The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

Author Topic: is the big bang correct?  (Read 176156 times)

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #225 on: 15/02/2010 14:33:01 »
what do you believe?

According to the Big Bang model, the physical universe has expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. The model suggests in the expansion of space every celestial object in 13.7 billion years has reached its current time-dilated spatial location in a timeline according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its expanded space.

Nonetheless, the furthest observable galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 has been observed near the CMBR boundary and this is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young; this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in 500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at 500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that 13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests Universe was created in an explosion from a small hot ball is logically fallacious.

This Big Bang model postulation is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it is mathematically valid, it is logically erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no thought experiment could work for such a scenario. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with a 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the 13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; it is simply impossible.
 
It is only logical to think that at 13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy was already formed there at that spatial location. In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.

IMHO, the concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory is an erroneous assumption at the fundamental level and therefore its propositions are logically fallacious.

« Last Edit: 15/02/2010 14:49:29 by Vincent Wee-Foo »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #226 on: 15/02/2010 16:47:08 »
Nonetheless, the furthest observable galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 has been observed near the CMBR boundary and this is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young; this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in 500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at 500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that 13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests Universe was created in an explosion from a small hot ball is logically fallacious.
You don't seem to understand the theory here. The galaxy in question appears to be exactly where it should be given the current understanding of the Big Bang theory. It appears to be the distance is is not simply because of the expansion of the universe before the light that we observe left the galaxy but also because of the expansion since the light left the galaxy.
Quote
This Big Bang model postulation is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it is mathematically valid, it is logically erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no thought experiment could work for such a scenario. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with a 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the 13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; it is simply impossible.
Well, how it happens is this:
1) In the first 500 million years after the era of recombination, a galaxy forms.
2) Light leaves that galaxy.
3) In the time between when the light leaves the galaxy and today when we see this light, the distance between us and the galaxy grows to 31 billion light years.
Quote
It is only logical to think that at 13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy was already formed there at that spatial location.
Of course.
Quote
In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.
Exactly, except that there is no absolute time. Typically one uses a specific cosmological time coordinate to talk of the age of the universe.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #227 on: 15/02/2010 19:54:27 »
It appears to be the distance is is not simply because of the expansion of the universe before the light that we observe left the galaxy but also because of the expansion since the light left the galaxy.

Appreciate your quick respond and your attempt to explain where I might have overlooked.

Can you please elaborate on your above statement specifically, on how did that distant galaxy got to the distance of 13.2 Gly away in 500 million years of time with the expansion you have posited above. Thanks. 
« Last Edit: 15/02/2010 20:02:39 by Vincent Wee-Foo »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #228 on: 15/02/2010 21:40:47 »
First, the galaxy that you speak of was not 13.2 billion light years away from our coordinate position at the time it emitted the light we see. If it is still in the same place, then it is currently about 31 billion light years away. It was probably less than 3 billion light years away when the light that we see left that galaxy.

Second, the rate of expansion in the very, very early universe was much faster than the speed of light. This lets a finite amount of matter spread out over a large distance.

Third, the universe might be infinite in size. This means that there will always be galaxies out however far we can look.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #229 on: 17/02/2010 17:10:10 »
Quote
Quote
In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.
Exactly, except that there is no absolute time. Typically one uses a specific cosmological time coordinate to talk of the age of the universe.

Noted and thanks. I agreed absolute time was not appropriate for the discussion here.


First, the galaxy that you speak of was not 13.2 billion light years away from our coordinate position at the time it emitted the light we see. If it is still in the same place, then it is currently about 31 billion light years away. It was probably less than 3 billion light years away when the light that we see left that galaxy.

Second, the rate of expansion in the very, very early universe was much faster than the speed of light. This lets a finite amount of matter spread out over a large distance.

My apology for not being as detailed as you are to mention the comoving distance, nonetheless, this is the neck of the problem for my issue with the BB model.

Your reasoning on superluminal expansion of space for the Universe in the earlier phase is rational and it is mathematically valid. Can you please substantiate the claim on superluminal expansion during the earlier phase, I would like to have your insight on this. It would be marvelous if it is coherent with the cosmic inflation BB model.   

Quote
Third, the universe might be infinite in size. This means that there will always be galaxies out however far we can look.

You have a very interesting proposition here that is usually not endorsed by realism or the objectivism from the BB proponents for their definitions of reality; it appears to me you have a different concept of space that is different from the classical BB model. Although I felt this is not quite relevant to our discussion here, I believe you might have some hypotheses for substantiating your this point of view. Appreciate if you could provide a link that elaborates on this concept.     

Many thanks in advance.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2010 17:45:44 by Vincent Wee-Foo »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #230 on: 17/02/2010 17:19:37 »
Given my training and study, I am quite confident that I am right in step with the actual understanding of space as presented in the standard cosmological model. If you want some detailed information, I recommend Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #231 on: 17/02/2010 18:31:50 »
Given my training and study, I am quite confident that I am right in step with the actual understanding of space as presented in the standard cosmological model. If you want some detailed information, I recommend Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

I believe you training and study would be an asset for this discussion.

Thanks for the link. I found it in part II of the cosmology tutorial that suggests it could be an open Universe, inferring it is spatially infinite. Nevertheless, this is still not a known fact and realists debates against a spatially infinite Universe. Although I knew the standard cosmology model proposed open and closed Universe, I did not know before hand that an open Universe would imply it is spatially infinite, thanks for this info and I have benefited from the discussion with you.

Although the tutorial stated in an open Universe, superluminal speeds are certainly possible, it did not mention superluminal expansion of space in the Universe in the earlier phase, or was this  information hidden somewhere in the tutorial and I did not manage to find it?

However, this begs the next question. With the distant galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 observed and it  has a redshift factor of z=10, why do you think an open Universe expanding at superluminal speed at its earlier phase is compatible with inflation cosmic? Or did I not interpret your replies correctly and you did not posit this?

« Last Edit: 17/02/2010 18:38:52 by Vincent Wee-Foo »
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #232 on: 04/04/2010 14:09:25 »
I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of  planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.

I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.   


Jsaldea12


4,4,10
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #233 on: 04/04/2010 21:19:35 »
I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of  planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.
Ummm... no. There is nothing remotely similar between the account in Genesis and Lemaitre's model of the universe. At best they share a creation event, though even that is not required in a Lemaitre model.
Quote
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.   
You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #234 on: 07/04/2010 01:13:01 »
Number of superclusters In the visible universe = 10 million
Number of galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Number of large galaxies in the visible universe   = 350 billion
Number of dwarf galaxies in the visible universe  = 7 trillion
Number of stars in the visible universe                   = 30 billion trillion


Above is the figures given by very respectable Richard Powell, astrophysicist, with e-mail singinglemon@earthling.net. You can find this amazing graphic data  in the internet. re-The universe within 14 billion light
years”...http://www/atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

Can it be that such volume in the visible universe, not to mention, the infinite unreached, unseen recesses of the universe, emanated from a single point in the universe, the size SMALLER THAN A PROTON?


Jsaldea12

4.7.10
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #235 on: 16/04/2010 11:16:21 »
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.   

I wouldn't use the term several big bangs of smaller sizes to describe how the physical universe had emanated; big bang model is very specific and it is definitely not an emanating model of smaller size big bangs. Nonetheless, I support the view of an emergent model from an alternative perspective.

You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.

On friendly invitation with genuine interest for amicable discussion on the expressed alternative worldview, here is an astronomical evidence in galactic scale that supports the emergent model; see a link on "Cartwheel Galaxy Makes Waves In New NASA Image".

Cartwheel galaxy group

Evidently, matters in the outer ring of the Cartwheel galaxy are evolved in the so called empty space from an apparent nothingness and these plasmatic clouds vortically coalesce to form as stars in an intensified vortex ring that harmonically resonates around the main galaxy at the center. See a UVS topic on "Black hole, dark matter and dark energy" that elaborates on this apparent nothingness that encapsulate the Cartwheel galaxy.

“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein


From the perspective of UVS on how the physical universe has come into existence in collections of smaller emergences in the backdrop of the largest observable emergence, all celestial objects are vortically coalesced from matters that had emerged in vortical motion from an apparent nothingness in space. See also a UVS topic on "Faster than light speed in transferring of motion through interconnectedness" that elaborates on this supposedly emergence phenomenon of the Cartwheel's ring in the alternative worldview.

Here is an astronomical evidence in the most grandeur scale that is observable in the physical universe; see a UVS topic on "The dipole anisotropy pattern of CMBR" that illustrates this phenomenon where all its smaller emergences such as superclusters, galaxy clusters, galaxies, satellite galaxies, stars, planets and their satellites are vortically coalesced from matters that had emerged in this grand vortical motion that sets every celestial object in unisonal perpetual motion as a clockwork universe.

COBE temperature map of the CMBR dipole.

« Last Edit: 21/04/2010 07:49:26 by Vincent »
 

Offline quibitheed

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #236 on: 17/04/2010 14:22:25 »
Hi everybody

To be honest I have skipped most of this thread as the first two pages were more about a 2 people than the subject. On the one hand Sophiecentaur, the Jean Brodie school mistress standing in resolute reasonableness of the faithful. And J K Fletcher, who proposes some startling intuitively brilliant thought that deserves more than immediate dismissal, yet may sometimes find it hard to decide how far outside the box its safe to go. Would it not be interesting if they could attempt to meet in the middle?

I think, and as this is my first post I should perhaps point out that my organised education within institutions designed for that task ended when I was aged 11. My only achievement in an educational establishment was to gain a regional record in undetected truancy. Yet such behaviour is not only indicative of delinquency but also of burning individuality. Are we to be like ants or bees that live only for the hive?

All my heroes of science are mavericks. I would hazard the guess that most of my heroes are the same as most of yours. So I would like Sophie and Andrew to stop talking past each other and see where they can agree. For Sophie you should be happy that maverick thought from those who have no academic investment is voiced here. Who knows what kernel of inspiration it may unleash? Its an ill wind and all that. I do not think you have to be an academic and use the language of mathematics to have a valid idea. Good ideas begin in peoples heads not with equations. And sometimes I get the distinct impression that scientists get lost in their theories like teenagers on WoW.

I say this because you are ignoring some extremely interesting observationally testable ideas. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff. We don't know nor understand yet how it clumps together except that something else we do not understand yet, gravity, has something to do with it. Our working models on the formation of solar systems prior to their discovery had never even mentioned the possibility of hot giants that would dwarf Jupiter, hurtling round in breakneck orbits virtually in the corona of their parent star. Burp! Sorry I meant predatory mass. We do not know much about solar systems because we only have a basic working knowledge of one.

As someone who is just an observer and accumulator of information and has no investment to fulfil but curiosity I can state there are virtually no papers that are published without someone raising caveats, contradictions and uncertainties. Science is not just a beautiful methodology it is also a never ending argument. And so it should be. So lets all enjoy it while it lasts.

As for the point of the post, the question is the big bang theory correct? , I answered "other". It seems to me the current inflationary vision from a single point of nothingness is just senseless. To believe that Newton, Einstein and their scholarly progeny have everything explained is pure poop. Their genius is in taking us to frontiers of understanding, not in giving us ultimate truth. Such a thing will never exist for our minds that think the way they do. There will always be more questions, the next frontier.

I will not pretend it to be anything other than my own ignorant opinion but my guess is we cannot begin to guess at the causal conditions of space/time until we have a greatly improved understanding of what is happening below the planck scale and the interrelational mechanics that any meaningful theory would have to include are actually in place. And they simply are not. The near constant stream of results from deep space observation continue to produce more questions than answers even as they confirm the genius of the questions our science heroes posed us. Everything seems so..... paradoxical. My hunch is that we cannot see the wood for the trees. Or imagine for a moment that capable of human reasoning you were limited to being the size of an individual virus suspended 2 miles down in an ocean with as many individual viruses as there are stars in the visible universe. To know what and why the universe is we cannot ignore the perspective of scale.

On the planck floating on the quantum sub reality that is our visible cosmos there is so much we do not understand. We do not know with certainty the mechanics of the formation of any of the scales of magnitude. Not atomic building blocks, cells, solar systems, galaxies or clusters of galaxies. Our building of explanations are all incomplete works in progress. And whilst most of the prominent thinkers that make the headlines are more than willing to agree we simply cant be sure.... yet there is this aura of dictatorial, almost religious, arrogance like a council of Bishops, from the scientific 'body' to anyone who dare shout for a fundamental rethink.

Andrews ideas at the beginning of this thread deal with fundamental issues, the attraction and accumulation of bigger and bigger chunks of stuff. Unlike Andrew I believe that there is a limit beyond which that mass becomes so squashed it forms what we call black holes. I might add that I live with this 'hunch' that really understanding black holes will unlock a whole new paradigm. It is very easy to see there are a lot of supermassive black holes out there. They are important because at their event horizons the laws of physics we use for our material reckoning stop working. Our universe is peppered with examples of mass beyond mass. Are they relevant only because they exert such enormous gravitational influence? Cosmologists are still in fierce debate as to whether they are feeding, even creating, galaxies...or devouring them. I personally love the observation of water rich black hole ejections, spraying like huge garden sprinklers life giving water into its surrounding galaxy.

Without quoting papers and from what I have read from the official science press it is now believed to be highly likely that there is not only our new found love affair with dark matter and energy, there is something else being observed too. Dark flow. And there is at least one large eddy, or counterflow, been detected. It is easy and intuitive to think of the universe as a fluid, the saddle shape version of space time commonly used to explain the Einstein universe does look a snapshot of 'flow' too. So is there a good reason the universe is not lust a snapshot of a dynamic flowing body. Again I seek refuge in my ignorance of the academic tools to prove this one way or the other but from my untutored but well read perspective I see big bang theory as being just too full of fudges and fixes to be taken with the seriousness it is.

The truth is we are still stuck on 'what is gravity ?'. Without a meaningful answer to that all else remains meaningless. That is not to say it is all worthless. 


Add: That prominent galaxy in the above pic of the Cartwheel galaxy group has to have been called the condom galaxy.....shoorly ???
« Last Edit: 17/04/2010 14:33:35 by quibitheed »
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #237 on: 01/05/2010 18:39:58 »
You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.

See a series of video clips on "Cosmology Quest - Critique of Cosmology" part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

In this video it featured some accomplished scientists elaborating their opposing views that are supported with rigorous astronomical evidence for their opinions on why they think that the Big Bang model is incorrect.

From my vortex world view, here are two UVS topics that elaborate on how and why the Big Bang model is viewed as incorrect:

- Expansion of space in the Big Bang model reviewed with UVS (Note: This was partially discussed in the previous posts of this thread.)

- Accelerated expansion of space in cosmic inflation reviewed with UVS

IMHO, it does not even require my UVS to be involved to rationally refute the BB model; the mathematical construct of the Big Bang cosmology would fall apart under its own definitions when its assumptions and propositions are rationally scrutinized for its contradictions that are logically fallacious.

Nonetheless, UVS could illustrate the paradoxical effect of nature that are involved to cause the complexly inversed illusions in the apparent observations, it also provides as a rational alternative model for cosmic evolution that could coherently explain the evolution of the physical universe from macrocosms to microcosms, and the illustrations therein are supported with astronomical evidence in logical empiricism.

I would be grateful if the Big Bang proponents or experts here could highlight to me on where I might have overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted anything that are crucial for the correct understanding of cosmic evolution; I would be listening with all ears.   

Many thanks in advance.

« Last Edit: 01/05/2010 19:38:50 by Vincent »
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #238 on: 01/05/2010 19:15:21 »

I do not think you have to be an academic and use the language of mathematics to have a valid idea. Good ideas begin in peoples heads not with equations. And sometimes I get the distinct impression that scientists get lost in their theories like teenagers on WoW.

I say this because you are ignoring some extremely interesting observationally testable ideas. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff.

Science is not just a beautiful methodology it is also a never ending argument. And so it should be. So lets all enjoy it while it lasts.

As for the point of the post, the question is the big bang theory correct? , I answered "other". It seems to me the current inflationary vision from a single point of nothingness is just senseless. To believe that Newton, Einstein and their scholarly progeny have everything explained is pure poop. Their genius is in taking us to frontiers of understanding, not in giving us ultimate truth. Such a thing will never exist for our minds that think the way they do. There will always be more questions, the next frontier.

Everything seems so..... paradoxical. (You might be interested to take a look at a UVS topic on "The paradoxical effect of nature)".

.... yet there is this aura of dictatorial, almost religious, arrogance like a council of Bishops, from the scientific 'body' to anyone who dare shout for a fundamental rethink.

I might add that I live with this 'hunch' that really understanding black holes will unlock a whole new paradigm.

Dark flow. And there is at least one large eddy, or counterflow, been detected. It is easy and intuitive to think of the universe as a fluid, the saddle shape version of space time commonly used to explain the Einstein universe does look a snapshot of 'flow' too.

The truth is we are still stuck on 'what is gravity ?'. Without a meaningful answer to that all else remains meaningless. That is not to say it is all worthless. 

Add: That prominent galaxy in the above pic of the Cartwheel galaxy group has to have been called the condom galaxy.....shoorly ???


Hi quibitheed,

Thank you for your very eloquent writting, reading you post was a very refreshing experience, and I have reread it several times.

You have made many interesting pointers (as noted above) in your this initial post that summarize your worldview of the Universe. However I will stop short here to ask if you could provide the links for the  astronomical details and images on:

1. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff.

2. Dark flow. 

Thanks.
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #239 on: 08/05/2010 12:55:16 »
Four new videos on "Nellie the Neutron" and "New Clear Science" <nuclear science> explain the role of neutron repulsion as the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=31352.0

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
 

Offline teh theory

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • http://dannyburton.wordpress.com/
    • View Profile
    • teh big bang theory
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #240 on: 16/06/2010 20:52:10 »
i think it must have been a constant universe that LOOKS like it inflated from a point for any observer within the universe... each observer point probably has a different point of seeming 'big bang' origin ... although all of us here on earth might find it difficult to separate the different points of origin out thanks to the huge scale...

...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #241 on: 25/06/2010 05:23:21 »
i think it must have been a constant universe that LOOKS like it inflated from a point for any observer within the universe... each observer point probably has a different point of seeming 'big bang' origin ... although all of us here on earth might find it difficult to separate the different points of origin out thanks to the huge scale...

...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...
Quantitative experimental data on
 
a.) Nuclear rest masses of all known types of atoms,
b.) Solar luminosity, solar neutrinos and solar wind emissions, and
c.) Material in meteorites, planets, the solar photosphere, the solar wind, and solar flares

Indicate that material in the Solar System is now expanding because

d) Volume increases by 10^15 in neutron decay (Step 2 below), and
e.) Four reactions produce all of the solar products listed in b.) above:

1. Neutron emission from the solar core: <n>  => n + 12 MeV/nucleon
2. Neutron decay after emission: n => H + 1 MeV/nucleon
3. H-fusion after decay: 4 H => He-4 + 2 v + 7 MeV/nucleon
4. Escape of excess H in the solar wind: Solar H => 50,000 billion metric ton of SW H/year is discharged to interstellar space.

Our Sun is maintained by dynamic competition between neutron repulsion and gravitational attraction in the neutron-rich solar core.  In Step 2 above the atomic volume of the product H atom is ~10^15 times bigger than that of the neutron:

V(H)/V(n) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000

Presently the universe is expanding here as compact nuclear matter in the solar core is expanding by about a factor of ~10^15 and being ejected to fill interstellar space with Hydrogen.

In the future, when the neutron-rich core of stars have all evaporated, there will be no repulsive force opposing the attractive force of gravity.  Then,

f.) If the universe is infinite it may collapse back down as part of an infinite series of oscillations, or
g.) If the universe is finite and started with the Big Bang, it may become cold, dead and static.

That's how it looks from here.

Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

« Last Edit: 25/06/2010 05:31:47 by om »
 

Offline CreativeEnergy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
    • Eric's Journal
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #242 on: 15/08/2010 20:00:24 »
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL  ;)
 

Offline om

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #243 on: 15/08/2010 20:53:55 »
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL  ;)

Was Father Georges Lemaître Right?

We don't know.  Why not simply admit that we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite?

But more is being revealed every day about the Little Bang that made the Solar System right here [Science 195, 208-209 (1977); Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); Geokhimiya no. 12, 1776-1801 (1981); Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)].

Naked science readers may be interested in reading about the similarity in the one of the shapes allowed for electrons in the 3d orbital of the Hydrogen atom (two dumbbells passing through the hole in a doughnut) to the supernova debris that formed the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, . . . .

And to the events that more recently formed SN 1987A and the Planetary Nebula Eta Carina:
 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43451

Let's celebrate new information that is being revealed today and stop arguing about information that none of have yet.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
« Last Edit: 15/08/2010 20:56:38 by om »
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #244 on: 10/09/2010 17:47:48 »
...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...

Something cannot comes from nothing. The conventional knowledge of standard cosmology propositioned that the vast space is void of substance, but this nothingness in the WMAP exploration with its instrument of various observational bandwidths, it was discovered to be filled with discernable stuff. 

See a link on Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe for its top ten findings.

“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein


EM field is not classified as physical object, yet this weightlessness phenomenon of nothingness could exert physical pressure on physical objects in its path.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2010 19:33:54 by Vincent »
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #245 on: 10/09/2010 18:02:04 »
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL  ;)

The geocentric model was even more firmly established for millenniums, was it right after all?

 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #246 on: 10/09/2010 18:48:48 »
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaître was right after all! LOL  ;)

Was Father Georges Lemaître Right?

We don't know.  Why not simply admit that we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite?

snips..

Let's celebrate new information that is being revealed today and stop arguing about information that none of have yet.

Greeting Professor Manuel,

We could know, let me elaborate:

The Big Bang model propositioned that the boundary of the observable physical universe in every direction is a view at 13.7 billion years ago when the physical universe was in its primordial form, but this is absolutely contradicting in all aspects at all extends; the extremely small, dense and hot state of the nascent physical universe in its isotropic form is currently being empirically observed in its time dilation image of 13.7 billion years ago to be having an extremely large radius of 13.7 Gly in an extremely sparse and cooled state. This is a self-referenced mathematical paradox of the most extreme physical extends that does not refer to reality.

In the mathematical construct of Father Georges Lemaître's BB model, it is absolutely valid with its self-referenced deductive proofs and its propositions are therefore indisputable in its mathematical realm. Nonetheless, when it gets to reality, as illustrated above, it is absolutely bogus. 

For further elucidation, the readers of this forum might want to see a UVS topic on "Validity analysis" that elaborates on unassialable mathematical constructs that suffer from various paradoxes as a result of their foundational crisis.

Best to you.

« Last Edit: 14/09/2010 20:00:43 by Vincent »
 

Offline Deepanshu

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #247 on: 20/10/2010 08:59:05 »
The big bang is correct and well modelled as far as the observational record extends but that is clearly not the end of it. I strongly suspect we are observing one universe within a vast multiverse of indefinite size containing many similar universes to our own. That is essentially constant.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #248 on: 03/12/2010 15:35:52 »
Say a diesel engine requires 10 liters of water ......
Hello Andrew,
You need to run the numbers on your thermal ideas. How much energy do you think is being cooled away by the oceans? You can then easily calculate the thermal gradient necessary through the core, the oceans and the atmosphere. If you are right the deepest parts of the oceans should be warmer than the surface. And the surface of the oceans should be warmer than the annual average of the low level atmosphere. Good Luck.
Bengt
[Irrelevant link removed - Mod]
« Last Edit: 03/12/2010 15:43:34 by peppercorn »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #249 on: 23/12/2010 04:14:38 »
Sorry, I skipped a couple of pages in the middle.  I'll try to get back to them later.

I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of  planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.

I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster. 

I would have to agree with the "micro-bang" theory.

If there was a single "big bang" with all matter and energy emanating from a single point (or single area).  Then with a Big Bang Explosion, we would likely have a universe that would be a hollow sphere with nothing in the middle where the explosion originated (unless it is beginning to collapse back on itself).

The problem with an infinitely old universe is that hydrogen should be consumed, and no longer exist which, of course, isn't the case.  Thus, we need to come up with a theory of the origin of hydrogen (the big bang).

I suppose this gets us to Black Holes.  Originally thought to just consume matter and energy, there is more recent evidence that black holes not only consume matter and energy, but radiate energy, and possibly matter.  Furthermore, there may be some events that would cause them to explode.  And, since there may not be differentiation of atoms in the black hole, they may be able to account for the renewing of Hydrogen in the universe.

If thermal energy is represented by particle movement.  Does there reach a point in the core of a black hole where there is no particle movement, and thus no thermal energy?  And, if so, what happened to the thermal energy? 

Can a black hole enlarge to a size where it becomes inherently unstable?

What happens if two super-massive black holes collide...  and don't get kicked apart?

Anyway, there is a lot more to learn about the universe before one can conclude that all matter & energy originated in a single cataclysmic event.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #249 on: 23/12/2010 04:14:38 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums