LHC@home

Ok, been off topic a bit eh? lol sorry

What will cern do if they create a black hole?
I looked here:
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html
and found nothing about creating a black hole so
I'll assume it is a question of concern and not a question of the program.

If they create one, and live to tell about it, they will probably keep creating them, and studying them, and making them dangerously larger until the day they can say: "I knew that that one would be too bi
..... these are zero dimensional remains of the earth. :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Woohoo, more talk :)
thank you
quote
Dark Matter :
What they call "Dark Matter" is simply the field of flux particles completely filling space (explained in this theory).

ok, but I have more on that:
the flux particles can be anything, including dark matter, ok, but
what about the space/air/room between the strings?
am I getting toooooo small now? but still,
if 1 string stays straight and transmits a wave energy, and the other 9 flatten out,
that's within 1 flux ball of 10 dimension strings,
then one flux of dark matter is too big to fill that gap.

more on defining space below.

Some other points:
I originally understood that the big bang happened,
then the universe changed/morphed and expanded into the nothingness/vacuum?.
the edge of the universe was like a bubble under water, with edges.

I am now feeling that everything, the nothing, that was there before the universe,
and what is still on the 'other' side of it's expanding edge,
is what is viewed as the spacetime in which the universe expands.
and that that is what is warped by dense universal areas.
- or was spacetime born with the universe? and it's connected to matter?
-- meaning that pre-big-bang was only vacuum, which could have caused the big bang. (and we could even say it sucked the life(us) out of a singularity.

Am I still in the bleachers at the ball game? so-to-speak.
- or not even in the ball park? :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

so dark matter won't fill gap between the electrons and the nucleous. So what IS between them?

Based on the following:
There wasn't a big bang. The reason they came up with that is because of the supposed red shift. But that's a misconception. Do you really think light can travel billions of years through space and expand spherically and remain exactly the same? Or would it reduce in frequency to adjust for the expansion?
1) The energy for all we see came from somewhere. Where?
-- I think that was and still is reason for believing the big bang theory. It either gave everthing, or just the energy, but something came from somewhere. And a specific amount according to the flux theory.
2) If the frequency of light is expanded spherically, it would red shift. If the string it's on is expanded longer, it would blue shift; like pulling a string taught and getting a higher note.
Edit: 3) Omit

Space is infinite. That is still a huge concept to get one's head around. Baby steps for now for me.

quote: quote:
"Thinking there was an original point of inception (Big Bang) and everything is racing away from it is the same as thinking the Earth is the center of the Universe and everything else revolves around it."
1) this also presumes we are/were the only universe around in the above mentioned infinity. When do we get the info of universes colliding?
-- put another way, if there is one universe, 'big bang' edge collisions.

Addit:
Big Bang: How can we see background radiation if there was no room in the early universe for it to flow through? It would have been absorbed long ago.
-- So then, what is this 'background radiation' we see?
Flux:
Edit: 1) If the 'radiation' can keep going into space, again, what is it we are seeing? It can't reflect back, but maybe it can path-change back to us?
2) Doesn't light, and all energies, lose energy with all those micro path changes?

I'd say background radiation would be more the proof of other 'big-bangs', energy centers if-you-will, then it is a reflection of our own beginning.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>Or would it reduce in frequency to adjust for the expansion?
</blockquote>
This is precisely the reason for the red shift.
<blockquote>
Space is infinite.
</blockquote>

Er - No it isn't. The universe has an edge. What's on the other side? There <B>is[/b] no 'other side'

And lastly, answer me this:

If there was no Big Bang, then presumably some other explanation accounts for red-shift, and the universe is in a steady state. If so, it's been around for much longer than the 14 billion years or so the Big Bang suggests. That being the case, Why haven't the stars gone out?

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Er - No it isn't. The universe has an edge. What's on the other side? There <B>is[/b] no 'other side'

- Isn't that the paradox? The fact that we can say 'other side' and then say there is nothing? We can not point at something and say it is not there. Ofcourse, the 'other side' is a 3D terminology, and that confirms this is not a 3D topic. Hmmm, neat thought.

If there was no Big Bang, then presumably some other explanation accounts for red-shift, and the universe is in a steady state. If so, it's been around for much longer than the 14 billion years or so the Big Bang suggests. That being the case, Why haven't the stars gone out?

- If the universe is finite, that then explains the existence of stars today. Not the same stars, but energy going round and round.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Why would you want to fill between the gap?

I want to fill the gap to better understand what or where this space is that is expanding and contracting; that is being warped.
- I don't get any replies as to what this space is and where it came from. Just all of a sudden there are interactions.
-- another note: I'm leaning closer to: the gravitational force being like centrifugal force in the sense that: Centrifugal 'force' is a perceived force, a reaction, brought on by a second force, towards normality, a straight line.(assuming a straight line is normal). An object trying to remain in the direction of the initial force that caused it to move in direction x from it's resting state.
-- Those 2 forces could easily be called 2 gravitational forces, but like I say, what if gravity is but a reaction to other forces? (I like superstring theory as it leaves many doors open, true integral point of view if you will. It allows human thought towards what is happening, and no: "No, you can't do that".)
-- you state that:
What this means is light vibrations along the strings propagating through space will be divided to fill the ever increasing area.
--- but you also say there is no expansion, so area/region, remains the same. You must be meaning that light will take the easiest path, like electricity does, and thus lose potential(red shift) yet the area infiltrated by said light's energy increases.

-- you also state:
The Universe isn’t expanding, although the fusion reaction in the sun and other stars does allow the release and expansion of billions and billions of Flux particles...
--- Ok, so in this universe of said infinite size, one thing going on in it is 'waves' of density changes. That the density 'waves' that go through 'space' in all directions are actually coming from stars(density changing bodies). Then that would give the ol' curveball effect to planet earth, and hence the appearance of a force being called gravity. (sound good?)

In both particle and flux theory, the distance between 2 atoms is allowed to change. Just a point in common is all.(sounds like flux theory is the microscopic, or smaller still, of the particle theory.)

Think about it... the Universe can't expand... it's already there.
-- again, way beyond where my mind is at, or may ever be at.
-- I can only say, I'm sure the origin of the universe that is already there is either: 1) a question being researched and/or 2) again balled up in Einstein's equation.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>
MikeW... please explain your quote (below) in detail.
Or give us the link to where you copied it from.

quote:
Er - No it isn't. The universe has an edge. What's on the other side? There is no 'other side'
</blockquote>

There are plenty of references. Search Google for 'Outside the universe' and take your pick.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

gravityboy !!!!! :O
I'm surprised you'd include a link with big-bang talk to prove a point.
did I miss something?
:)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>The link was for the 'edge of the universe' comment, MikeW says there is an edge, Nasa says different, the other stuff is irrelevant.

Wouldn't it be hard to talk about one thing like edge of the universe and not say anything else about anything?
If they also said the 'sky is blue'... So what?

So the answer is yes... you missed the boat on this one. :-)

<blockquote>gravityboy !!!!! :O
I'm surprised you'd include a link with big-bang talk to prove a point.
did I miss something?
:)</blockquote></blockquote>

NASA's analogy suggests that there is no 'edge' to the Universe. However, the analogy they use suggests the Universe is finite. If it's finite then there is a boundary which we cannot cross. This is the 'edge' to which I refer.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

<blockquote><blockquote>
NASA's analogy suggests that there is no 'edge' to the Universe. However, the analogy they use suggests the Universe is finite. If it's finite then there is a boundary which we cannot cross. This is the 'edge' to which I refer.
</blockquote>


hmmm... so, if the universe is finite but it is expanding, can it keep expanding into infinity and/or collapse into a big crunch? Yes, why not?
But if it keeps expanding is it going to cross the boundary it/we cannot cross or is it going to stop at the brick wall out there deep in space?
What if it keeps expanding into infinity? Are you going to say there is a boundary at infinity? That's ridiculous, all this 2-D balloon, raisin bread, etc. explanation stuff they came up with is ridiculous.

2-d explanations don't work... read gravitational warpage here...

http://gravityboy.gootar.com/docs/gravity.html

Here's a question for you...
What direction is your boundary in?
If you are in a spaceship heading in one direction, what happens if you just keep going? You hit the boundary? Where do you end up?

Don't worry... you can't answer, that whole form of thinking is ridiculous.


</blockquote>

Imagine the surface of a football, or the earth. Travel in any direction along its surface and you will not encounter an edge. It is, however, finite. The analogy is true for the Universe. Can the universe keep expanding? Maybe. Is it going to hit a brick wall in space? No - all space is, by definition, inside the universe. There is no space outside the universe. In fact, the very concept of 'outside' as applied to the Universe is meaningless. The Universe is, nonetheless, finite.

I guess that addles your brain - it sure as hell addles mine! ;-)

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

<blockquote>
This is exactly the 2-D explaination analogy I was talking about that doesn't work.
This is taking a 2-D surface and curving it into a 3-D sphere, you can't curve 3-D like that... it's already wherever you want to curve it to.
</blockquote>

Spacetime is already 4D anyway. You can curve a 3D object in four dimensions. The maths of superstrings suggest 11 dimensions. This may be testable by experiment.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Actually you can just as easily curve 3 dimensional space as 2 dimensional space. It might not appear to be so because the human brain cannot picture such a thing. The math is though exactly the same as in 2 dimensions. If you are interested in curved space i encourage you to read up on Einstein theory of General Relativity.

---

Chrulle
Research Assistant &amp; Ex-LHC@home developer
Niels Bohr Institute

chrulle
I have done alot of reading,
some of that I can not get my brain around.
But I do know that 1stD is moved through other 1Ds to give 2nd D,
2nd D through other 2Ds to give 3rd D,
and 3rd D must be through other 3Ds to give 4th D.
Is 4th D still spacetime?
and does it only apply to spacetime exclusive to matter or inclusively?
- as we know that 1D and 2D are only properties of 3D. Um, see my heading? :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Well, first one to the edge or to end up back here from other direction, wins.
I guess gravityboy you will be staying here at the start line, um, plane, um, sphere, um ... hehe I digress.

But I would like some references for this info please:
http://www.geocities.com/xulfrepus/index.html
Needing something to read.

Thank you.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>Just because you can write some equation on paper doesn't make it real or possible in the real world. You are not going to curve 3-D space.

If I give you an equation for a sphere and tell you any object that travels on the surface will curve, does that mean I have discovered gravity? Did I curve space? Don't you see how ridiculous that is?


Here is an new equation...

universe = ∞

Now the universe is infinite because of the equation.</blockquote>

Just because you can't picture it, that doesn't mean it's not real.

Presumably you also deny the existence of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks...because they don't fit your personal experience. I'd guess also that you've never been far enough from the surface of the earth to see that it's round, so here's a link you might find to your taste.

Enjoy!

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Flat Earth Society
Wow, I'd have to agree!
We do walk on 2D area, and it goes on for as long as you can walk, although we are 3D and walk through spacetime.

I've read that circles, if zoomed in on will look flat, and only derivatives, is it?, are going to retain the curved look.

Always a little info in everything.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>
This implies you can picture it... please describe your picture of it for us.
If you can't picture it... just describe it. </blockquote>

The material needed is too big to cover here. You can get an excellent description of General Relativity on the Astronomy Notes web site, which also carries photographs of real world examples.

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

God bless you for this:
In fact, you will find that gravity is not really a force!
at that site. :)
toot toot

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

<blockquote>Just because you can write some equation on paper doesn't make it real or possible in the real world.

No you are absolutely right.
This is why you have to be very careful when using mathematics.
Mathematics is a way of explaining precisely what you mean. It is also a way for you to describe exactly the needed assumption and definitions.

This makes it possible for someone else to easily verify or reject the theory by challenging either the assumptions or the logic used to derive your answer.


Here is an new equation...

universe = ∞

Now the universe is infinite because of the equation.</blockquote>

This is a typical example of bad math you have not actually defined what you mean. What do you mean by =, what do you mean by universe what do you mean by ∞.
If i take the ordinary meaning of your symbols your theory is easily disproved:

Your equation states that anywhere i would use the universe i could substitute infinity, ie an unbounded limit. (1)

So your equation allows me to do: universe = definiteintegral[0,1](f(t)*dt) (2)
Where f(t) is a function that grows unbounded within the t limit ]0;1].

So you equation postulates that from 1 and 2 i could eat an apple inside the definite integral. This is obviously false. The only conclusion is therefore that your equation is false.

---

Chrulle
Research Assistant &amp; Ex-LHC@home developer
Niels Bohr Institute

I believe that was gravityboy's point.
Writing it means nothing.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D