BIG BANG

This piece is written as a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to the way out theories that defy logic. Theoreticians should make more of an attempt to make their theories, no matter how accurate, at least portrayed as something that �could� be right. I believe in the absolute properties of math, however, just like computer programs, sometimes garbage in equals garbage out. Over the course of time, we have got the unified theory, the cold dark matter theory, wormholes, and a variety of other so called theories. Most of these theories were promulgated to support other weak theories. Egos get in the way, as well as reputation and we are meant to slurp up these concoctions as if they were buttery syrup and we had biscuits, asking for more.

Maybe the paradigm of the big bang is correct, but maybe it isn�t. For this piece I am going to assume that it is a valid beginning for the universe. With that explanation, I give you my version of the �Big Bang�, which is at least an attempt at logic. The illogical part is the acceptance of a mysterious singularity lacking any explanation of where it came from or what could have destabilized it. Providing that the paradigm of the �big bang� is correct, it would be logical to assume that once matter becomes that compacted, it starts to transform into energy, thus loosing mass, and less mass equals lower gravity. Then we have set the stage for the great expansion. This is just my musings, but there probably is a logical explanation for the destabilization of the singularity.

Once you get past that bit of nonsense, then I present my version of what happened from the time of the great expansion until we have galaxies. Enjoy! :-)

Big Bang According to Robert

Whatever it was, according to the theoreticians, it wasn�t very big. Somewhere in time, the thing couldn�t remain in the form it was in, so it started expanding. (The big bang.) The scholars are vague about what caused the instability; all we can surmise is that it started expanding fast enough to be classified as a bang.

At this point, it is fair to point out that the singularity as the big bang theory proposes, contains the total universe. All of the matter of the universe, and according to some, space itself was contained in this single entity. What is also very visible and important about the singularity is that it is not able to maintain itself in this state. Thus it is an unstable entity. Relate this to the theory of the black holes speculated by scholars, that gravity is so strong that light cannot escape. Matter is compressed to the point that molecules no longer exist, just primary elements of molecules with no respect for the normal space between these basic elements. What the �big bang� theory tells us, is that no amount of matter so compressed is stable. If a black hole were to keep adding matter to itself, there is no point at any stage of the matter accretion that would be stable. Think about it, gravity cannot be stronger than with a body containing all the matter of the universe. It is a maximum statement for gravity, and yet it still could not hold the singularity together. Therefore gravity cannot be the irresistible force that it is made out to be. Black holes may exist, but they cannot be stable. Gravity by any explanation, even to the point of holding the entire universe, cannot be absolute. The �big bang� settles the question absolutely. We pick up this narrative with the expansion of the singularity.

Did I say expansion? That�s what we are told. Whenever you look at a stick of dynamite exploding using a high-speed camera, that�s what you observe; expansion of the reaction. It is necessary to grasp this concept, as opposed to an instantaneous blast.

Lets call the expanding entity something, because describing the thing we are talking about whenever we talk about it, isn�t very efficient. For lack of a better term, I�ll call it the universe.

Remember our observation is happening fast enough so that we can see what is happening. The only constraint on the universe now is the weakening (But still strong) gravity of its former self. The expansion of the universe is causing it to break up. The pieces are different sizes, some large and some small. Even these fragments are still expanding, and fragmenting further. Still smaller fragments of these fragments are taking off in all directions. Try and picture a fireworks display where the fireworks are blasted into the sky, and then in turn, they explode in the air with fireballs going off in all directions. This is what is happening to our universe fragments. Relative to each other, the fragments and sub-fragments are going every which-a-way, but taken as a whole, the whole batch is moving away from the initial point of expansion.

That�s pretty much the big picture, but there was a lot going on and now we will back the tape up for another view of the universe at the time of the great expansion. The universe as we know it was compressed into a very small body. Gravity was unimaginably great surrounding the universe at this time. It was probably the force that held everything together. (Although it is not a certainty, but it is one of those things that we will assume for this article.) Visualizations are difficult here but try to mentally imagine a piece of dry ice in a pressure cylinder. Reduce the pressure to 1 atmosphere (The same pressure we live in normally) you will observe the dry ice giving off a haze that is drifting away. Now increase the pressure, as the pressure increases you will reach a point where the dry ice is stable and no longer giving off gas. This is the predicament of the universe fragments, as they raced away during the expansion. The further away they traveled from each other, the less the force (gravity) that held them together. These fragments of very dense material began acting like the dry ice at atmospheric pressure. They were fizzing and fragmenting further. And, with every release of sub fragments, the gravity produced by these smaller chunks of material got smaller.

There are still fragments of the great expansion in existence. Every galaxy still has, or once had, one at its core. These fizzing, pin wheeling, fragments disbursed the elementary particles that created the stars that make up each galaxy. Spewing out the elementary particles to coalesce into stars that in turn through fusion create the larger atoms that we are familiar with.

Currently, physicists take the opposite view about the heavy masses at the center of the galaxies. They contend that the galaxy centers are accreting mass. This theory does nothing to explain what happened to the concentrated mass that started the great expansion. What forces would have concentrated the matter into the billions of galaxies? Just think about the scenario of the original singularity that expanded to form the universe. Listening to the explanation of the physicists, you would have to believe that primary particles were distributed evenly during the expansion, and somehow they were being lumped into galaxies as the universe was expanding. No mention is made of the fragmentation of the original mass. What happened to the original fragments and sub-fragments?

There is also evidence of galaxy collisions. But I submit if you shoot a shotgun, the pellets are on an expanding trajectory, but not on a collision course with one another. A practical explanation for the collisions is the one given above where the larger fragments are further fragmenting into all directions creating a condition that could foster collisions. These fragmenting pieces accelerated away from the original expansion point at a high rate of speed, so that any backwards fragmenting would not be of sufficient speed to actually travel backwards, relative to the direction away from the original point of expansion.

After the larger fragments have degraded into masses of a size that can no longer support fragmentation, they become just fizzlers, spewing out elementary particles, similar to an Alka-Seltzer in a glass of water. The mass of these pieces cannot be overstated, but being naturally unstable, particles are escaping. So at present, these fragments of the singularity are still spewing their volume and birthing stars.

The escaping particles form hydrogen in great quantities and as this gas accumulates, stars are formed. Some of these stars are pretty massive and are short lived in terms of star life. They die like all stars, but not before fusing a lot of elements and expelling a lot of unused hydrogen from its halo. The really massive stars may collapse into a super dense matter called a black hole that will return, through its radiation and instability, primary particles to once again escape and form hydrogen. A lot of this used star material is accelerated in a direction away from the galaxy center where it combines with ejected material from other dying stars to form other stars. Some of the heavier ejected, fusion created, material forms material disks around these stars. This material is heavier now, born of the fusion process, and will collect together to form planets. The process eventually builds the star disk of a galaxy. (Given enough time.) The size of the galaxy disk is an indicator of how large the initial fragment was that created the galaxy. Left alone, a galaxy will assume the classic spiral shape, but these shapes can vary with near misses and collisions with other galaxies.

I now conclude this narrative. Hopefully, you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

Robert Gross

COMMENTS Your Feedback is Important to Us

Home

Top of Page

Global Warming Rewrite

Eating Crow: Nobody likes having to write a retraction, but a rewrite is in order to correct my first article about 'Global Warming'. Life, if nothing else, is a learning experience. My assumptions about the effects of CO₂ on our climate were in error. Like most people I accepted as 'common knowledge' that man was wrecking the ecology and causing the global catastrophe of 'Global Warming'. Chief among the cause was our use of fossil fuels, and their subsequent discharge of CO₂. Those conclusions were premature, and I now want to share with you additional findings that I thought were compelling enough to do a rewrite of my previous article.

Considering Mars: Mars stands out like a glittering jewel as an example of why we should not get too excited about CO₂ as causing the Earth to warm up. The atmosphere of Mars is 95% CO₂. When it snows on Mars, the snow is CO₂. By comparison, the earth only has 00.06% CO₂ in it's atmosphere. If CO₂ was the culprit that warms up a planet, wouldn't you think Mars would be warm and toasty by now? Mars is factually not warm, and CO₂ is about the only gas in it's atmosphere.

Considering Venus: Venus is HOT. A Google search about Venus will yield only one result about the high temperature of Venus; A runaway Greenhouse effect. Well, because so many say so, it must be so - right? Believe me, I am not trying to say that there is no greenhouse on Venus or Earth for that matter, but there needs to be a little perspective about Venus. First of the noteworthy facts about Venus is that; It takes approximately 243 earth days for Venus to rotate once. The Venus day is actually longer than its solar year which takes 224.7 Earth days. Venus is, in reality, baking on one side and cooling on the other. Compare that to Earth which only faces the Sun 12 hours of each day. Earth probably wouldn't fare too well either if most of the year, it was facing the Sun with no relief. It is on the side away from the Sun where most of the cooling and condensation takes place. It is the condensed vapors that make up the cloud shroud that we see whenever we look up at Venus after dark. The Gases are shrinking and condensing on the cool side, and expanding on the side facing the Sun. The expanding and contracting of these gases generates the winds that cause the global circulation on Venus. The winds circulating in Venus's atmosphere transport enormous amounts of energy around to the side away from the Sun. But because of the high CO₂ content of the Venusian atmosphere, advocates of the CO₂ warming theory, declare Venus as an example of Greenhouse Heating. In the process, they disregard all of the other processes going on. If Venus wasn't hot, it would not be heralded as having a runaway greenhouse. You'll notice how they ignore Mars.

Contrary to Popular Belief: The Sun is the main engine of global or any other type of warming. Yes there is an increase in atmospheric CO₂ whenever there is an increase in global temperature. But just like sweating is caused by heat, so too is more CO₂ released whenever the Earth's temperature increases. The CO₂ increase is a result of the Earth getting warmer rather than the cause of it.

Fun Facts: The Oceans are the largest source of atmospheric CO₂ . There are over 1000 (That's Thousand) sub-sea volcanoes. These volcanoes are doing one major thing that influences our climate. They are helping to heat the oceans and adding a lot of CO₂ to be absorbed by the oceans. The warmer water gives up a lot of CO₂ to the atmosphere. It is clear that the ocean waters have to get warmer first before that process happens. It is not the reverse, as is claimed, with the CO₂ causing the oceans temperature to rise.

Listening to the Ice: The study of the ice-cores that scientist have accumulated all tell the same story. The rise in CO₂ always came after the increase of global temperature. Again, demonstrating that CO₂ is a result and not a cause of global warming.

Watching the Sun: Another interesting study is about 'Sunspot' activity. This web site details the coincidences of the global temperature changes with sunspot activity. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/possible_causes.html I am sure that you will appreciate how they track together. I highly recommend that you read about this fascinating study.

Man may or may not be able to affect what is happening: Science should be able to confront any global warming without the politicizing or hyping of information that isn't truthful. I urge you to click on this link and read some of the information that is not being distributed through the liberal media. http://www.nov55.com/index.html

A Word About the 'Green Credits': In a recent publicized event, Al Gore was chastised for using so much energy, whether by flying around in a private jet, or having such a high usage of electricity for his large mansion. All the while, Al Gore is telling everyone else to cut back on energy use. This would only be a tempest in a teapot if it hadn't been communicated that he was purchasing Carbon Offsets for his extravaganze to maintain a carbon neutral footprint. First, purchasing offsets (Green Credits) doesn't prevent his rather large consumption of energy. Second, the offsets he was purchasing came from a company that he founded. So essentially, he was paying himself for the offsets. The idea of trading in these "offsets" is a scam of the first order. Under this reality, it puts a real hardship on third world countries that are trying to raise their standard of living. Does any one honestly think that those people wouldn't like to have air-conditioning? How about modernizing their farms with tractors and other conveniences? Should they not be able to use the most abundant energy forms on Earth like the rest of the world does? Already, the "civilized world" denies them the use of DDT. But thats a whole other subject.

This Rewrite about Global Warming: I rewrote my 'Global Warming' article to try and correct a mistake. However, I will leave the old article in place. But consider it rebuked in the highest sense, especially the part that decries CO₂ as the cause for Global Warming.

If Your Internet Hookup is Beefy Enough, Watch the 1.3 hour video made up entirely of scientist who are trying to get the word out about how Humans are not the cause of the Earths temperature increase. This is a fascinating, factual video that literally rips to shreds the idea of CO₂ causing global warming. This link will take you to the video, but be warned it is pretty big, so download it in segments to avoid any problems with your ISP.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Robert Gross

COMMENTS Your Feedback is Important to Us

Home

Top of Page

Global Warming

Every day we are bombarded with the news of how the earth is warming up. That hurricanes are turning into monster storms because of global warming. Trade in your large SUV's and save us all from an unimaginable catastrophe! We are corrupting the earth with our gas guzzling, CO₂ spewing vehicles. We are melting the glaciers and polar ice-caps, creating large amounts of melt-water. Melt-water is fresh water, and is going to interfere with the ocean currents and cause an 'Ice Age'. WE ARE DOOMED!

What is particularly interesting about all of this hysteria is that the basis for most of these claims is rooted in good, old-fashion, hard science. While the climate scientists are trying to understand the dynamics of the climate changes here on earth, political interests take these findings, and embellish them. Political interest's motive is to gain enough popular following so they can influence governments.

There can be little doubt that the earth has warmed over the past decades, so the hype is believable. This political hype is laced with scientific fact, persuading those who receive the information to agree with both the facts and the political hype. There is a large contingent of followers who faithfully believe that the United States is too big, too powerful, and therefore must be brought down from its lofty perch. Global warming is just another tool in their arsenal to accomplish degrading the United States. The recruited followers of these political organizations are well meaning people who really believe that the United States is the big reason for global warming. However, these followers are not motivated for the same reasons fostered by the promoters of the hype. In fact, these followers are fervently intent on saving the world from a cataclysmic disaster, politics be damned.

The truth of the matter is that the United States leads the way in solving the part of 'global warming' that is attributable to human activity. The greenhouse gases of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) and other high heat absorbing gas emissions are tightly regulated, and have been since their discovery as a potent ozone shield degrader and greenhouse gas. It was no small expense to convert from the Freon refrigerants to the less harmful Suva refrigerants. Everyone was impacted from the manufacturers to the end user. Special schools had to be set up to educate the service people in the refrigeration business about how to extract and recover the bad refrigerant, and how to convert to the new equipment. It was a huge commitment from all concerned as well as billions of dollars.

At the present, CO₂ (Carbon-dioxide) is front and center in the debate over global warming. This author accepts the premise that CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and has the potential to raise global temperature. However, there is a caveat that recognizes that CO₂ is not in the same league as water vapor when it comes to heat absorption. It is serious non-the-less and we realize it is suicidal to allow CO₂ to run amok, because it can certainly increase the Earth's average surface temperature. Climatologist are making the case now for 'Global Warming' and the chief suspect is increasing amounts of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

All of the above is common public knowledge, but I wanted to delve a little deeper into what is happening with CO₂ and what human activities are affecting the increase accumulations in the atmosphere. CO₂ is just one of the many manifestations of the carbon cycle. It gets into the atmosphere from a variety of sources which include: (1) Animal breathing and flatulence (even human), (2) the burning of fossil fuels, (3) volcanoes, and (4) decaying vegetation and animals.

The CO₂ controllers consists primarily of two major systems; certain plankton, which photosynthesize, and vegetation. The hysterical ones only see one side of the problem, namely the emission side provided by human activities. Worrying about the emissions created by human activity does bring awareness to the problem but a balanced approach is desperately needed if the intention is to defeat global warming. Balance has to include the vegetation side of this equation.

Trees and the rest of the plant world are huge containers of carbon. While the carbon is locked up in a tree trunk or plant, it is not in the atmosphere warming the earth. Even the mowed grasses, pampas grasses, lily pads, potatoes and etc. store vast quantities of carbon both above and below the ground. Plants and the phytoplankton do yeoman's work at utilizing and thus consuming atmospheric CO₂. Why is the work of plants so important? They are nature's way of controlling the air we breathe. They take in CO₂ and give off oxygen. The carbon is stored within the plants by being converting into vegetable matter. Remember that all living things are based on carbon.

From my perspective things are going to get worse if humans don't quit making war on plants. Making war on plants? Maybe not in a literal sense, but the way we stifle the places where plants grow, you would think that we had a major dislike for them. This is the side of the CO₂ equation that needs addressing. Think of all the five to ten acre parking lots at say a Target Store, a Home Depot, and etc. Not picking on these stores but we have tied up literally millions of acres in the United States alone for our automobiles. Every house, garage, gas station, drugstore, in fact lets just say that every building we have covers land that was once occupied by plants. The lost acreage is a very large number. An acre is approximately two hundred and ten feet squared. An interstate highway is approximately two hundred feet in concrete across, so it follows that every two hundred feet or so of roadway is an acre of lost space for plants. We have literally tens of thousands of miles of highways contributing to the assault on plants.

I'm not advocating we quit driving, or that Walmart and other large stores tear up their parking lots. But I do see opportunities for improvement. Instead of empty paved areas, a row of trees could easily be planted between parking rows. In short, in addition to the emission side of the CO₂ cycle, we need to respect the very things that are helping to reduce CO₂ .

There needs to be an end to the political rancor and real solutions in controlling CO₂ brought forward. Every new house built could have a survey made as to how much additional vegetation must be maintained to keep the carbon footprint neutral. This is a project that everyone can help with. For instance, take sidewalks. Sidewalks are useful and enhance our local areas, what is missing though, is any thoughtful parallel thinking about planting hedges or shrubs along the sidewalks to make up for the plants that the sidewalks prohibit.

While it is easy to cast an accusing look at those who drive large cars and SUV's, the would be accusers time would probably be better served to see that they are doing their part. Everyone should look at his or her 'carbon footprint' and ask the following questions.

a) Do I have window box planters?

b) Do I have enough houseplants to neutralize emissions from the humans and animals that live there?

c) Have I planted enough trees in the yard to compensate for the area of ground taken by the house?

d) When I happen upon a store with a large concrete parking area without trees, do I continue to support that store?

e) Have I encouraged my state to plant trees along the highways and by-ways?

f) Is my city allowing construction of new buildings without requiring 'carbon neutrality'?

These questions are not trivial. Plants are one of the major tools in nature's toolbox for combating global warming. Our way of life is worth maintaining, and with just a little effort, we will be just fine. CO₂ is a very tolerated gas. Because of its weak heat absorbing abilities, it takes a tremendous volume of it to affect out climate. There is time to neutralize our activities before any cataclysmic event. But we need to get started. I recommend everyone read about the carbon cycle, and do those simple things to improve their carbon footprint.

One last note, please don't take away from this article that I think it is okay to drive unnecessarily, to buy large gas-guzzlers, or not try and get away from using fossil fuels. The emission side of this equation is just as important as the CO₂ consumption side. However, we cannot continue to hit on the CO₂ emission side while neglecting all the other things that can be done to prevent trouble. Plants of all types are important allies in keeping our planet habitable. I see using plants as vital to managing our carbon footprint.