

alienx.

Gravity exists because of mass, which exists because of energy.

When entropy rules the day, energy will not equal zero, remember conservation of mass and energy? The energy will still exist, it will simply be unable to do any work, hence, no absolute zero. If examined as a whole, the universe will still contain all of its original energy (and mass) but it will be so evenly distributed as to have no differential... no heat flow, no work.

Lets all do our part to prevent the heat death of the universe, do nothing! I am sure our employers will agree, and insist we stay home from work in order to prevent any further homogeneity.

Hi,

Even if the universe was open, temperature would never reach absolute zero because of the zero-point bath of radiation prediced by the the Heisenberg Principle and detected by various experiments. Agreed, the temperature of any body may be close to zero K, but cannot be zero K.

alienx

I would not say gravity is the source of all energy, and as you stated "in fact, the source of all matter heavier than hydrogen."

Matter is the source of gravity and particles of matter were presumably born out of the pure white-hot energy that pervaded space during the first fleeting moments after the Big Bang.

Sure, once you have energy and matter, there is gravity and one can use this in the form of potential energy. But gravity per se is not equivalent to energy - this is my take on it. Jorrie

In my opinion, Time is the source of all energy. Without Time, motion can't be defined. You can't travel from point A to point B without Time. I'm not even sure if you can have an observer without Time, for it takes time to convert an observation into information. All Change is predicated on Time, unless it is quantum mechanically instantaneous... If a 3 dimensional space is to be defined, it requires information to do it, and unless information is the source of the universe, then it will take time to do it. If Information is the source of the universe, then one must consider whether God exists.

As matter doesn't have an absolute requirement to be anywhere specific in the universe, and Time does, then clearly Time is more universal than gravity, because gravity is matter specific. If all matter and energy (and subsequently gravity) is "Stored Time" then time and energy have a direct equivalent, because matter is stored energy. I think that when time becomes spooled up into matter, it becomes inverted or something, and becomes gravity. everything is ultimately Time. All the properties of matter and energy, gravity and motion, color, sound, etc are fundamentally inherent in Time.

In a quantum mechanical universe, it is possible there is no time. Time may be an illusion of mind, much like the effect of a movie projector creating 'life' on the screen. If there were in infinite number of universes (quantum theory), and our minds read those in linear fashion, much like slides in a movie projector, then our perception of time would be subjective (which it is) and time could be varied. The observer would become intimately tied up with that which is being observed, and would influence the observations by the act of observation. In this paradigm, that makes sense.

So then, what is energy and matter, if not stored time? Is it possible to have energy without time, just as a potential energy, and it doesn't 'move' until the next slide? and even that motion is just an apparent motion. Nothing ever really moves? What about force? How does that get communicated from atom to atom if there is no such thing as time? Can forces and energies be quantum mechanically instantaneously acting as well? I know that the quantum multiverse idea makes a lot of sense, but at this point, doesn't answer all my questions.

Chris

Correction:

" I think that when time becomes spooled up into matter, it becomes inverted or something, and becomes gravity."

I meant to say : Time has entropy. When entropy exerts itself to make all the different 'times' equal or "sametime", and it can't, the impetus it exerts is gravity. When time is spun up and locked geometrically into matter, this entropy is measurable as gravity.

You can't travel from point A to point B without Time

- unless you are a quark

Is it possible to have energy without time, just as a potential energy, and it doesn't 'move' until the next slide? and even that motion is just an apparent motion.

There was a guy (or is a guy) who had a theory that the universe ticks - like a computer clock. Each tick was followed by (or part of) a cycle of 'instructions'. It's an interesting concept.

Almost every physics equation has time as an element.

Can the same be said for gravity?

Hi,

I think the more basic questions are:

has time anything to do with clocks?

are fundamental measurements anything to do with coordinate systems?

alienx

Can time exist without motion?Name a method of time measurement that does not involve motion of some type.Relative motion, at that.Can motion exist without space?So therefore space and time together create reality, and all of our measurements thereof.

According to theory, the only matter that could have survived the "Big Bang" was hydrogen.Molecules of hydrogen were attracted by gravity.Now whether gravity is a property of matter, or a result of matter warping the surrounding space time is irrelevant, the result is the same: A compacting of matter.Eventually enough hydrogen is gathered together to enable the fusion of the hydrogen into helium.A medium sized star such as ours, will exhaust the hydrogen fuel eventually, and the core will collapse.The increased pressure will ignite helium burning, The helium will ignite the unreacted hydrogen in the shell, and the star will swell into a red giant as the hydrogen ignites.After the helium is exausted, the star will repeat the above process by converting helium to silicon, and the nuclear fires will cease at iron, which does not readily fuse.A more massive star will continue to collapse in stages, and if the mass is large enough, it will become a neutron star, or a black hole. All of our heavier elements are formed in neutron stars.When they explode, matter is ejected back out into space from which other stars and planets, etc, are formed.It is for this reason that I say that gravity is the source of all energy and all matter, except hydrogen, in our universe.Without gravity, whether inherent property, an effect, or a wave, the universe would be a sea of scattered hydrogen atoms, and near absolute zero temperature.

We are really stardust, and so is everything around us.

I am not very familiar with your 'theory', but,

I believe that the idea of the big bang holds one of two premises for its start point. One is that it is a long cycle of expansion and contraction that repeats itself (A). The other is that there is no cycle, and there is only this universe. There was nothing before, and will be nothing after (B). Both assume an absolute black hole set of conditions for the state itself.

So, if it is scenario A, then all the space, time, matter and energy must compress to a single super dense state or particle. If this is true, then it would follow that all other heavier particles and atoms would be created during the process of compression, all the way up to the heaviest, and then finally, the big particle. If this is accurate, then it might follow that the decompression, or big bang, would be the reverse of the process. If it were any other way, and all matter information were destroyed during the 'big compression', then the hydrogen would Not have survived, as the black hole would destroy all matter information.

If scenario B were the case, and there was nothing existing before, then where did the hydrogen come from? Scenario B dictates that hydrogen must have been created shortly after the start point of the bang. and has survived since, and that heavier elements have been created through gravitational or other processes that followed.

Chris

I consider matter to be the "lumps" in the sea of energy that resulted from the big

bang.

Indeed, E=MC2.So matter is energy, in a concentrated form.

The only element able to survive was hydrogen.(Although now there are some who speculate that C60 ((Bucky Balls)) may have survived and may contain primordial traces of the original "soup").

Hydrogen became the building blocks for all other matter.

Giant clouds of hydrogen, attracted together by gravity, whatever it's true nature,

formed stars of various sizes, and in the furnaces of these stars were formed the

more complex and heavier elements.Galaxies are held together by the

"Force" or effect of (gravity), whether a property of, or an effect of matter.

If matter and energy are equivalent, then energy must posess some level of gravity.

If gravity is bound up with matter,and matter is concentrated energy,when matter is converted to energy, what happens to the gravity? Is graviity an immutable effect of energy, that is only noticeable when concentrated into matter?

Perhaps this accounts for the "dark matter" effects in the galaxies?

However, there is an exception to my theory, expressed best by Albert Einstein:

"Gravity does not make people fall in love."

HiTekRedNek

I have now registered,so that I might readily receive replies to this post.

There are also theories that microscopic black holes were formed in the first nanoseconds of the big bang.They have the mass of a mountain, and the size of a molecule.These have such a small event horizon that entangled particles could be separated, as one was sucked down the hole, and the other was not.The result would be the hole emitting energy equivilent to the matter consumed, probably in the form of microwaves.In effect, a "white hole" .There are unidentified sources of microwaves in our own solar sysem that could be white holes.

Would be nice to harness one or more of these for an energy source.

Put it in orbit, beam it down.

As per another discussion thread near here, I think that the size and shape of black holes is as meaningless as the size and shape of the universe. (the shape of Bhristie Brinkley is not meaningless, as she is a subset of the universe, and her surface is definable internally and externally, and her other unknowable dimension is "Beauty")

Chris

Where do gravity waves fit into all this and I thought that the U.S.A. were building a Mega Buck machine to measure them?

Will that machine / instrument help us to define gravity and specify what it is and how it relates to light and relativity?

"Gravity does not make people fall in love."

Take me to love, 'cause gravity makes me fall ALL the time!

There are days I can't help myself and the meds don't work,

According to theory, the only matter that could have survived the "Big Bang" was hydrogen.

Immediately after the big bang, temperatures would have been far too high for even hydrogen atoms to be stable, a mix of sub-atomic particles would be the only matter, some of the lightest elements (H, He, Li etc.) might be formed for brief instants before being sepparated again from their electrons.

Something not explained here is "Where do neutrons come from?" Hydrogen has none yet I believe Helium has 2. So how does the hydrogen fuse into helium??

Hi,

A couple of guys got the Nobel for sorting out the pp-reaction in stars. The proton-proton fusion and other less probable fusion reactions are set out in any decent book on astrophysics.

alienx

Perhaps gravity is the source of energy, though perhaps not the source of all matter. It is gravity that segregates the heavy elements from the light, binding the stars into their roles as energy emitters.

Matter is the source of gravity, but are they not inseperable? Perhaps it is a pyramid. Matter, gravity and energy. And, the Universe simply rings like a bell giving us the perfect illusion of time.

In the initial nanoseconds after the big bang,the only particles that survived were hydrogen; matter in it's simplest form.Whether gravity is an effect of matter, a property of matter,or a wave is not relevant.Without this attractive "force" "effect"or "property" matter would not be "Attracted" to other matter, and the universe would be a scattered sea of hydrogen. No stars would have formed.No galaxies.Or anything else.

As for the accelerating expansion of the universe, perhaps our universe is a decomposing by product of another dimension, and is a bubble rising thru some ocean of unknown composition, much as methane bubbles rise from decaying matter at the bottom of a lake or sea.(Bubbles increase in size and speed as they rise.)

Perhaps the big bang was really a big bubble.Observe a bubble as it rises thru a liquid.

Our universe may be one of billions of bubbles on some alien seashore.

Or,even more humbling, we could be bubbles of flatulence in a boundless bathtub.

I expect disagreement with my ideas, but mankind has always resisted ideas that reduce his self-importance in the universe.

Hi,

I still don't understand this word "survive".

Nothing survived the Big Bang (within that theory) because there was no nucleosynthesis for quite some time after the initial fireball.

To say hydrogen "survived" the Big Bang is to say there was a 'before' the Big Bang where hydrogen existed. Therefore, there was a time before the Bang.

If the BB THEORY is even remotely correct, there was no 'before' bacuse time was created by the creating event - at least, within that THEORY.

My abition was always to be the best bang since the big one. Unfortunately, age has got in the way of that.

alienx

Reportedly, Stephen Hawking is working on the possibility that if one added up all the matter-energy (using e=mc²) and added in all the gravity in the universe, the total is zero (of course the units need to be sorted out for it to be a meaningful equation).

Hi PWSlack, yep, I think Hawking might be right. As it has been put once (I forgot by whom): "the universe may be one big free lunch"!

This is only true if the universe is "flat", i.e., the expansion is fine tuned to just, just prevent a re-collapse. Today, the "best-buy" from all the data is that it is indeed flat.

Regards, Jorrie

Hi,

If one subscribes to the Big Bang theory (which is often presented as historical fact, completely overlooking that it is merely a theory), that comes from General Relativity without the Cosmological Constant.

Agreed that the old boys's final general equation has a lot of solutions but deSitter's particular solution is interesting. Setting mass density to zero, spacetime curvature can exist in deSitter's solution without there being any matter in the universe.

In other words, gravity without matter if indeed spacetime curvature is gravity.

General Relativity is nevertheless just a theory and the three proofs suggested by the man himself can be derived by algebra (without tensors) that any 16 year old could handle.

alienx

The way that I always understood gravity is as a result of the existence of matter. It was once described to me like this: take a bed sheet and stretch it tight in all directions...this represents space (somewhat two-dimensional). Then take a bowling ball, representing matter, and place it on the sheet. The bending of the sheet around the bowling ball represents the effect of gravity created by the matter. I know this doesn't really get you to a solution, and is probably overly simplified.

I suppose if you consider that the gravitational effect of matter has a finite potential to do work (a finite amount of work because once all matter has become combined, no further work is possible), it could represent a finite (though arguably large) amount of potential energy. But to claim it is the universal energy source is sort of like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. Without matter, gravity would not exist...without energy, matter would not exist. It's sort of a circular argument. I view it all as a simple transformation of energy from pure energy to matter...and with this matter is the inherent potential to do work, provided the matter is seperated by some distance. Pure energy, to my knowledge, does not necessarily require the existence of gravity.

To take it a step further, I view matter as a 'precipitate' of energy (similar to the results of some chemical reactions that generate solid particles). I suppose, in effect, I am saying that I do not believe in the conservation of matter or energy independently, but as a combined and general 'conservation of energy' in that matter IS transformed energy. Obviously, the conservation of matter makes sense in newtonian observations because there is nothing to cause energy to become matter or matter to become energy. I see the situation as 'saturated', to continue my chemical analogy. The (perhaps somewhat elastic) saturation limit of matter versus energy has already been reached and so high energy experiments are required to observe the (probably temporary) creation of matter/destruction of energy (or vice versa..which is truly just a transformation from one form to the other and the conservation of 'energy' is preserved). At any rate, I argue that energy is the source of all energy in the universe. (I know, it sounds crazy)

-RA

I was under the impression that gravity is a conqence of an effect rather then a force. I.E. the distortion of time - space due to objects with mass excerting a warping effect on thier near by physical space.

That's way gravity doesn't draw the universe into a singularity. Evidnece today shows that the universe is expanding, not contracting. Suggesting that very massive objects are too far apart to creat the "big crunch" in our universe.

I would suggest that cosmic radiation be a better choice for universal engery, or perhaps Zero Point enegery. You might even consider Hawkens radation as a candinate. It's one of the few things black holes generate, and radiate outward.

And as for hydrogen, atomic forces can work fine with or with out gravity, there is no evidence, nor has any one ever produced evidence to the contary. While gravity exerts a small effect on them, it is not necessary for gravity to exist for atomic forces to work. Same for electro magnetic forces, and thermodynamic forces.

What I do find intreasting is the concept of particles with zero mass, which would imply zero gravity. There is a string theory that predicts these particles, how ever it's highly debated. If they could exist, then these particules could go faster then C2.

The Big Bang and subsequent inflation is where energy began. The outward thrusting in length by width by height by time forming the space fabric of our universe. The inflation is theorized as a massive energy release after the Big Bang caused by annihilation of matter and antimatter. For some reason in atomic structure there was a bit more matter then antimatter and protons, neutrons and electrons were created which formed into the light elements Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium.

After cooling and the break of symmetry these light elements formed stars and the stretching of masses in space caused gravity represented by divots in space time causing geodesic lines in space time. The larger the mass the deeper the divots of geodesic lines. The speed of expansion and motion of the mass are caused by the inflation even today with the opposing force being gravity.

As the first stars were massive and burned rapidly they created the heavier elements needed for life from their fusion process. The below link is good reading for the uninformed wanna be cosmologist. Yes gravitational fields have energy as in black holes being extremely small in size but very massive in atomic weight. So some of their energy is held in their gravitaional field but graviity does not hold the aggregate sum of all the universes' energy.

Dark energy at 73% of the universe and possibly the inflation energy, plus dark matter 23% of the universe (a particle we cannot see that light pass through) and baryonic matter 4% (atoms) make up our universe and all it's energy. Gravity is the weakest force in nature and loosely holds it in the lump we observe. It's rough shape is flat and irregular and it is theorized to expand for trillions of years. The universes' age today is roughly 13.7 billion years give or take a few million years.

Bounce around this NASA site and learn what they have observed and then start a thread that makes for a better exchange.

It's good reading gentlemen.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101life.html

The accellerating expansion of the universe is reminiscent of a bubble, rising thru liquid.The higher it rises, the more it expands, and the faster it goes.The closer to the surface it becomes, the less ambient pressure, and the more it expands, etc.

Perhaps our universe is expanding into "Exospace", and in the process is gaining speed because of the reduction in density.Will the "Bubble" eventually surface and burst? Who knows.

Just a wild hair, every now and then....

The irony of your analogy lies in its application. Observers within the bubble (us) view the universe as expanding when, in fact, the glass of Coke® is of fixed size and actually shrinks as each bubble bursts and its contents move off into the greater atmosphere above it.

Despite our current understanding of the sun rather then the earth as the centre of the solar system, humans, particularly mathematicians and physicists it seems, still believe we are the centre of the universe rather than an afterthought.

I have several questions:

1.How do stars form?

Do they not collapse from a massive cloud of dust and gas when the cloud reaches sufficient mass and the mutual gravity causes the dust and gas to condense, so tightly bound by gravity that hydrogen fuses into helium?

2.What causes this collapse if not gravity?

3. What causes the fusion if not gravity?

4.How are the heavier elements formed? In stars? (If yes, go back to question#1)

5.What causes a black hole to form?Collapse of a massive star? (if yes, go back to question#1)

Gravity is a weak force at great distances, but very powerful at small distances.

6.These massive stars you speak of, how were they formed? Without gravity? How?

7. How did these massive stars form anything heavier than iron without going thru a neutron-star phase?I postulate that they went thru the some successive collapses as the hydrogen ran out, the helium ignited, the helium ran out, the silicon ignited,and lastly, iron formed.If the star was massive enough, it continues to collapse into a neutron star or a black hole.(I use the word "ignited" here loosely to describe fusion, lest someone challenge the term).

I am eagerly awaiting your answers.

Should make for interesting reading.

Hi,

1. Yes say the best observations, particularly in the Orion star fields. Gas to more dense gas, rotation of the gas cloud, size contraction producing heat and ultimately the protostar thus formed turns on its fusion reactor.

2. Gravity causes it.

3. Gravitational energy loss produces heat.

4. If the star has a mass around 4 solar masses so that in its death throes becomes a nova, it will release elements into the cosmos up to atomic number 56 and no further.

5. The mass should be around 7 or more solar masses. Death results in the complete loss of internal pressure of the remnant neutron core against its gravity - so theory predicts.

6. Stars become stars properly so-called from the interstellar gas through gravitational collapse.

7. The current theories hold that when a star of sufficient mass becomes a supernova, it will fuse elements as far as iron and no further. Putting it briefly, in the resulting explosion, there is an outward rushing of matter that collides with an inward rushing of matter (details in a good astrophysics book). These collisions are at a temperature to cause fusion in the surrounding 'collision cloud' and iron nuclei are fused as far as Uranium.

alienx

Baloney! James Clerk Maxwell had it right. Heat drives the universe. "Gravity" was made up by Newton to give some physical basis to Kepler's math which he (Newton) supported. There are many anomalies in gravity (Example: Why are there no tidal flows in the Earth's atmosphere?) that make it much, much less than a, "Law", of nature.

"Gravity" was made up by Newton ..."

Please provide a link or reference to support your statement, or is this just your opinion?

I see your baloney, and raise you two salami on rye.

He's right! Gravity was made up by Newton.

If you look at paintings pre-Newton, you will see lines on them which Museum curators and others want you to believe are cracks in the paint. In reality, they are part of the very complex web early glue-footed spiders wove around the earth to keep things from floating off into space.

Once Newton invented gravity and started it up, the web was no longer required and was allowed to bio-degrade to nothing. Worse for the glue-footed spiders, the thousands of species which had been nurturing them by providing them sustenance and dwelling spaces in return for web maintenance services stopped doing so. Without their support system the spiders died away and are now extinct.

There are tidal motions to the atmosphere, but they are difficult to discern, particularly during hurricanes. They are also almost completely masked by the atmospheric disturbances caused by animals (except for birds) and people and their machines moving about. Unlike fish (and birds) which use their 'atmosphere' to move themselves - in fact moving within their atmosphere - the animals and us push against the ground and move against our atmosphere causing all kinds of currents which mask the tidal effects.

It doesn't help that the sun comes through the atmosphere to the bottom and causes uneven heating. That also disturbs atmospheric tides.

This can be proven by placing long transparent tubes from surface to about .3 metres above the floor of the oceans so sunlight can make it through to cause the same sort of uneven heating. You would only need to ensure about 30% of the deep sea floor was opened to light in this manner to measure for certain the disturbance it would have on tides.

Of course the light-pipes used would have to be coated with vaseline so they, themselves, would not affect tidal motion.

This is interesting. But I think what we have here is a "chicken or the egg" situation. Mass is usually defined as energy, therefore gravity exists because of energy. But all of the energy we use is the result of gravity... which is the result of energy. This is only to the extent of atomic bonds too, some people think that the universe is occilating, from Big Chrunch to Big Bang with particles unknown at work. Such as the composition of black holes, which do not radiate energy, but act more like an energy sink due to such intense gravitational forces. It is arguable that a black hole is a potential for later energy release, perhaps critical mass is reached? No one knows. So, I say that you are right, gravity is our primary source of energy, but the force of gravity is dependant on the concentration of energy! Lets put Newton and Einstien together for the force of gravity on earth: F=(E/c^2)g Gravity: F(c^2)/E = g for conceptual purposes only. Interesting. By the way, Newton did not "invent" gravity, he invented a name for a natural phenomenon. All of the words we use are made up, all of the expressions to quantify things are made up and not usually 100% "right", but things that exist in nature are as real as our perception will allow us to observe them. So, gravity is a dependent of energy, and for our uses of energy, from the sun, yes, energy is a function of gravity.

Perhaps I should have just said Gravity is a universal releaser of usable energy.

Gravity is a weak force. and not the same as nuclear energy. Gravity may cause matter and energy to attract, but it is, after all, nuclear binding energies, strong and weak, that are the source of solar energy. It is possible to generate centrifugal forces within stars... maybe that is the cause of the start of the nuclear processes. or how about a thermal start... equally valid. How is gravity the cause of Heat?, or electricity, or magnetism. These are equally fundamental. (time of course, is involved in all of them)

Another thought; In a book by Bruce L. Cathie, called the "Harmonic Conquest of Space, He states that nuclear processes are space-time based, and that subsequently, a nuclear chain reaction can't be initiated without it being in the correct space and time (relative to the earth's energy grid). rather like being at a geometric and harmonic intersection in both space and time. He says it is a conspiracy of the nuclear nations, that this factoid isn't more widely known. He says it is possible to calculate the times and places where a chain reaction (bomb) can be successfully intiated and sustained.

I think this is a valid concept. not because I'm a mathematician, but that I believe that the nature of our universe is both geometric, and harmonic. Time may be an illusion of a quantum universe, but if so, so is everything else. I will grant you this. Gravity 'appears' to be a universal force, but I won't say that it is the source of energy. I simply don't believe it. It may be, after all is said and done, either equal to time, or the same thing, in which case, we are looking for another source.

Quicquidlibet.

here's a new thought

What if?

What if the entire universe and all life within it is completely "run" on magnetics. Imagine the big bang. All the matter of the universe is in one general place. An explosion occurs due to the pressure on the center, which is basically all "positive" matter in one "solid" mass. As the explosion pushes this matter outward, it moves so fast and so small (sub-sub atomic) and so dense (black hole matter) and this "magnetic friction" between these sub-sub-atomic particles created during the blast causes the matter to become magnetic. As this matter starts to slow down in it's outward trajectory, it "wraps" itself into sub-atomic sized sphereical "magnetic fields", "practically" perpetually still moving at greater than C. The cause of the near infinite perpetuity is the one basic "force" or "law" of all the universe, Magnetisim. As this "field" wraps into a sphere, it "grabs" other sub-atomic particles which were on the outside of the positive mass at the beginning of the bang. This matter on the outside was blasted into "sub-atomic" sized particles. These particles were overcome by the positive matter from the center which was smaller and faster due to being closer to the center of the explosion and their size. These Fields were sometimes overcome by subsequent "waves" of the original blast and multiple shells occurred with more negative, positive and even neutral matter trapped inside. This created other elements. The matter, still traveling at greater than C, which didn't create "atoms" is still out there, now known as dark energy. This matter is still forming and causing and creating "magnetic energy" which is why the universe is still accellerating and in a universal way "growing". As the universe ages, in possibly even trillions of years, these atoms created will eventually run out of the strength to "hold" in their sub-atomic captives. As a huge magnet, black holes will eventually end up with all this matter and as the universe eventually colapses upon itself again, all the black holes will form the center and the rest of the matter in the universe, neutral in the middle and negative on the outside, will come together again and space will no longer have any vaccuum, then God will start it all over again, for eternity.

I could go on and on, but that is in a very basic sense, what I believe. nothing I have ever heard or seen cannot be explained by this theory in it's entirety.

Balance is the secret of the universe!

...that nuclear processes are space-time based, and that subsequently, a nuclear chain reaction can't be initiated without it being in the correct space and time...

I'm not going to stick around when 'they' push a button to check out that bit if ---sense.

And why do they always demonstrate gravity as a depression in space time, like cheese cloth? Isn't that explaining gravity in terms of gravity?!

("See children, gravity is a depression in space time, like the depression on this cheese cloth. See how the ball rolls falling into the depression, that's how gravity works." and gravity makes the ball fall in... thanks teacher, why is the sky blue? "Because if the sky were a cheese cloth, an it was like the sky, it would be blue." Ok, thanks teacher.)

Sorry, gravity seems more like a high to low thing pressure to me, but what sense does that make? Just don't vibrate at the wrong frequency or you won't matter.

Gravity, energy, mass, heat, time, motion...

As I see it, none of these can be considered as the ultimate energy source. These are all results of the tremendous release of energy at the time of the big bang (if indeed the big bang model correctly describes what happened at the beginning). The ultimate source of energy is the motivating force that created the big bang. Unfortunately, we have no scientific way to see far enough back in time. Even the most advanced mathematical models are unable to theorize what kind of force that may have been. Therefore I will leave it (or Him) unnamed. (Sorry, I just couldn't help it.)

Bill Morrow

Singularity is a massive problem. How do you account for the whole mass of the universe being constrained to a single point? That is a point as in the geometry definition of a point, no size just location.

All that mass just sitting there in compact form and it suddenly decides to unzip itself with one big exothermic reaction.

George Smoot won a Nobel Prize for his work on when and how it happened but it didn't really touch on why it happened.

As an engineer that has done a lot of work with explosives I sure would like to know why it detonated.

Since you have done a lot of work with explosives, then you know an explosion consists of 2 parts:A rapid expansion followed by a rapid contraction.Evidently we are still in the expansion phase of the "Explosion" if that is the proper term for what happened.

I tend to favor a "Big Bubble" myself, as a bubble rising thru liquid tends to expand and rise, and continues to expand and rise faster and faster as it goes.Seems to be more descriptive of what is happening in our universe.

Explosions in a fluid or an atmosphere consist of 2 parts, rapid expansion due to the explosion. This is followed by rapid contraction as the atmosphere or fluid rushes back to fill the void.

If the explosion is in a void or vacuum why should you get a contraction?

Why would you get an accellerating expansion?

If you start with an accelerating expansion as caused by a "Big Bang" surely the material affected by that explosion will continue to remain in that state of acceleration unless it is not acted upon by an external force (e.g. friction)?

Newtonian physics has its limitations when one is playing in the universe where all that Quantum Physics stuff and Relativity keep getting in the way.

By the way, how do you measure acceleration in a dynamic system? Do you measure it

· Relative to the point of singularity.

· Take vectors of other moving bodies on your side of the expanding bubble/universe.

· Measure of other bodies on the other side of the bubble/universe

Hi,

Quantum fluctuations CAN produce long-lived particles and not just the so-called virtual (short-lived) particles.

Keep on producing real particles in volume X and they soon need to occupy a bigger volume, Y. In turn, you now have more space to produce more particles and soon, volume Z is needed.

In a spherical model, it don't take much to find that the increase in volume radius is not linear.

alienx

Due to a decrease in pressure over time,as the particles become more widely dispersed, the pressure decreases, and the particles cool.As soon as you introduce an explosion(pressure) into a vacuum, it is no longer a vacuum.Accelleration is only possible witha constant applied force.The maximum accelleration would be the instant that the "Big Bang" ended.Everything after that should be the same or less speed.Yet our universe seems to be expanding and picking up speed as it expands.Sounds more like a bubble rising thru a liquid than an explosion.Either that, or somewhere a lot of matter is spewing forth into our universe.

The current observations tend to fit the bubble theory better than a "Bang"

Hi,

But space is not a 'void' or a 'vacuum'. I don't mean to be pernickity and give the impression that 1 atom of hydrogen in the volume of 1000 average supermarkets is not a vacuum. What I am saying is that the current ludicrous estimates of zero-point mass density at 10^96 ish whatever units you care to use, shows that the statement in Genesis just ain't right.

alienx

Quoting bmorrow492: "Gravity, energy, mass, heat, time, motion...

As I see it, none of these can be considered as the ultimate energy source. These are all results of the tremendous release of energy at the time of the big bang (if indeed the big bang model correctly describes what happened at the beginning)..."

Bingo! (or at least extremely close to it)

The Gravity, Electromagnetism and Photonic radiation (including heat), are physical phenomena which cause the Motion.

The two universal energy sources: at the gravitational/subcuantic level and at electromagnetic/cuantic level, are the origin of these three fundamental phenomena.

Those sources are quality and quantity described in the book "Subcuantic Universe", on-line published (free downloading) from: www.adslexpress.ro/soma

Iulian Somacescu