SCEPTICS MAG

To quote Sceptic the weak force is what produced hiroshima and nagasaki and the strong force is what bind protons and nuetrons together and produces thermonuclear weapons.
When an electron annihilates a proton the weak force is overcome by the strong gravity in the center of an exploding star.
And the electrons and protons are in the same space in the same supermassive state at the same time.
The nuetrons are unbound from the protons and the strong force is released as thermonuclear energy plus two photons released as light according to Dirac.So if the protons and electrons don't annihilate you are left with just lots of nuetrons and energy because the charges cancel and no one knows how much energy this produces turning protons and electrons to neutrons.

Missing neutron star?

SN 1987A appears to be a core-collapse supernova, which should result in a neutron star given the size of the original star.^[6] Indeed, the neutrino data indicate that a compact object did form at the star's core. However, since the supernova first became visible, astronomers have been searching for the collapsed core but have not detected it. The Hubble Space Telescope has taken images of the supernova regularly since August 1990, but, so far, the images have shown no evidence of a neutron star. A number of possibilities for the 'missing' neutron star are being considered, although none is clearly favored. The first is that the neutron star is enshrouded in dense dust clouds so that it cannot be seen. Another is that a pulsar was formed, but with either an unusually large or small magnetic field. It is also possible that large amounts of material fell back on the neutron star, so that it further collapsed into a black hole. Neutron stars and black holes often give off light when material falls onto them. If there is a compact object in the supernova remnant, but no material to fall onto it, it could be very dim and therefore could avoid detection. Other scenarios have also been considered, such as if the collapsed core became a quark star.^[10][11]

Did the nuetron star explode in the supa nova in a stage 2............?

So could nuetrons in a big crunch signularity explode to give the big bang................

The nuetrons being the product of electron proton annihilation.

SINGULARITY

Proton electron annihilation must release neutrons as annihilation releases the strong force between neutrons and protons.........in the nucleus.The only way we know a black hole can form is for a nuetron star to collapse under it's own gravity.
and the big crunch must also be a core of nuetrons with supernatural gravity.Gravity so strong it produces a different kind of singularity where a big bang is produced instead of a black hole

STRONG FORCE.

The strong force is released in thermonuclear weapons.And diracs equation means electrons and protons can annihilate.
Releasing thermonuclear energy from the strong force holding protons and nuetrons together.
And nuetrons are released when the protons are annihilated..............

Einsteins dice can be 100 sided dice and can be used to predict either keno or role playing games.
The question is does Einsteins dice produce order in disorder and are the results a greater probabilty than chance alone.

DIRAC EQUATION FOR ANNIHILATION

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf

Here is some internet research.

BLACK HOLES

Neutron stars turn into black holes by incomplete annihilation which is incomplete combustion which means atoms collapse being partially annihilated.
Because the electrons and protons are not quite the same mass and not quite in the same state at the same time.
The result is the neutron star collapses to form a black hole rather than explodes to form a supernova.
You must be able to use Diracs equation and supergravity to determine the outcome.
The 60's theory of evolution for old times sake physics no longer accepts this theory of the big crunch when it used to be the evolutionary explaination for the big bang..............
If all the atoms were to be annihilated in a neutron star infinite energy would be produced.And the earth and other habitable planets would all be destroyed by gamma radiation - double fried.

IAM HUGH ROSS IAM NOT HUGH ROSS.

Hugh Ross is logical like Spock. God must have created using science not miracles. And that is an assumption that is held out by the whole creation. But sometimes miracles so happen. and they happen so many times to make the laws of science understandable. Because they happen according to the laws of science. And that would be being a logical as Spock. Because if a miracle is only science we are not familiar with with then God never breaks the law. And everything we know about God is that he does not break laws. But love is a greater law and maybe there are greater laws of science that we do not understand. So Hugh is not logical because he believes the big bang happened ex-nihilo. And he believes it obeys the laws of physics. And he could be totally right. Exnihilo could obey a greater law the law of love. and that is a law which can be expressed scientifically. And of course no one can express love as science. So God loves the universe he created and that is just not science. But it is faith. And science can be based on faith. That is what Hugh Ross believes that science need not be based on unbelief. But he is wrong Iam not Hugh Ross science requires and explaination that does involve love. And it involves maths. And if you can write an maths explaination for the universe that does not require creation ex-nihilo or out love. Then you are all out of love. And not necessarily this is why Iam Hugh Ross by creating an evolutionary model you can test it against High Ross testable creation model. Then you can prove God. Which is not what Hugh Ross would say he would say you can never prove God does not exist. But if you can prove God does exist by proving the evolution model wrong. There are a million reasons why my model does not work. And there a million and one why it does work. And no one will ever be certain that God did not have a plan B. That if he wanted to create everything by evolution then he had a plan to do so. And that is a very very logical hypothesis. But what if God has not plans B's There just be a lot of plan B's a lot of ways God could have created or nature could have created but didn't. And if the multiverse is right there is 10^500 different ways to create a universe. And all different. This not what Hugh Ross would expect.But he is not afraid of the multiverse. And he probably does believe in the multiverse. But he does not believe random chance is responsible for the creation of our universe. Our universe is the exception rather than the rule. There are a hundred billion planets in the milkey way and none of them have life except the earth. That is an exception to the rule that chance cannot produce life. And there are not exceptions to that rule. maths means life by randomness is impossible.