Starburst Galaxy

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 7:55 am

See link

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040601.html

Why does this Galaxy M82 have so many deaths and births of stars over and above the MilkyWay.

Wow!!!!!!!!!

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:02 am

Beautifully Coloured picture. Looks like the galaxy is packed more densely than normal. Triggering quick condensation to form new giant stars. The stars in close proximity might be interfering with one another. Thus evolving lot quicker than normal!!!!

harry · Post by **harry** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:53 am

smile no time to evolve.

One day when more info is at hand the recycling process will become one of the greatest discoveries.

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:46 am

I think, the word evolution should be confined to the living. The recycle to nonliving.

I have my theory to explain all but don't have math to back it up! Looks like I will have to invent 1.

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:35 am

Evolution and recycle go hand in hand.

Living or dead

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:04 pm

Let's say you had a balloon that could become infinity large, how long would it take to fill it at 1 mole/hour? Then how long would it take at infinite moles/hour?

Photons, gravitons, neutrinos, etc. are all spreading out across the universe from dense areas to less dense areas, that is the basis of entropy. If the universe was static, it would have to be infinitely old and by the properties of matter, a mathematical representation model states that the universe would be infinite in size, infinitely cold, and what ever the smallest unit of matter, each would be an infinite distance apart.

Please don't forget how big infinity is. It is the major flaw in your theory and any effort to explain it away is in direct conflict to the theory itself.

Evolution and recycle go hand in hand.

Living or dead

That is only true in a closed system with a net loss to entropy.

makc · Post by **makc** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:31 pm

astroton wrote:I have my theory to explain all but don't have math to back it up.

Just a side note, a theory is nought without its math. In other words: I have my theory for Santa Claus, but that doesnt mean there is actually Santa Claus.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:03 pm

But Makc,
What math coveres the Santa Clause???

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:06 pm

Hello Bilderback

The only thing that will hold you back is yourself.

You have good writing skills.

But! you limit yourself.

No model is mine.
No theory is mine.

Bilderback said

"Let's say you had a balloon that could become infinity large, how long would it take to fill it at 1 mole/hour? Then how long would it take at infinite moles/hour?

Photons, gravitons, neutrinos, etc. are all spreading out across the universe from dense areas to less dense areas, that is the basis of entropy. If the universe was static, it would have to be infinitely old and by the properties of matter, a mathematical representation model states that the universe would be infinite in size, infinitely cold, and what ever the smallest unit of matter, each would be an infinite distance apart. "

"Please don't forget how big infinity is. It is the major flaw in your theory and any effort to explain it away is in direct conflict to the theory itself."

Your ideas are very limited. Go read more

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:47 pm

Your ideas are very limited. Go read more

My ideas are limited to the laws of physics, observations and logic. Reading other peoples speculations can be interesting, but if one truly understands the science, the flaws in some of these speculative theories automatically negates their validity.

Let me try this:

Do you believe the universe is infinite in age?

harry · Post by **harry** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:59 pm

The Universe has no age and is infinite.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:25 pm

OK, so you theoretical universe is infinitely old.

Stars give off light, gravity, neutrinos that travel out from the source, am I correct in that assumption?

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:59 am

I don think we have ability to study further than visible universe. Restriction to the speed of light is a restriction to our ability (so far). But, since most theories on the origins of universe tend to be speculative, I would most certainly speculate that the multiverse is infinite. The blue shifted galaxies and hubble's (not the telescope but the original one) findings are good enough proof on receding galaxies. If you believe in that (and the proof is substantial), the origins of our abode that we call universe seem to point towards big bang or some such event. I would say conversion of energy to mass and vice versa is an infinite process.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:00 am

Bilderback stated:

"OK, so you theoretical universe is infinitely old.

Stars give off light, gravity, neutrinos that travel out from the source, am I correct in that assumption?"

Correct

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:31 am

makc wrote:
astroton wrote:I have my theory to explain all but don't have math to back it up.
Just a side note, a theory is nought without its math. In other words: I have my theory for Santa Claus, but that doesnt mean there is actually Santa Claus.

Mak, I don have math for my theory but, I have math for ability of speculative theory's success or failure. It goes like this,

In any reference frame (field of study), ability of speculative theory to succeed (S) is proportional to,

Author’s ability to make friends in the field (A)
Author’s ability to please powerful people in the field (P)
1 / Author’s ability to suppress easily targettable competition (T)
Authors ability to say,” Yes I meant that too" when competition is not easy to suppress. (Y)
Number of years author lives to protect his theory (L)

The value of the constant is 1.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:54 am

If you define Santa Clause as daddy. Than Santa Clause exists.

If you define any theory with the correct foundations than they will not collapse even when you are gone.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:56 am

So there are clusters of dense matter (any matter of our universe), sending out matter/energy to less dense areas over an infinite amount of time.

After some amount of time, a very, very long time, our universe would have recycled itself over and over becoming smaller/less dense each time because of the matter/energy lost due to entropy - the photons, neutrinos ... etc. moving from the dense areas of the universe speeding away at the speed of light. Without new matter/energy entering the universe, all aspects of the universe would reach equilibrium at either infinity or 1/infinity. The universe would end up being infinitely large, the smallest possible units of matter/energy moving away from each other at C, and be at absolute zero.

This scenario makes no sense unless you can explain how the matter/energy lost to entropy is somehow pulled back or formed into high-density areas to reform the hot dense matter/energy the universe IS made of.

This is theoretically possible but it requires the Big Bang to make it work.

So now it is up to you to show how the matter/energy that should become less dense and colder, can reform as hot dense matter.

astroton · Post by **astroton** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:56 am

harry wrote:If you define Santa Clause as daddy. Than Santa Clause exists.

If you define any theory with the correct foundations than they will not collapse even when you are gone.

Daddy does not give you infinite life (as per the speculative theory in question)

How do you prove such a speculative theory is based on correct / incorrect foundation without math backing?

Speculative theories without math still float and succed before dying a terrible death.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:52 am

Bilderback

You are going around in circles.

I think you are on the wrong track.

A process of recycling is not according to your logic.

------------------------------------------------

Astroton

Maths is great,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and you can make it twist the truth.

Observations are great and if you can see it you can believe it.

Maths in the past has been used to support the Big Bang,,,,,,,,the maths did not work.

What part do you disagree?
--------------------------------------------------

You can believe what ever you want.
Many cosmologists have lived their whole life thinking of one model and than changing with recent deep field images.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:00 am

Look at the links

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... lack+Holes+
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apo ... tron+stars

Maybe you will get to feel the Neutron star and the black holes

Smile

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:24 pm

I am fully aware of what is known and assumed about black hole and neutron stars and know the difference. When there is a finite amount of mass loosing a finite % of its total, at some point the mass left will equal zero. There is no 100% efficient reaction in the universe. Entropy = net loss - always. I'm not saying there is no recycling of matter/energy, I'm saying it can't continue indefinitely.

I didn't ask for any math, observation proves that matter/energy is going from dense to less dense areas and cooling as it go. If the universe is infinitely old, the cold less dense mater/energy has to reform into hot dense matter some how. All you need to do is state a theory as to how that happens. If you can't, the theory of a recycling universe you support is not valid no matter what happens in or near a black hole or neutron star.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:38 pm

Bilderback,
About the only way to cause something like a black hole to give up mass and energy without loosing any substance would be if the densness of the mass itself causes a link (gateway) to another dimension and draws energy and mass from it to be expelled into our own. If this were the case then it might also serve to explain the apparent weight (mass) of the visible universe being so small compared to its total apparent gravity. perhaps "Dark Matter/Energy" is actually being expelled from other dimensions into our own VIA the black holes.

S. Bilderback · Post by **S. Bilderback** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:08 pm

Black holes do give up energy and mass; they expel gravitons, magnetic fields... The event horizon contains part or possibly all of the mass of a black hole, it is theoretically possible that the all the matter is at the event horizon and evaporates becoming smaller and smaller until its no long is a black hole and becomes something else - like collapses into a neutron star or explodes as a large gamma ray burst.

It is not known if there are singularity, finite sized objects, warped spaces holes, active event horizons or something completely different making up a black hole - it all loose theory.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:38 pm

Hello Bilderback

In my opinion

You have your ideas inside out.

The event Horizon is a point is space where light cannot escape.

Neutron stars are the seeds for blackholes.

Black Holes only get smaller by the internal gravitational convectional currents that create jet streams and expell matter. As for evaporation I don't think so.

Smile

But! thats my opinion.

gordhaddow · Post by **gordhaddow** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:08 pm

Actually, the radius of the event horizon for a given mass is smaller than the radius of a neutron star of equivalent mass. And a black hole is only giving up mass if we can grant that gravitons are not massless. Anything that we can detect being 'excreted' by a black hole was probably never within the black hole, but consists of degenerate matter from the 'atmosphere' surrounding the event horizon being ejected as a result of a combination of rotational and electromagnetic forces.