Big Crunch?

Plasma is a very well defined state of matter and is detailed at the link posted above-it is not a theory. It is a real state of matter that needs to be understood just like all the stuff around you. Ions are plasma.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Plasma is a very well defined state of matter and is detailed at the link posted above-it is not a theory. It is a real state of matter that needs to be understood just like all the stuff around you. Ions are plasma.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

so whats your point. to say Ions are plasma is not an accurate enough statement.

North, I am not ignoring it, I just have to distinguish where I think they are coming up short. You cannot have a model of the Universe that begins at t=0 and make conclusions without defining what t=0 is (the fundemental flaw of the BB). You say most of them think infinate, this is what I meant by static, not the strictest use of the term. And you are right I am being a little arrogant lately, not sure why.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
[ <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">br]North, I am not ignoring it, I just have to distinguish where I think they are coming up short. You cannot have a model of the Universe that begins at t=0 and make conclusions without defining what t=0 is (the fundemental flaw of the BB).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
fair enough
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You say most of them think infinate, this is what I meant by static, not the strictest use of the term.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
still not quite sure what you mean here in terms of static

And you are right I am being a little arrogant lately, not sure why.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

it is Human Nature it seems. ego is a tough thing to control(many others have the same attitude) so don't take it to hard, at least you have the courage to admit so, most don't and /or relise it. and that is the first step in understanding that NOBODY has the ultimate theory yet. but Tom's,your's and their's(others) contribution is still very important. i have always felt that it will take a combination of this and that theory to come to the ultimate complete understanding(if perhaps it is possible(constant change,galvanized by new info and understanding) to come to the ultimate understanding of the universe,it is very,very complex. in the end it will probably only be a close approximation.

also i feel that science should perhaps revert back to it's original title NATURAL PHILOSOPHY,as suggested by Hannes Alfven,back before his death in 95, because it reminds us that what we are doing is INQUIRY into reality and should be done with reason,wisdom and the love of it.[]

I have a question I would like to put forward here.

My alternative depends on an infinate particle with no charge or mass differencial throughout as the only possible t=0. In such a hypothetical environment would this energy have gravity? Another question that comes from this is if a hypothetical energy feild "appeared" in a flat space-time field, would this hypothetical energy bend the space-time field? These are pure hypothetical questions given what we "know" about GR and energy.

rousejohnny

the problem is that GR does NOT take into account of high energy plasma, which to my mind also leads to a misunderstanding of E=mc^2.

for instance i think that the reason that their Fusion reactor won't work is because they give it to much energy. the amount of energy supplied to the reaction should be calculated as to what it takes for hydrogen and Helium to meld(become one) then calculate the amount of cooling it takes for this meld to STAY IN ONE PLACE so to speak. if given more or no change in energy supplied then the melding will have, to say the least, a difficult time becoming a greater mass, it is too energetic.

i think this because we know that high energy plasma is non-particle and that low energy plasma is particle.

for instance Hanns Alfven calculated the critical velocity of all elements in the periodic table which can be grouped into 4 velocity bands, 51 kilometers per second from hydrogen, 34 for helium ,14 for oxygen,neon,carbon and finally 6 kilometers per second for calcium,sodium and other heavy elements.

now the context had to do with plasma filaments tied in with these velocities and how this observation would prove his plasma theory.

now am i right to bring that over to our Fusion process i don't know but it is certainly intriguing, i would think.