BS: What went Big Bang?

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 23 Feb 16 - 12:42 PM

Kepler is looking for extrasolar planets, not black holes.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Feb 16 - 05:13 PM

Correction edit

I noticed I persisted in saying Web when I meant to say Kepler


In the future I will keep Kepler close and worry about Webb

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 02:56 PM

The big bang was me, shootingmy 50 cal

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 07:56 AM

Or it couldn't get near it, which as twee as it sounds, follows a similar logic.

Either that or the quality of reading on the back of my cornflakes packet is getting worse.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 05:42 AM

We do know that it interacts with normal matter by gravity, so it could not escape from the event horizon.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 21 Feb 16 - 04:06 AM

"Dark Matter also has an ability to escape a black hole region."

Sorry Donuel, do you have a reference for that? Seeing as we have not a clue what Dark Matter is composed of, or even in my view whether it exists, that is a very strong statement to make.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 06:20 PM

Sorry, this thread is closed.

Here is the text of your post:


They say we can not count how many black holes are in the observable universe. Swift is too narrow a field to do a decent count, Webb is similar but can detect gravity deformations very well. Future eyes on the universe will give a better count. The rate of black hole creation is to my knowledge about one a day. Knowing if this rate is currently steady or not would be interesting.

The personal passion to learn more about the universe is obviously shared by a swarm of religionists from every era. Of course the curiosity of where we come from, what are we made of, what are the forces in are bodies that we share with the universe. First the simplistic answers and absurd ideas are explored disproved and we move on to more cohesive ideas. Some of these ideas are out of bounds to intuitive thinking and some are not. The iron in our blood fused in stars is the fatal poison for stars. All the rest of the elements essential for our life are all created by different sized super novas all serve to be star dust
essential for our life. Heady stuff for people who need simple answers to creation.

Old Dude ; Math is not the stuff or building bocks of the universe, the universe is.
A mathematic description of a hexagonal plane is that of a bi dimensional shadow without a dimension of width and is not the thing that exists in the universe that displays that shape. In the same way , multiple dimensions can be expressed in math with ease while perceiving them in human vision is virtually impossible. Math is not the perfect predictor mathematicians often think it is. So far super computers are giving us valuable insights after trial and error.

insights I expect many to discover and prove is the "uncompactability of neutrinos " in neutron stars and black holes. It is beginning to look like the neutrino is the final stage of gravity compaction and demolition of matter.
This would make the concept of singularity different than it has been.

That's enough spare ideas for now that form my perspective which is afterall limited.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Feb 16 - 03:12 PM

Dark Matter also has an ability to escape a black hole region.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 04:21 AM

There is a link to a youtube video of a BBC explanation of this, it features amongst others Bernard Carr, now Professor at Queen Mary, but Hawking's student at the time he did this work. Most of it is quite sensible, well at least the bits where Bernard Carr is speaking. But the explanation on the voiceover is that a particle and an antiparticle are created outside the horizon, and the antiparticle has negative mass and falls into the black hole reducing its mass.

This is utter nonsense, as a number of commenters on youtube have pointed out, antiparticles have the opposite charge to their corresponding particles, but have positive mass. No particles have negative mass, at least none yet discovered. I got the link to Hawking's article from one of the comments.

They cannot have let Bernard Carr have sight of that before putting it out, nor Hawking himself.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Feb 16 - 02:20 AM

Well done Dave!

He says, "The
forsaken particle or antiparticle may
fall into the black hole after its partner.
but it may also escape to infinity, where
it appears to be radiation emitted by the
black hole.

That does not explain the mass loss, but he offers this alternative,
"Another way of looking at the process
is to regard the member of the pair of
particles that falls into the black holethe
antiparticle, say-as being really a
particle that is traveling backward in
time. Thus the antiparticle falling into
the black hole can be regarded as a particle
coming out of the black hole but
traveling backward in time. When the
particle reaches the point at which the particle-antiparticle pair originally materialized.
it is scattered by the gravi- .
tational field so that it travels forward
in time.
Quantum mechanics has therefore allowed
a particle to escape from inside a
black hole. something that is not allowed
in classical mechanics."

I no longer feel embarrassed that I did not think of that!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:42 PM

What banged could have been a white hole


A black hole is a one-way door to oblivion. According to general relativity, once anything crosses its boundary—the event horizon—it cannot return to the outside. For that particle, the black hole is the entire future.

We'll never actually get a chance to see the particle live out that destiny: Any light the particle emits (which would be the only way for us to observe its death plunge) will be stretched to longer and longer wavelengths with correspondingly less energy, until it fades beyond detectability. In fact, the story is even more strange. If we observe the particle falling in, we could never live long enough to see it reach the event horizon. The extreme gravity of the black hole makes time appear, to an outside observer, to go more slowly there; in fact, the particle would seem to us to take infinite time to reach the event horizon. That's true even though from the particle's reference frame, it crosses the event horizon unremarkably, with no unusual effects on time and space.

If a black hole is a one-way door to oblivion, you might wonder if there is any way to go the other way through the door—and it's a good question. General relativity, which has been our standard theory of gravity for nearly 100 years, makes no distinction between past and future, time running forward and time running backward. (See physicist Sean Carroll discuss the time-symmetry of physics in his interview with Nautilus.) Newtonian physics also is time-symmetric in the same way. So the idea of "white holes"—black holes reversed in time—does make theoretical sense.

Like its opposite, a white hole has an event horizon, one which cannot be crossed from the outside. But white holes' event horizons lie in the past: Particles originating there will appear to "fade in," with increasing energy and wavelength of any light they emit. If a particle somehow came into existence inside that event horizon, it would be expelled to the outside.

In fact, everything about white holes just looks like black holes in reverse. General relativity has absolutely no problem predicting such a thing and describing it mathematically.

But do white holes exist in nature? And if they don't, what does that say about the symmetry of time?

Seeing nothing vs seeing something


Black holes are common in the cosmos—nearly every large galaxy harbors a supermassive one in its nucleus, not to mention smaller specimens. However, astronomers have yet to identify a single white hole. That doesn't rule out their existence entirely, since it might be hard to see one: If they effectively repel particles, there's a small possibility they could be lurking out there somewhere, invisible. Nevertheless, none of all the diverse objects astronomers have observed seem to resemble what we'd expect from white holes.

An even larger problem arises when we consider how white holes could form. Black holes are the end result of gravitational collapse. When a star at least 20 times the mass of the Sun exhausts its usable nuclear fuel, it can no longer produce enough energy to balance the inward force of gravity. At that point, the core collapses on itself, reaching ever higher densities until its gravity is so intense that not even light can escape. That results in a black hole with a mass comparable to a large star.

Supermassive black holes, which are millions or billions of times heavier than that, form by some currently unknown mechanism. In any case, they still are the result of gravitational collapse, whether from a huge super-star born in the early days of the Universe, a huge cloud of gas at the heart of a primeval galaxy, or some other phenomenon. Forming a white hole, however, would require something akin to a gravitational sewer explosion, and it's not clear how that sort of event could ever occur. One possibility is that white holes might be "glued" to black holes. In this view, a black hole and white hole are two sides of the same thing, connected via a wormhole, a concept familiar from many science-fiction stories. Unfortunately, as with forming white holes from scratch, this doesn't really solve the problem: According to theory, any matter falling into the wormhole will cause it to collapse, closing the passage between the black and white holes. (It's also technically possible to create a stable wormhole if "exotic matter" exists with negative energy—a similar principle proposed for a "warp drive"—but no evidence for such material exists.)


A matter of time

So we're left with the probable conclusion that our Universe contains a multitude of black holes but no white holes. That's not because of a fundamental asymmetry in time—general relativity still works just as well either way time flows—but due to the nature of gravitational collapse: It only works one way.

This parallels the situation with the entire cosmos: There was a Big Bang, an initial expansion of all we observe, apparently from a single point. But the evidence points pretty strongly against the possibility of a Big Crunch, a re-collapse of all we observe into a single point sometime in the distant future. If current trends continue (specifically if dark energy doesn't drastically change its character), the Universe will continue to expand forever at an ever-faster rate. It seems there will be no symmetrical end to the Universe, where everything gets sucked back into a tiny singularity, just as it started.

The Big Bang actually looks like a white hole in many respects, and may be the closest our Universe ever gets to having one. It lies in the past for any observer in the Universe, and all we see expanded outward from it. However, it didn't have an event horizon (meaning it was something called a "naked singularity", which is far less kinky than it sounds). Despite that, it resembles gravitational collapse in reverse.

Just because the equations of general relativity allow white holes and big crunches, warp drives and wormholes, doesn't mean these things actually exist in nature. The asymmetry of time in gravity isn't inherent, but seems to arise from the behavior of matter and energy: gravitational collapse at the end of time, initial expansion at time's beginning. The deep meaning of that is something physicists are still trying to comprehend.




Matthew Francis is a physicist, science writer, public speaker, educator, and frequent wearer of jaunty hats. He's currently writing a book on cosmology with the working title Back Roads, Dark Skies: A Cosmological Journey.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:51 PM

Ok Keith, here is Hawking's own popular article on this topic, though its pretty old.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 02:21 PM


It can be borrowed from the vacuum inside the event horizon to create a pair outside the event horizon.

Thanks, but what I asked was how.

But occasionally one escapes and one re-enters the event horizon before this happens. So some energy/mass is not paid back.

Thanks, but more often they annihilate and none is paid back.

Thanks anyway for trying Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:04 PM

T for a virtual particle is no time at all.
If the annihilation of virtual particle happened in a heavy medium it might take more time than zero. at any rate Dave a black hole does not power virtual particle. A black is a neutrino factory compared to the negligible loss of mass by half of a virtual particle now and then.

Hawking was still trying to defend his loss of information via a black hole theory when he came up with his 'virtual mass loss' idea.

When black holes over eat, the amount of energy from the reaction of matter is annihilated into energy we see as gamma ray energy blasting out the poles of black hole. Why the poles? Because of the convection currents of energy reduced to energy and neutrinos unable to compress beyond neutrino size.
Neutrinos at a near massless particle are able to escape an event horizon well enough to be concentrated around the entire black hole.

There will always be more :neutrino radiation" than theoretical "Hawking radiation".

What to carry away is the fact black holes will be around a long time in increasing numbers to reshape the sponge like foam of all the mass in the universe. Today the universe is like a sponge with small holes but in another 15 billion years the universe will look like a sponge with LARGE holes all due to black holes and space expansion.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 11:24 AM

That was more of a thump.

When my old Marshall combo's circuit board caught fire on stage, the initial sound from the cones was definitely Big Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Rain Dog
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:52 AM

It was a bodhran

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:34 AM

It can be borrowed from the vacuum inside the event horizon to create a pair outside the event horizon. In most cases its given straight back as in your 3. But occasionally one escapes and one re-enters the event horizon before this happens. So some energy/mass is not paid back.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:54 AM

1. That equation explains how energy can be borrowed from the vacuum briefly (time t) create the pair. It in no way explains how energy from the hole (what kind of energy?) creates pairs beyond the event horizon.

3. So when they annihilate, their energy, zero, tunnels back into the hole?

2. Patronising? Likewise, no need to "simplify" thank you.



Not doubting the fact of the radiation or the explanation, but I just thought I had missed something obvious. It clearly is not that obvious and not just me.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:56 AM

1) Yes, one of its explicit forms is (ΔT) (ΔE) ≥ ℏ/2

2) Energy and mass are equivalent

3) Because they immediately recombine and annihalate, and there is no net effect.

Now you need to be careful how you interpret the time, T in 1). Its complicated, see an article by the cousin of a well-known singer:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/uncertainty.html

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:08 AM

Does the uncertainty principle apply to energy, except in particle form?
What energy does the black hole have that tunnels out?
More often, both particles escape, so why are they a less significant drain on the hole?

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: olddude
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 10:07 PM

That burrito left me with a big bang... Wooo not good

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:02 PM

Virtual particles appear in deep space. They appear anywhere in space. They appear near mass or away from it. They are generally accepted as a product of the energy inherent in space.

They pop into existence like suddenly appearing in our observable universe. Two could appear inside your eye at night and you might even see it annihilate with a photon release.

[These enigmatic curiosities may be one of the few means of seeing space interactions that are invisible to us.]

As you know I have recently become a proponent of space existing as a duality, in which we have not recognized as being two opposing forces but only one. This would explain some big contradictions classical physics still wrestles.

Look up pair production and there are clues pertaining to dimensionless properties. This is the same aspect I ascribe to anti space.


Virtual particles and actual particles can do the same things. The differences can concern their birth. Words fail me here but math shows a clearer distinction. and no I am not a kooky birther.

Virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and then mutually annihilate. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become actual particles.

This may occur in one of two ways. In an accelerating frame of reference, the virtual particles may appear to be actual to the accelerating observer; this is known as the Unruh effect. In short, the vacuum of a stationary frame appears, to the accelerated observer, to be a warm gas of actual particles in thermodynamic equilibrium.

Another example is pair production in very strong electric fields, sometimes called vacuum decay. If, for example, a pair of atomic nuclei are merged to very briefly form a nucleus with a charge greater than about 140, (that is, larger than about the inverse of the fine structure constant, which is a dimensionless quantity), the strength of the electric field will be such that it will be energetically favorable to create positron-electron pairs out of the vacuum or Dirac sea, with the electron attracted to the nucleus to annihilate the positive charge. This pair-creation amplitude was first calculated by Julian Schwinger in 1951.


As far as Hawking Radiation goes it is but a candle compared to the bonfire neutrino creation and radiation of black holes.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 12:25 PM

The mass of both particles has been created from the energy of the black hole.

It only gets one back.

Again, in very simple terms, particles can be created outside the event horizon from energy which belongs to the black hole because of the uncertainty principle.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 11:47 AM

Thanks for your patience Dave.
In school physics, gravitational energy must involve the movement or potential to move through the field. When a pair form close to a gravity-well they will acquire gravitational energy, but until they form there should be no GE, according to old physics anyway.

I clearly have not the new physics needed to explain how gravity could provide energy at some point in the field, and as you say they are able to form without a nearby black hole anyway.

We are only considering your "last case" pairs.
The escapee will gain GE, resulting in mass loss of the hole.
The plungee will lose GE, but it will all be gained by the hole, increasing its mass.

So my sticking point now is "They use some of their gravitational energy to create these particles"

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 11:45 AM

The great Cosmic Balloon went Big Bang when it got pricked with the needle of self-awareness.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:28 AM

Wowie! But has my nice general-interest accessible thread ever gone




B I G    B A N G !!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:20 AM

http://minerva.union.edu/diiorios/physics123/hawkingradiation.html

The diagram on the left is useful. Sure they appear in normal space, but they annihilate again. However if they appear near to the event horizon one of three things happens, they annihilate as they do in normal space, they both get pulled within the event horizon, or one gets pulled in and one escapes. Only in the last case does the black hole lose energy/mass. Although they are created just outside the event horizon, the energy comes from the gravitational energy of the black hole.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 08:45 AM

Wiki,
"As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.[11]"

Ok, but I thought that such pairs appear in normal space.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 08:40 AM

They originate outside the event horizon with zero net energy.
Something enters, nothing leaves.
I am obviously missing something.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 05:04 AM

Keith, in very simple terms because that photon which escapes carries away energy, the energy for both photons originated inside the black hole, and energy and mass are equivalent. Its more complicated that that of course, if you look up "Hawking Radiation" on Wikipedia there is a detailed description complete with semi-scary equations (to be truly scary these equations would have to involve magnetic fields as well).

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:22 AM

Guest Dave,
This was Hawking's first great achievement, his second being pair production near the event horizon, and eventual evaporation of black holes.

I was ware of that second achievement, and he laid it out again very clearly in his Reith lectures in recent weeks.

There is something I have not understood that I think you will be able to explain. One of each pair goes off to infinity as Hawking radiation, and the other falls into the hole.
How does that result in a loss of mass from the black hole?

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 02:45 AM

Apparently, it started approximately six feet due west of your electricity meter.

And in a sense, that isn't a flippant answer.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:33 AM

Don't know BTW why the King James version translates כהלת
as "the Preacher" which SFAICS is not what it means at all.

But a bit late to ask them at this time of day, wot-wot...

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:27 AM

'your Apple seems unable to display them? 👬'

.,,.,.

Yay, I know. Great annoyance to me and no-one I have consulted seems to have any explanation for this. Must be coz the little men toiling away inside the works know that I am a technological moron & are holding their bloody sides having a kingsize laff at poor old Michael...

I repeat my fave wise mantra:- Just coz I'm paranoid doesn't mean that the buggaz ain't out to GET me...

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 01:20 AM

But none of this really engages with the primary & essential ??? of what this 'singularity' or 'particle' or whevs actually WAS & whence it came. So the basic postulate to all these theories is absent, and without it all is shadow-boxing &, as the Ecclesiasticist כהלת put it, 'vanity & vexation of spirit'...

So, I ask again — v thread title...

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 07:47 PM

We know a few similarities regarding pre bang conditions and black holes in our cosmos.

We know there was no progress of space time/ time was stopped prior to a big bang.

We know the space curvature is so severe at the center of a black holes that there seems to be a total halt of spacetime.

If they are related, we may have a very fertile universe compared to other possible universes.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 05:54 PM

#    :0)......I think you are right.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 10:08 AM

My now expunged digital picture that I posted was basicly a glass looking Klien bottle inside a Klien bottle times 10 like a fractal Klien bottle.

A Klien bottle is a structure which loops on itself leaving no inside or outside.

Interesting idea but far from the actual curvature of space.

It was primarily pretty but petty.

My envisioned big bang thoughts have evolved along inflation lines in which big and small are relative.


Hawking has written that the initial state of energy in our universe
was zero. It seems to me that space may have had a slight advantage of energy at the big bang.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 09:29 AM

"You scientists are so good at guessing games, how many centuries have humans got left?"

I think you're being very optimistic framing all this in centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 09:04 AM

The computer idea had merit I suppose. Of course, using Apple everything I do have special characters although your Apple seems unable to display them? 👬

In the end, I grovelled and washed her car for her, I'm making her a nice meal tonight, then having put a fire in, cuddle up in the lounge to watch the Ski Sunday programmes we missed when we were err.. Skiing.

Oh, and I'll make her a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster as an aperitif.

For now, the Yorkshire mix is made up ready, the beef has had a dry rub of paprika, Demerara sugar, garlic, salt and pepper, (and will be going in the bottom oven shortly) and I'll be roasting spuds, carrots and parsnips in goose fat and mebbe some curly kale steamed. The meat juices with the rub ingredients makes the base for a smashing gravy. Possibly serve with a bottle of Chateau Reynella '96. Still got a few laid somewhere.

In answer to a question posed above, humanity has a future, although hopefully bigotry doesn't. The universe meanwhile will deal with entropy.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 05:02 AM

Pete, it is true that Hoyle rejected the big bang partly because it seemed an irrational process, and implied a creator (also partly because Martin Ryle supported it, and Hoyle and Ryle didn't get on). But Hawking and Penrose showed that the big bang could start from a singularity, which could be mathematically described. This was Hawking's first great achievement, his second being pair production near the event horizon, and eventual evaporation of black holes. But when you say that initially the big band was rejected because it was seen to imply a creator, this was largely one man (Hoyle).

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:57 AM

BTW, maybe I am unintelligent, but I find it difficult to make sense of any of Ian Musket's posts.
It seems to be a strange writing style akin to TV comedy around twenty years ago.....attempted sarcasm without the wit, peppered with outdated references to science fiction series, long and thankfully forgotten.
The only saving grace is the padding of usually crude insults, which throw a little illumination on the character of the poster.

I think I rather agree with Michael in his erudite definition.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 04:36 AM

Is anyone intelligent enough to come to terms with "for ever"?
I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence, the limitations are surely on the viability of human life on earth.

You scientists are so good at guessing games, how many centuries have humans got left? If we accept the evolutionary theory we have only been here a very short time and have made an excellent job of fucking up the environment, now we have moved into the realms of genetic engineering, building deadly viruses, manufacturing shedloads of drugs to protect ourselves from the results of our stupid behaviour.

The clock is ticking for humanity, but the universe will always be there, any attempt to rationalise the unknowable is time poorly spent.
Would we not be better to spend our last few hours fighting back?

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 03:34 AM

Design one online & print it off, using the "Special Characters" menu if you have an  -- if not, your system will presumably have some equivalent somewhere. That is what I have done, & the resulting ♥♥xx greeting awaits Emma on her keyboard.

Good luck

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 02:40 AM

See?

Mind you, that related to a problem. It's 7.30am. I'm in the bathroom typing on my phone. Mrs Musket is asleep but possibly dreaming of waking up to a Valentine card and Flowers.

Err. They are still in the ruddy shop. I need a plan.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Feb 16 - 02:32 AM

xxxkisskisskiss❤♥❤

For Saint Unohoo's Day

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Feb 16 - 08:48 AM

Interesting to note that Akenaton's brain isn't equipped. Always said so myself.

Don't judge intelligent people by your own limitations eh? 👻 There are things people shouldn't know 👻 Been watching too many Hammer House of Horrors I see. As I said on the other thread, the nice thing about the Big Bang is that it doesn't need a god to kick start it.



Some say good old Michael. Some say fuck him. Me? I just like getting a reaction.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 08:22 PM

Gosh, such a troubled lot, aren't we, pete? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 06:16 PM

Akeneton, as I understand it, very few scientists believe in a universe with no beginning though it used to be the favoured idea , and when the Big Bang was bought forward there was some resistance lest it imply God.

Subject: RE: BS: What went Big Bang?
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Feb 16 - 05:27 PM

Well Michael, all this discussion seems to to be a waste of our precious time.
The human race will be extinct very soon, and we will be no nearer answering your question.    I suppose the most possible and least destructive theory is "God".

Any other theory is bullshit as the human brain is simply not equipped to understand something so immense...and who is to say that "our" universe is the only one.....what if there is no beginning?......What if the universe is never ending?

I'm going for "God"......EW!!