AWKWARD ZOMBIE

yes they can

that's how the theory came about

I worded that wrong. I don't doubt shit like gravity or quantum physics. I doubt when one scientist claims something that opposes what another scientist would say, and they both claim they're right.

This is called a debate. This is encouraged in science to promote formulation of better theories. Also, about most major topics there is little discussion at the core of the scientific community. There are always people at the fringe with crazy ideas though, like geologists that think the earth is 6000 years old.

Stuff that is still under heavy debate, like say, string theory, doesn't mean scientists don't know what they're talking about, it generally means a subject is so complex that it takes years and hundreds or even 1000 of scientists to unravel, and they do this through debating, among other things.

I'll post about the black hole-star thing in the evening.

The main problem is that while you have an understanding of physics that is somewhat impressive for someone not of the field, is that it's too basic to properly understand these things. Another problem is that to gain an appropriate understanding, you'd have to get a few years of education. However, I will try to explain the workings of nuclear fusion, which I think will allow you to see the holes in your theory better. I should start off by saying I'm not really sure what you mean by coalescence, it's not a word I'm familiar with. This what you mean?

Before going on about it nuclear fusion not being so simple as just lumping a lot of stuff together, there is another fundamental problem: the expanding nature of the universe. I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on this too much, you can hopefully understand this intuitively. When a star goes through its life phases, it emits energy and mass. When it becomes a black hole, it thus has lost most of its original mass. You then theorize that it can absorb mass again to start nuclear fusion again. This mass has to come from somewhere though, and since the universe has an accelerated expansion (which boils down to everything further distancing itself from everything else), there will very soon be little matter for the black hole left to absorb within it's reach.

Now, as to why I don't think nuclear fusion (which is essentially what a sun is, a giant nuclear fusion reactor) will simply start occurring again in a black hole. First off, nuclear fusion is based on Einstein's formula E=mc^(2). What does this mean? The proportions mass and energy in a closed off system (a system which doesn't exchange energy or matter with other systems) are constant. This means that when mass decreases, energy increases. Now let's look at what's going on in the core of the sun: Hydrogen atoms, under immense heat and pressure, are merged together in a Helium atom. However, when nucleuses merge, the result has less mass than the sum of the original 2 nuclei (this is only applicable up until Fe though, which coincidentally is where normal suns stop merging). Since its mass has decreased, its energy has increased. The loss in mass was very small, but as you may have noticed, the loss of mass is to be multiplied by the light speed squared. The new atom now has a tremendous amount of energy and it wants to get rid of it (everything thrives to reduce potential energy(which is a physics term, if you don't know it then please ignore this) to a minimum, also known as the thrive for chaos). It's going to dissipate this extra energy through radiation, not beta(-)-radiation, as removing an electron would enormously destabilize(thus heighten the potential energy) the very stable He, but through gamma-radiation(which I think can be simplified to lightnot really). The now stable He atoms are now ready to merge with another hydrogen atom, or alternatively another He atom, to form the next elements in the Periodic System, Lithium and Beryllium. This is how every atom was formed. Now, when a star runs out of elements to merge(it can't create elements ranked higher than Fe), it 'dies'. A number of things can happen, depending on the size and mass of the star. One of those things is a black hole. As said before, a black hole emits mass and energy upon forming, so there is no way the elements formed in the star can be broken apart into lower ranked elements again. If a black hole absorbs mass, that mass is usually composed of elements ranked just as high as those in the hole. Even if it were to absorb say, a large cloud of hydrogen, it is extremely unlikely the conditions for nuclear fusion, extreme heat and pressure(well the latter obviously would) , to occur since this ball of high ranked elements in the core would inhibit the reaction thermodynamically.

Tl;dr the universe will end when all elements have been merged into high ranked ones, and when every particle has achieved minimal potential energy. I hope I didn't bore anyone to death with this post, and if you have any further questions or remarks, feel free to shoot.

Note: The loss of mass when merging nuclei is explained through quantum physics, I could try and explain that if you want, but I'd have to look it back up myself.

Fun fact: I spend more time on trying to post this and editing this, than typing it up. FUCKING APOSTROPHES
Edit: Those songs were cool ^^.

Yes.


Most everything in your post was too complex for me to grasp easily, except for this:


Yeah, I was thinking the immense pressure would be enough to trigger a 'change' in a black hole when it had gathered enough matter/electrons to sufficiently excite itself.


I've also heard whisperings of the BBT being debunked because of things like red phasing anomalies and universal expansion being questioned.

I personally think of space as a fluid thing - something that goes through phases of expansion and contraction as it gets 'hot' and 'cold' - much like a liquid does - as human beings we've only been able to observe the galaxy/universe for a ridiculously brief period of time, so isn't it possible we've been observing our part of space going through a 'hot' period of expansion, also meaning that our same part of space may enter a period of 'cooling' - where everything appears to come together?

I'm gonna level with you here and say that most of my theories come from my rejection of the BBT (not that I don't respect it as a theory). Perpetual star life cycle theory and fluid space theory are just some of the things that have come out of me trying to accommodate a universe that has always been, always will be, and will always sustain life, without beginning or end.

My main problem with the BBT is that it's borne from our built-in subconscious understanding of ourselves as finite beings (we are born, live a limited life cycle, and die); The BBT is applying that same logic to stars, galaxies, and the universe as a whole, and I think that is the major flaw in the BBT.

Though I don't understand the mechanics of how a star might recycle itself as I outlined* I think it's possible for a star to be a self-perpetuating thing, and that line of thinking also means that solar systems, galaxies, and even the universe itself can also be self-perpetuating things... I just can't prove any of this to the same extent as the BBT.

Give me a few billion years to observe a few stars and areas of space and I'll get back to you.


*I often back up these kinds of points by reminding people that Darwin couldn't prove the theory of evolution in his lifetime because DNA wasn't discovered until after his death - yet he was still able to see patterns and behaviours that indicated something deeper (don't try to see arrogance in me comparing myself to Darwin - I'm just making a comparison - I really don't believe I'm as awesome as he was).


Also I've heard that the Einstein's mass-energy equivalent theory doesn't stack up on the quantum level, or something like that.


NB: Please don't take this as a hostile reply, I'm just putting my alternative/offbeat way of thinking out there.

There's something that always bothers me about developing theories about Astronomy, and that's that all of the information we're obtaining is hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of years old by the time it reaches us. I know, it's not really that important, since it is data and we can analyze it... but it just bothers me that it's practically impossible for us to know that actual current state of the universe.

I dunno if your post is related to the nuclear fusion and black hole things, but in case it is, I'd like to point out that they're currently working on simulating those. In fact, I heard the first nuclear fusion reactor is in the works.

I can understand what you're saying though. But what I think is cool is that we can still analyse data from billions of years ago. Big Bang isn't just some theory, it's partly based on traces of radiation and stuff that was discovered.

Would pop soda work better or worse than water on a hangover?


Good god, I can't fucking think.

You went from black holes and Big Bang theory to hangover cures.

You're practical, I like that.

No. Straight up hydration is what you need, man.

Woops, it seems I completely missed DnD's post, sorry.



Well, I'll level with you, I don't know the temperature of a black hole and I don't think anyone does. Intuitively I'd mark it as cold though, since it has no way to produce energy and since it's such a dense ball of matter(I've read on wikipedia it might be infinitely dense, but I don't really understand that myself) outward energy sources would have an incredibly hard time of heating it up itself. Maybe it can retain the heat it gathers though, so it could warm up given the proper amount of time(which might be infinite then, I dunno). However, even given that it has enough temperature and pressure(both are a prerequisite) there is still this huge ball of irreactive matter at the core. This has 2 implications: if the universe is infinite, it has already existed for an infinite amount of time and such balls of extremely dense matter would exist at the core of every star. There's no evidence that suggests this is the case.

Now to explain the second part, this is going to be slightly harder. For an inter-particle reaction(such as nuclear fusion) to occur between 2 particles, they first have to be in close proximity to each other. In any liquid, gas or plasma, particles are flowing freely throughout each other. When they collide, there is a chance of an inter-particle reaction to occur. This is why temperature and pressure are proportional to reaction speed, since they increase the chance of collisions to occur. If you have a substance with a huge irreactive ball in the middle(or the ball might dissolve and have it's particles flowing around as well) it's going to obstruct particles from hitting each other, thus decreasing the chance reaction can occur. This is what I meant by the ball thermodynamically inhibiting the nuclear fusion.

But, even against those tremendously negative thermodynamic odds, a large enough cloud of hydrogen might be able to circumvent this. Still, you're going to run out of hydrogen in the universe eventually.



Well, I don't know anything about the BBT being debunked, but it's still being thought at my university, by professors that are a lot smarter than me and everything they say or do is controlled by people who are also smarter than me. So I currently still think BBT is true, also because it makes sense to me and I haven't seen a worthy alternative.

What you're saying here though isn't true, BBT doesn't necessarily imply a finite universe, it only talks about a beginning. If the universe is cyclical, BBT could still hold up if pre-BB circumstances reoccur and then the BB would just be a step in the cyclical process. Have you heard of the Big Crunch theory? It's about the universe eventually starting to re-contract again and stuff. I'm not really a supporter of it, but I think it might interest you. It seems to be what you were talking about with space being fluid and stuff.


Personally I think the universe is finite and my main reason is the seemingly(no counter evidence has ever been presented) universal law that everything strives to attain maximum dissipative energy and needs outside influence to return to potential energy. This is a fundamental part of modern science. The universe could be infinite if there is something that can exercise that influence though. I think in that case Big Crunch might be how it would close the cycle.



Well, the problem is that your theory of cyclical stars contradict with most findings of science, so until you find that proof, your theory is going to be seen as extremely unlikely. I also feel I should tell you that the more science advances the less likely these revolutionary discoveries that completely change the way we see things are to occur. We are now capable to measure things on an extremely small scale as well as an extremely large scale. We can also simulate and recreate occurrences under controlled circumstances. We currently have access to almost infinity more data then the guys that made the old theories had. 50 years ago, new discoveries were made by one scientist on a desk. Now you need at least 20 and state of the art equipment. I think it has been at least 20 years since our last truly revolutionary discovery(correct me if I'm wrong).

What I'm trying to say is, you should base theories on what is currently accepted as true by science.

However, that doesn't mean your theories aren't welcome, science is an open forum and everyone is free to make suggestions.


If you could provide a source, that'd be awesome. I'm interested ^^.



No worries man, I like discussing these things. I think you're a pretty cool guy, so don't take my reply as hostile either . As long as we attack each other with valid arguments, we're cool.



Haha, thanks.



Too late, but still thanks for the reply :p. I heard something about sport drinks(Aquarius etc.) were better than water(because hydrolytes) so I was thinking if pop drinks might kind of do the same thing. I can't bother to get into it now though.

Sports drinks are only good if you have been sweating a ton. That's because they all claim to have "electrolytes" which is a fancy term for salt. If you've been losing it through sweat, it's good to replenish. If you haven't, congratulations you just sucked down extra you didn't need.

Plus check the sugar count on some of those energy drinks. As bad as soda in the cases of some.

That sounds about right. Thanks Madican.

often it's near soda levels, but the real issue is sodium, which is the main electrolyte in sports drinks. And frankly, you're better off drinking water with some salt in it as the sugar intake in sports drinks during exersize can induce vomiting.