Water burns!
 

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Just to be sure, The "theory" of evolution is not the same sort of
thing as a conspiracy "theory". A lot of problems have arisen out of
lumping the two together.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I believe "theory of evolution" is highly correct.

Ever toss a hand full of metal, glass and plastic into a mud
puddle--come back a few million years later and start digging up
microwaves, cell phones, mp3 players, etc.?

If not, then you have a faith greater than it takes to have faith in
aliens or God ... our existence is about as strange a mystery as you
will ever find.

I just love those with over-simplified explanations ... occams' razor
seems to dull a bit on this problem.

JS

Water burns!
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
Dave Heil wrote:
You might add:
What set it off?

Chaotic conditions? One last electron encountering
the singularity?

Where did all of that matter come from?

A small plasma singularity?

Where did all of the empty space come from?

It's not empty, i.e. not absolute nothing.
Dark matter? Dark energy?

Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than
a Supernova. Heavy elements are created during
a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created
during the Big Bang?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil

Heavy elements are created from precursors that exist prior to the
supernova. All fusion reactions up to Iron result in the creation of energy.
This is what keeps a star from collapsing under its gravitational mass. Once
a star reaches the stage where a given proportion of the core is composed of
Iron, not enough energy is given off to prevent the star from a catastrophic
gravitational collapse. It is the energy from the gravitational collapse
that creates the heavy elements and if the star is big enough, a nova or
supernova.

I seem to recall that the big bang by comparison resulted in an initial
state that was composed of something in the order of 97% Hydrogen and 3%
Helium. The elements condensed from an expanding cloud of sub atomic
particles as temperatures (or energy levels) dropped with the expansion. By
the time individual atoms had condensed, the particles must have been too
far apart to become involved in further fusion reactions until they
coalesced under gravity to form stars.

Each new generation of stars contains a higher level of Helium (and heavier
elements) than the last and this is used as an indicator for how old a star
or galaxy cluster might be.

Mike G0ULI

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Presumably, the Big Bang was more energetic than
a Supernova.

Ya think?

Heavy elements are created during
a Supernova. Why were no heavy elements created
during the Big Bang?

How about this: The bigger the explosion the smaller the pieces.

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Why did it wait until the time
of the Big Bang to explode?

It didn't. The Big Bang was originally scheduled to explode the
following week.

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Mike Kaliski wrote:


Tom,

The speed of light in air is not vastly different from the speed of light
in
a vacuum. If photons were apparently travelling at 1.7 times the speed of
light in air, they clearly must have been exceeding the speed of light in
a
vacuum.

This result was observed using visible light. Current theory is usually
quoted as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccum.
It
is probably more correct to state that objects with mass cannot exceed
the
speed of light in a vacuum. Photons, having no mass, are not necessarily
subject to this rule and seem to be observed travelling at superluminal
velocity under certain very specific conditions. If the photons are
tunnelling and travelling faster than light in a vacuum, it does not
necessarily mean that any laws have been broken.

One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of
material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually
fired
into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the
structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material becomes
completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next
photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the material
and
a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same speed
and
in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is
restored
and energy is conserved.

But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of
light
and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is
emitted.
The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the
absorbed
photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears to
have
been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but no
laws have been broken.

A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen.

Mike G0ULI


Mike,

You had me fooled. It appeared that you might actually know something. But
that response bent the needle on my bull**** meter.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Actually that response is very credable, It is analogous to what happens
when electrons travel in a wire. Put an electron in one end of a wire and
one pops out the other end almost instantaneously even though the actual
speed of electrons flowing ththrough the wire is very, very slow.

Jimmie

Water burns!
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Jimmie D wrote:
the problem isnt with believing space can be empty but believing that
space is nothing..

Empty and nothing are synonyms.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Nope, they are not. And the physicist that explanined it to me made me wish
I had never brought up the subject becuse I had planned other things for the
evening than her 4 hr explanation. From what I got of it nothing is what
exist beyound the boundries of the universe and empty space would have to
exist within the universe.

Jimmie

Water burns!
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
John, N9JG wrote:
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have
"communications"?
2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed
greater than the speed of light.

From:
http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/...es_communicate

--Quote: How do entangled particles communicate?
One of the zanier notions in the plenty zany world of quantum
mechanics is that a pair of subatomic particles can sometimes
become “entangled.” This means the fate of one instantly affects
the other, no matter how far apart they are. It’s such a bizarre
phenomenon that Einstein dissed the idea in the 1930s as “spooky
action at a distance,” saying it showed that the developing model
of the atomic world needed rethinking.

But it turns out that the universe is spooky after all. In 1997,
scientists separated a pair of entangled photons by shooting
them through fiber-optic cables to two villages 6 miles apart.
Tipping one into a particular quantum state forced the other
into the opposite state less than five-trillionths of a second
later, or *nearly 7 million times faster than light* could travel
between the two. Of course, according to relativity, nothing
travels faster than the speed of light - not even information
between particles.

Even the best theories to explain how entanglement gets around
this problem seem preposterous. One, for example, speculates
that signals are shot back through time. Ultimately, the answer
is bound to be unnerving: According to a famous doctrine called
Bell’s Inequality, for entanglement to square with relativity,
either we have no free will or reality is an illusion. Some choice.
--end quote
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Very interesting if you limit yourself to a three dimensional universe. In a
3 dimensional universe these particle may be adjacent to each other.

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:
And the physicist that explanined it to me made me wish
I had never brought up the subject becuse I had planned other things for the
evening than her 4 hr explanation. From what I got of it nothing is what
exist beyound the boundries of the universe and empty space would have to
exist within the universe.

Outside the universe would be "absolute nothingness"
as opposed to nothing being in an empty bucket within
the universe. It certainly depends upon the definition
of "nothing" that is being used
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:
perhaps we should talk a while on the interesting effects that will be
realized if the law of conservation of energy is "broken".

We could start with: Where did all that energy come from
that caused the Big Bang? Why did it wait until the time
of the Big Bang to explode? How long was a second before
the Big Bang? :-)


Well we could Cecil. But before we do, It would be cool to ruminate on
a universe that has no restrictions on energy. If energy isn't
conserved, that would be the case.

Your big bang questions only hint at the possibilities.


Arthur C Clarke had some interesting thoughts on some of the possible
issues from just zero point energy extraction - which does not violate
the conservation of energy. See the heat crisis from the space oddysey
books.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Jimmie D wrote:
Very interesting if you limit yourself to a three dimensional universe. In a
3 dimensional universe these particle may be adjacent to each other.

Or as the quantum physicists say: "Reality is non-local".
Ever read, "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Heinlein?
Valentine Michael Smith sent bad people into that 4th
dimension.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com