But as density increases, approaching 1075 times the nuclear density, this repulsion begins to dominate.
But not in black holes?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: LibWhacker
Oh no. The creationists have had it now (insert sarcasm).
2 posted on
05/24/2006 4:01:41 PM PDT by
BipolarBob
(Yes I backed over the vampire, but I swear I looked in my rearview mirror.)
To: LibWhacker
This is an answer?
Just postulate another universe and hope nobody notices? or worse yet, ask that damm embarrassing question...
... WTF did THAT universe come from... ?
3 posted on
05/24/2006 4:06:51 PM PDT by
Publius6961
(Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
To: LibWhacker
Nope. Ain't dense enough.
4 posted on
05/24/2006 4:08:21 PM PDT by
Gordongekko909
(I know. Let's cut his WHOLE BODY off.)
To: LibWhacker
Black holes are balloons compared to the singularity.
To paraphrase Stephen Hawkins "When God said 'Let there be Light', the question isn't whether the universe burst into existance; the question is 'Did God have a choice?'.
There's some good information here that's way over my head. Black holes are in the neighborhood of 10e35 times the nuclear density, nothing near 10e75 (unless I'm severely mis-understanding my physics - which is entirely possible too).
5 posted on
05/24/2006 4:08:40 PM PDT by
Hodar
(With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: LibWhacker
just before the Big Bang occurred, another universe very similar to ours may have been contractingI thought we already decided our universe is destined to expand forever; in which case such a universe is not that similar to ours.
The current researcher seems to have a different opinion about our universe's fate...
To: LibWhacker
Using a theory called "loop quantum gravity," a group led by Penn State professor Abhay Ashtekar has shown that just before the Big Bang occurred, another universe very similar to ours may have been contracting.Where did that universe come from?
11 posted on
05/24/2006 4:15:44 PM PDT by
Kenny Bunkport
(As the Democrat Party becomes more evil, the GOP becomes more stupid. What's a voter to do?)
To: LibWhacker
12 posted on
05/24/2006 4:16:39 PM PDT by
dangerdoc
(dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
To: Gengis Khan; ridgerunner; little jeremiah; The Lion Roars
The "Hindu" and Buddhist cycle of creation and destruction.
13 posted on
05/24/2006 4:17:51 PM PDT by
razoroccam
(Then in the name of Allah, they will let loose the Germs of War (http://www.booksurge.com))
To: LibWhacker
Yeah, but what about the coming Gnab Gib?
16 posted on
05/24/2006 4:22:24 PM PDT by
WestVirginiaRebel
(Common sense will do to liberalism what the atomic bomb did to Nagasaki-Rush Limbaugh)
To: LibWhacker
I love this stuff, trying to wrap my feeble mind around such complex theories.
To: LibWhacker
22 posted on
05/24/2006 4:27:23 PM PDT by
ADemocratNoMore
(Jeepers, Freepers, where'd 'ya get those sleepers?. Pj people, exposing old media's lies.)
To: LibWhacker
So now a "Big Bounce" replaces the "Big Bang." Apparently an unspecified number of them.
So, how did this start? Or did it have no start, but has been oscillating in this fashion for eternity? How can we know?
To: LibWhacker
Talk about mythology. Back to infinite regression.
28 posted on
05/24/2006 4:34:58 PM PDT by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: LibWhacker
"loop quantum gravity," Would you not get more defined results by peeing in the wind.
29 posted on
05/24/2006 4:40:28 PM PDT by
org.whodat
(Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
To: LibWhacker
It is an idealized set-up which does not connect smoothly to realistic cosmology This is polite language.
33 posted on
05/24/2006 5:02:23 PM PDT by
RightWhale
(Off touch and out of base)
To: LibWhacker
Scientists may finally have an answer to a "big" question: If the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, what could have caused it to happen? Kids playing with matches.
35 posted on
05/24/2006 5:05:32 PM PDT by
freedumb2003
(I LIKE you! When I am Ruler of Earth, yours will be a quick and painless death </Stewie>)
To: LibWhacker
Since the "current" universe seems to be flying apart and showing no signs of an eventual contraction, what prevented the "prior" iteration from doing the same thing?
42 posted on
05/24/2006 5:14:41 PM PDT by
Redcloak
(Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
To: LibWhacker
Einstein's space is curved by the presence of matter, and the volume of the universe is believed finite. Time looks straight, but not necessarily so, and our universe's future could be directly connected with its beginning.
45 posted on
05/24/2006 5:17:59 PM PDT by
dr huer
To: LibWhacker
Ok, so now tell us where the other universe came from and how did it start? This doesn't answer any questions at all but makes more questions. This is a typical trick of scientists to make you think they have solved a big mystery when in reality they couldn't solve it so they made something up to give the illusion of solving it.
They did the same thing with the origin of life, it is impossible for it to have occured on earth the way they theorized so now "life came to earth on a meteor or some other rock from space" as if this explains it when in reality the same old question looms: How did life start?
48 posted on
05/24/2006 5:18:42 PM PDT by
calex59
(No country can survive multiculturalism. Dual cultures don't mix, history has taught us that!)
To: LibWhacker
Personally, I think most of this stuff is mutual you-know-what by physicists. There are some things that just aren't knowable, and the Big Bang is one of 'em. If there even was such a thing. Unless you believe in G-d, the thought of something out of absolutely nothing is just not credible.
50 posted on
05/24/2006 5:20:30 PM PDT by
rbg81
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson