You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
In the beginning there was uniform motion. It was without shape or form and void permeated the baby universe before the big bang of perfect symmetry. Then the creative force of the cosmos let there be broken symmetry and thus began the explosion that resulted in the decoupling of its only cosmic trinity: mass, energy, and space-time continuity.
Within 60 minutes of creation, the products are quarks, leptons, and energetic photons. As the cosmic temperature decreases, the constituents of quarks, mainly ups and downs, begin to form nuclei of light atoms mostly: hydrogen and helium with abundance ratio of 3 to 1. This ratio cannot be explained by current theories of cosmology. However, in terms of space-time quanta or charges H+ and H-, the mystery vanished. The space-time quanta of the up quark is ( 5, 1 ) that is 5H+ and 1H-. The down quark is ( 1, 3 ). For a proton, there are 2 ups and 1 down and its total space-time charges is ( 11, 5 ). For neutron is ( 7, 7 ). On the other hand the total space-time charges of an electron is ( 1, 7 ). Since hydrogen atom is made of 1 proton and 1 electron its total space-time charges is ( 12, 12 ). For a single helium atom, it is made of 2 protons, 2 neutron, and 2 electrons with total space-time charges of ( 38, 38 ). It is clear that ( 38, 38 ) is approximately 3 times ( 12, 12 ). Since the total space-time charge of the universe is uniformly conservative, the formation of neutral atoms must follow a principle of even number conservation of total space-time charges as a return to a universal uniformity.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
In the beginning there was uniform motion. It was without shape or form and void permeated the baby universe before the big bang of perfect symmetry. Then the creative force of the cosmos let there be broken symmetry and thus began the explosion that resulted in the decoupling of its only cosmic trinity: mass, energy, and space-time continuity.
[font=Verdana]Within 60 minutes of creation, the products are quarks, leptons, and energetic photons. As the cosmic temperature decreases, the constituents of quarks, mainly ups and downs, begin to form nuclei of light atoms mostly: hydrogen and helium with abundance ratio of 3 to 1. This ratio cannot be explained by current theories of cosmology.
[size=2]I was under the impression that the standard cosmology does account for the abundance of heavier elements??
...the big bang perfectly explains the abundance of helium and other nuclei like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the universe. (from here)
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
...This confirms that helium has mostly not been synthesized along with the heavier elements, such as the metals, but was made prior to the formation of the first stars. The coincidence between observation and prediction of the helium abundance in the universe provides one of the major pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory.
In the beginning there was uniform motion. It was without shape or form and void permeated the baby universe before the big bang of perfect symmetry. Then the creative force of the cosmos let there be broken symmetry and thus began the explosion that resulted in the decoupling of its only cosmic trinity: mass, energy, and space-time continuity.
Hi AL,
Perhaps before the big bang mass or energy was uniform and symmetric, and perhaps the universe still is uniform today.
If it is that you see the mass of the universe as united, uniform, symmetric or one before the big bang blew it apart: then I suggest that there inlies the flaw.
Perhaps if you percieved the universe today as still united or one, you might find it more uniform and symmetrical than you think, or have measured.
The universe is simply a matter of perception. I see it not as you say "decoupled," but rather: beautifully symmetrical, united, uniform, equal, or one.
= MJA
The truth of everything is less than one inch,
it is only equal and the lion is one.
One is free when the door is opened,
education has the key.
=
Last edited by dleviwing : 11-14-2007 at 03:15 PM.
Reason: Repair quote tag
guys, everyone can hypothesize about the early universe but observations have only detected certain abundances, for example, 3 to 1 for hydrogen to helium and heavier elements are only a few parts per millions. But since I am not the one doing these observations, all I can do is to take their words as they are.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
guys, everyone can hypothesize about the early universe but observations have only detected certain abundances, for example, 3 to 1 for hydrogen to helium and heavier elements are only a few parts per millions. But since I am not the one doing these observations, all I can do is to take their words as they are.
You appear to have completely missed my comment, and are now back-tracking. I'll recap: you say that no standard cosmology can agree with the observations of the abundances of the light elements. However, I have given you two links which show that the hot big bang model does agree with observations for the abundance of helium and, furthermore, says that the only way this ratio could have come about was through primordial nucleosynthesis.
Now, clearly, either I am misinterpreting your opening comments, or you disagree with the predictions that the standard model make. So, is it the former, or the latter?
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
The standard model uses the fact to fit their calculated numbers. What it really does is postdictions not prediction. It explains facts that have already happened not facts to be from the future.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
The standard model uses the fact to fit their calculated numbers. What it really does is postdictions not prediction. It explains facts that have already happened not facts to be from the future.
Yes, ok, so the wording of the phrase you quoted is incorrect, however it was hard to word without using the word "prediction." Note that, up until then, I did not say the standard model predicts the ratio of the light elements to be...
However, again you've missed the main point of my post, and picked up on a minor detail. I'll try again. In your opening post you say This ratio cannot be explained by current theories of cosmology. I have then provided links for you which show that the standard model does explain these predictions. So, where is your quibble? I have no problem with you questioning something if you have some evidence to back it up.
If you think that the assertion you make in your opening post is incorrect, there is no harm in admitting it!
~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
Re: return to uniformity -
11-12-2007, 01:25 PM
