 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Solar System Compression Unit
Hi, Say you will compress the entire solar system into the size of atom (mini big crunch), what is the unit where the energy would be compressed into a dot called? Is there no minimum diameter for a given energy? I just want to imagine how something planck size can give rise to a universe with over 100 billion galaxies. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I just want to imagine how something planck size can > give rise to a universe with over 100 billion galaxies. It can't, The big bang is a bunch of crap. So far not one person has even been able to get 2 atoms to take up the same amount of space, nevermind a billion billion billion etc.. stars and planets. :) The beginning we term the "big bang" was more than likely a big crash. Matter we see already was basically 2 or more objects (massive black holes much bigger than anything we know of today) that crashed at a slight angled impact to create the spin of everything we see today. The Big Crash of stuff that was already here is what is should be known as. Remember that little silly fact from long ago, "You can neither create nor destroy matter"? That makes the big bang theory pretty silly huh? :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jun 29, 11:11 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to take up the same amount of space, nevermind > a billion billion billion etc.. stars and planets. While it is true that 2 atoms can't take up the same space because of the pauli exclusion principle. However, if you heat the atoms to near singularity temperature, the identities of the particles would be gone and in place is pure energy which is bosonic in characteristic since they can take up the same space. But I just can't imagine how the entire energy of the entire universe is once planck size. How can such extraordinary amount of energy fit in such small space?? Noke > :) > The beginning we term the "big bang" was more than likely [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > While it is true that 2 atoms can't take up the same space > because of the pauli exclusion principle. However, if you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > planck size. How can such extraordinary amount of > energy fit in such small space?? There is no such thing as "pure" energy. Pure energy is just a lazy physics way of saying we will not use such small masses in our calculations. Energy comes from mass in motion. If you can't detect the mass it is not proof it is not there, but if you can detect the energy from the supposed non mass, it is basically proof it is there and not non mass at all. The big bang is a complete joke to basic physics and the simple statement of "Matter can neither be destroyed nor created." Not once has such been done... ever. The Big Bang is Big Bullshit only. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 1, 7:15 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > > While it is true that 2 atoms can't take up the same space > > because of the pauli exclusion principle. However, if you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Not once has such been done... ever. > The Big Bang is Big Bullshit only. The statement "mass/energy or matter can neither be destroyed nor created" is valid after the Big Bang. Before the Bang (the "before" part is in question since time only began after the Singularity expands), there may be only pure mathematics. That is. The singularity is made up of pure mathematics then the Big Bang is the execution of the mathematics (of Allah or whatever). Noke > -- > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman > On Jul 1, 7:15 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > is made up of pure mathematics then the Big Bang > is the execution of the mathematics (of Allah or whatever). pure mathematics? So pure abstracts of nothing before the big bang? Sorry, again the big bang and singularities lose. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.