Black Holes

[evecolonycamander]

that kinda makes sense.
edit: you mean like germs, but in reverse, right? if so that makes perfect sense.
also if the center of the big bang was a traveling object, wouldent that cause the universal structure to end up "egg" shaped?

[Freeza-CII]

first you would have to prove it was moving because before the singularity exploded into the big bang there was nothing.  So how would it be moving.  And a moving explosive like a missile for instance will make a shape where the other side of the explosion is larger then the trailing side.  But even then you would have to be moving pretty fast for that to happen on a noticable scale.

[evecolonycamander]

well if it was moving it would give the shape described in my last post. good.
now do you think it is possible that the big bang shelled. (think of an onion.) or mabie a better description is the singularity exploded then most of the matter (not all) collapsed back to the original singularity state an then repeated that sequence multiple times. the end result would be a universe that resembles a onion(or tree rings almost exactly)

[DartStriker]

I'm no expert in Astrophysics, Quantum Mechanics, or any other big-fancy title science fields, however it seems that you are asking questions that there is no finite answer too with our current knowledge of the Universe, in fact, I'm pretty sure we don't even have much information about our own galaxy.

However it does spark interesting conversation, and the what-if theories and scenarios intrigue me so I'll attempt to answer you last question if I understand it correctly.

If I understand correctly, you're asking what would be the resulting universe if a Big-Bang Explosion where to fire then collapse, fire then collapse, rinse and repeat, right?

I'm not entirely sure that's possible, an explosion on the scale of the big-bang is almost unimaginably powerful. Sure it can be roughly estimated through mathematics and so-forth, but nobody has ever experienced such a large scale display of force, and if one did occur I doubt they, or anyone would live to talk about it.

My point is... the big bang probably couldn't generate enough reverse pull to collapse back onto itself due to the force of the explosion in the first place.

I could, however, be entirely mistaken.
Now, let's say it where possible...

Then the first explosion would no doubt fire matter/radiation from the core mass, causing a 'ring.' After this burst It would also take time to re-collapse into a singularity, thus giving a small amount of time for the first release of matter to travel some distance. Now... the second explosion would occur, creating a gap space void of material. If this where to continue the universe would look somewhat like the age lines of a tree.

If this DID happen, we could possibly estimate the true age of the universe by counting the lines. (A bit of humor there. )

[evecolonycamander]

it would be quite possible to have this occur. with that much mass in such a small area it would constantly be pulled in and when it reaches the speed of light inside of the newly created singularity it will (so I've been told) turn into pure energy allowing it to have no (known) mass. this leads to the singularity evaporating. now assuming that this energy can revert back to matter it will gain mass, slow down, and come back to the original point of origin.

sorry but i got sidetracked and will possibly come back to this post later

[DartStriker]

Eve-

It would be quite possible to have this occur.

I assume you are referring to my first explanation explaining my belief of it not being able to compress after the first initial blast, it's not really clear as to what you are referring to from my post, if you could please clear it up that would be very helpful.

...with that much mass in such a small area it would constantly be pulled in and when it reaches the speed of light inside of the newly created singularity it will (so I've been told) turn into pure energy allowing it to have no (known) mass.

Again, I'm having a bit of difficulty following what part of my post you are responding too, so if I'm wrong just clear it up. I believe you are talking about the collapse still so I will respond under that assumption.

I was referring to the ability of the "Bang" to pull back after it's initial explosion, this explanation doesn't explain how the matter would be drawn back into another black hole, but merely re-states what a black-hole theoretically is inside.

...this leads to the singularity evaporating.

If the explosion did occur and somehow manage to recoil a large amount of mass back into the core of the explosion's origin (In this case, a black hole I assume), then if it evaporates a second explosion couldn't occur because the black hole deteriorates rather than explodes again, thus explaining a completely different scenario than the one I was trying to explain.

now assuming that this energy can revert back to matter it will gain mass, slow down, and come back to the original point of origin.

Referring back to the laws posted by CK9 earlier in this thread, it would be impossible for this energy to revert back into matter, as the laws of physics state that matter can turn into energy, but not vice versa. [Though, as I stated I'm no expert and could be completely wrong here.]

Anyway, I think we are on a completely different page here.

[evecolonycamander]

and yet the laws have been rewritten multiple times in history.
okey enough theory. i honestly have no clue on this one. what would be causing Jupiter to have more energy output then solar input.

[CK9]

The super-conductive Hydrogen core.

[evecolonycamander]

can you explain.


 

[CK9]

Most abundant element in the universe: Hydrogen
Most likely core of a gas giant: Hydrogen
What happens to hydrogen at that high of pressure: super-conductive liquid form (theoretically, heh)

[DartStriker]

Some believe that if a significant impact where to hit Jupiter it would ignite that core, turning it basically into a small sun, as well. There is a whole conspiracy theory around the black spot on Jupiter, and how NASA dropped a satellite onto the planet and sort of pulled a "Oops, let's not talk about it" deal, because if it did happen, and would have caused enough of an impact to ignite the planet, they would have been in big trouble.

[Moley]

although in most theories i have read, the core of Jupiter is a diamond? the carbon and other elements from meteors fell into the center and compressed into the diamond...

[CK9]

I don't think that would work.  The ammount of heat needed in combination with the pressure would have ignited the atmosphere

[evecolonycamander]

i knew some where in this discussion a conspiracy would be mentioned! LOL.
so jupiter because it has apparently achieved fusion at it's core doesn't that make it classified as a sun. and the moons>planets/dwarf-planets

[CK9]

Not unless Pluto is still a planet

Jupiter has not achieved fusion, but it is sometimes classified as a 'brown dwarf' or a failed star.  Maybe if we force neptune and uranus into jupiter it will become massive enough to become a second star.  Then we would be like the majority of solar systems out there, lol

[evecolonycamander]

no it takes .8 or .75 solar masses before a star can be achieved(that is what i was taught)
20 more Jupiters are needed for that
 

[Freeza-CII]

first off probes from earth have no mass in comparison to the amount needed to cause fusion in its core.  you need less then 2 solar masses to make a star.
1 jupiter = 0.000954638698 solar mass
your going to need to toss alot into it.

[CK9]

What if I threw in the Kuiper belt and Saturn along with those?

[evecolonycamander]

that wouldn't do it
there is not enough mass in the solar system to have two suns (excludes current sun)

[Sirbomber]

So then let's merge Jupiter into the Sun and make a Super Sun.

[Freeza-CII]

well you need it to be more hydrogen and helium then any thing else. solids wouldnt help that much tho they have a higher mass. but just going on mass alone you would probably need all the giant planets and the asteroid belt together to get enough for the proto star which is less then 2 solar masses.

If jupiter got close to the sun it would actually get bigger hehe.  

[evecolonycamander]

there is NOT a lot of mass in the asteroid bet to make even a moon sized planet. so that is unlikely. but if you check Jupiter's orbit at the L4 and L5 points you may be surprised

[DartStriker]

first off probes from earth have no mass in comparison to the amount needed to cause fusion in its core.  you need less then 2 solar masses to make a star.
1 jupiter = 0.000954638698 solar mass
your going to need to toss alot into it.

there is NOT a lot of mass in the asteroid bet to make even a moon sized planet. so that is unlikely. but if you check Jupiter's orbit at the L4 and L5 points you may be surprised

Considering as how there are some asteroids in the belt that are classified as dwarf planets, I think you are mistaken on this fact.

The satellite dropped contained large amounts of uranium. That was why there was so much hype about it.

[evecolonycamander]

thy are only classified as dwarf planets because of the fact they have enough mass to pull them self's into a round shape.

[Freeza-CII]

the thing about people is they dont know the difference between fission and fusion.
I used to think exploding a nuclear device in jupiter would make a star for a short time.  but that is fission not fusion. just a little tib bit about why people thought the uranium would set off a star fusion event hehe.