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 176072 times)

Offline Nick Fritz

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #250 on: 19/01/2011 13:22:38 »
The big bang is incorrect and obvious nonsense if one considers what is known and understood in physics.  The big bang only gains traction when we extrapolate questionable data to far-fetched conclusions.  I wrote a theory and proposed it on this forum titled, I think I have discovered the unified field theory that I think is a much more plausible and easily swallowed theory that quite easily refutes the big bang.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #251 on: 19/01/2011 13:31:02 »
Hi Nick,
Where do I find your hypothesis?
Bengt
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #252 on: 19/01/2011 14:25:54 »
 

Offline kornbredrsqar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #253 on: 17/02/2011 18:15:40 »
I vote not big bang and hear is why, and I will admit my knowledge is limited on the subject but every piece of evidence that i have Sean is based in some form on theory and correct me if i am wrong but you can't use one theory to prove another. so lets talk about the facts, if the universe is expanding in all directions then from what point in space did it start? the big bang should have a point of origin that could be calculated by the trajectory of everything moving away from it, and objects near to us should be on a similar path. now lets discuss the red light evidence, if all objects appear red when moving away from the observer then that would put earth at the center of it all, and I'm pretty sure that theory has been disproved to everyones satisfaction, so maybe the fact that we are moving at great deal of speed through space do to the earth spinning as well as orbitting the sun and the only time we can sea the universe is when we are facing away from the sun' all have more to do with the redness of stars than the stars somehow moving away from us and each other in all directions.  If this were true then the constellations would not still appear the same today as they did 2,000 years ago because although they appear to be two dimensional in the night sky in reality they are three dimensional shapes that cover vast areas of space that are lightyears apart and it is only from our singular perspective that they form the shapes that are so recognizable to this day. If the universe was expanding do to the big bang these "signs" in the heavens would surely have changed there shape, size or location over time. and according to Mr Onemug if it is in motion it will stay that way until.....so on and so forth, if this is true then what ever forces slowed this expansion would have stopped the planets from spinning and orbitting as well. so when there is an explanation that does not conflict with the things that we know to be true then I will buy it, cash up ,no grumbling!
« Last Edit: 17/02/2011 18:59:20 by kornbredrsqar »
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #254 on: 26/02/2011 03:46:25 »
Sorry to jump in without reading the whole thread. Reading is a learning disability for me, plus I have an attention deficit.

I don't buy the big bang. I won't even glorify it with the title "theory"; for me, it's just a scenario. It is based on a long list of unfounded assumptions; first and foremost is the assumption that the universe is finite. I do believe that our little piece of the universe (which I call "our universe") had a temporal beginning, but that was not the beginning of everything. Even defining the beginning of time as we know it is somewhat arbitrary. How do you measure the first 10^-42 second when the second is defined in terms of the frequency of an emission from cesium atoms, and cesium didn't exist until the first supernova? 

Our universe, though infinite, grew out of an infinitely larger fractal universe, which exists outside of time.

However, it is interesting that in proper Qabbalism (not that deranged nonsense proselytised by such as Madonna) Ein Soph Aur equates rather nicely to quantum foam. It is the "Great Nothingness" from which everything ultimately emerges.

I assume you are referring to J. H. Wheeler's quantum foam. I think that is related to string theory. It has one similarity to my own fractal foam. Both assume that the foam exists at or near the scale of the Planck length, but there the similarity ends. In my model, everything in our universe arises spontaneously from a chaotic mix of regular energy and dark energy.
 

Offline SOEDan137

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #255 on: 28/02/2011 16:39:00 »

BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such wave forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
The Torus is a particle of discrete exchange, from one point to another. The object exchanges position and momentum. While the spherical wave shows position, and the conic wave shows momentum, the torus shows both at the same time, and has a dynamic finite unbounded reality. The volumes of the cone, sphere, and torus are mathematically related as static objects.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this local density fluctuation wave, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as the rubber sheet does.
Experimentally verifiable is that a big fat slow smoke ring generated in a room with very still air will eventually possess a bulge that travels in a circle on the surface of the smoke ring. This bulge, being a gravitational depression, gathers more of the energy of the field toward itself. Finally the bulge gathers enough material to collapse the field and eject a new, smaller smoke ring out in the same direction as the first torus. This collapse is a black hole to the first torus, and a white hole to the second torus, where the axes of space and time in that second torus have reversed.
While gravity tends to draw depressions together locally on a dynamic torus, even to the point of field collapse, other areas on a torus expand and contract globally as the torus propagates along without regard to local phenomenon on the surface. This is quintessence. The inertia of the torus to propagate is its dark energy. This is a two-dimensional example of the process that we  experience in three dimensions.

From structureofexistence.com by Dan Echegoyen 951-204-0201

--
 

Offline paradigm

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #256 on: 12/03/2011 08:51:06 »
The big bang theory is wrong. The cosmic red shift phenomena is indicative of the way in which light increases in wavelength as it travels and not galaxies accelerating away. It's accepted that the red shift in the light from our Sun is due to the Sun's light travelling through its gravitational (emission) field and not due to the Sun accelerating away. This also applies to the galaxies. Or, are the big bangers saying that galaxies do not have gravitational (emission) fields? Because this is also saying that galaxies to not have emission (light) and that what we see is a figment of our immaginations. No. The figment is the big bang theory. The Universe is infinite is distance and duration, space and time.
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #257 on: 12/03/2011 16:37:30 »
The claim that it all came from one single big bang is an assumption that lacks scientific support. To accept this assumption and try to build science around it will likely result in a false paradigm and a scientific detour.

To believe that visible light would travel for millions of years through a quite busy universe and not loose a little energy, and shift a little to the red, also lacks scientific support. To extrapolate this into claiming that redshift is evidence of an expanding universe only shows how little we really know.

Bengt Nyman
 

Offline old_bob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #258 on: 16/03/2011 15:31:13 »
Nobody knows, or can ever know, for certain, how or why our universe formed, or whether there are other universes, or what was "in place" before the first universe formed. To maintain interest of "believers" I ask who or what created your god, from what, and why.

You all have active brains so please go solve my question about a plague of worms on pavements posted in the appropriate slot on NS forum.
 

Offline GrapperJ

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • The glass is half full
    • View Profile
    • Zidbits
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #259 on: 29/03/2011 13:30:33 »
I think a lot of people mistake the big bang for an actual explosion. That's not accurate. The big bang was space/time itself and all the matter in it being created (expanding). People incorrectly imagine nothingness, then "boom" all the matter in the universe just appeared.

The big bang theory states that space/time itself (and all the matter in it) expanding from what could be described as an infinitely small naked singularity. There was no "nothingness" or space before the big bang. The big bang created the space that matter exists in.

The only alternatives to the big bang that I consider viable, or plausible would be M-theories explanation. That our universe or dimension is on a brane. And that brane collided with another dimension which caused a big bang. Eventually, due to entropy, all the matter cools down, causing heat death. This results in a universe empty of energy. Trillions of years later, our dimension collides with another and the cycle repeats.
Here is a good explanation of it with pictures:
newbielink:http://zidbits.com/2011/03/19/a-laymans-explanation-for-string-theory/ [nonactive]

~G
 

Offline Jolly- Joliver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #260 on: 31/03/2011 18:44:37 »
12 year old child Genius intends to prove Big bang wrong

And has aleast two different theories....
 

Offline mpc755

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #261 on: 01/05/2011 22:02:55 »
The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html [nofollow]

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet:

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html [nofollow]

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg [nofollow]

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #262 on: 03/05/2011 17:03:42 »
No. Its mostly correct as far as it goes but it is grossly incomplete and some of it just plain wrong.  I believe the universe to be cyclic with matter universe following antimatter universe ad infinitum
 

Offline aspagnito

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #263 on: 12/05/2011 10:04:21 »
Okay...
Where did that demonic sparkle came from? Let's say from other universes, but it could appear spontanic... but where? In nothingness? So why do we say, it blew up in the nothingness, when there was nothing to compare it's size with. Or maybe it was the Great Division? Or maybe it's just a spectacular theory of some great explosion, because a good explosion always looks good comparing with it's background of another big explosion.
If not... what in reverse?
Let's say a photon is not what Bronstein figured out only mathematically. Let's say it is also able to loose its energy and after 20 bilion years there's no way for it to exist. A photon that "looses energy" gets more red and VOILA! we have an explanation for the so called "escaping gallaxies".
Saying that a photon is an indestructable quant of energy seems to be not too bright, but science is always about making illusions dissapear, when it comes to "obvious thinking". When we're too damn sure of something, then we're probably wrong.
The Big Bang Theory for me is just a Big Misfire Theory.
Besides. The one who told You Background Radiation is a proof for the Big Bang should also explain You, that he saw the smoke, and he's damn sure what's burning.
 

Offline Ken Hughes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #264 on: 02/06/2011 08:09:34 »
In truth, nobody really knows for certain.
The big bang is clearly the current favourite, but there are other ways to explain the redshift.
For example, we normally assume that time passes at the same rate over time, but there is no scientific basis for this assumption, certainly when the mass density of the universe has changed over time.

If, for instance, time is slightly faster now than it was much earlier in the life of the universe, then this would give us the same redshift observations. The one big advantage of this idea is that the redshift would not be dependant on location in relation to any big bang and so we wouldn't have to be so creative about the expansion of nothing. This idea seems quite preposterous to me.
If time variation was the cause, we would observe the redshift independent of position and in any and all directions, even in a static universe.

So, the redshift could be the result of any combination and in any proportion of these ideas
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #265 on: 02/06/2011 10:32:30 »
First explain to yourself: Gravity and Strong Force.
Then explain to me Magnetism and the Propagation of Light.
Then I shall be very curios to see if anybody even remembers the expression The Big Bang.
 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #266 on: 02/06/2011 16:55:09 »
A Big Bang is an expression of something that expressed a lot of energy, in some undefinable place that through a inflation somehow become a symmetry, ruled by constants. We call it SpaceTime and it is like a jello, you push one corner of it and it 'distorts'. Nothing in it is loose, and it is described by gravity and motion, containing matter and radiation. Then we have some descriptions like 'black matter' and 'dark energy' that also may exist, possibly? Or else they might be shown to describe some 'constants' necessary for our equilibrium? Or as some think, it will all be shown wrong :)
=

Ah, and time, almost forgot that one :)
( although, heh, motion craves time to exist ::))
« Last Edit: 02/06/2011 16:58:29 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #267 on: 02/06/2011 17:44:45 »
Hi Göran,
We know. We have heard it too many times. We don't like fantasy physics with zero support in the observable world.
Real physics is based on observing reality, analyzing it, understanding it, describing it and quantifying it.
Not inventing it, spinning it or warping it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #268 on: 03/06/2011 00:29:42 »
Now, I wasn't there.
But I can see how the idea grew, and to me it makes some sense.

The expansion is here today, and needs to be redefined if you don't want it to be 'space' expanding. If it exist then a inflation is no impossibility. Also we have what I call a bubble. Inside it a lot of stuff seems to be limited by so called constants, and they don't make sense either. It depends on how you visualize your universe I think. I have no problems accepting the idea of constants but if you want a 'clock work' universe then there will be a lot of thing things that have to be redefined, from planks constants to lights speed in a vacuum.

There is actually support for the expansion, the inflation is a way to define how the universe can seem so isotropic and homogeneous. Still, nobody can guarantee that either exist of course, they are just those theories that seems to work best for now, and are accepted by most. It's a educated guess work building on astronomical observations, Cepheid variables, red shift, the Hubble constant and Einsteins equations. Einstein wanted a static balanced universe himself and got rather upset when Fridman showed that there were other possibilities 1922. Fridman was a Russian mathematician and worked it out from Einsteins equations, but some years after his, too early death, another guy Lemaitre, a French cosmologist this time, came and developed a independent theory which went further than Fridman's three models. I think he was the guy that first presented the idea of a universe starting in a very compact area to then 'explode' outwards. I don't think he was into fantasy. He had studied mathematics under Eddington, and was a brilliant mathematician too.
==

Rechecking my sources I think Fridman actually was the guy that was closest to how we look at a Big Bang today. He saw it as coming out of a 'point' whereas Lemaitre imagined is as a primeval 'atom' of a finite size.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 00:46:24 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #269 on: 03/06/2011 05:14:13 »
Mankind has real environmental, energy and physics problems to solve. That's why it's regrettable when intelligent and capable people loose themselves in a world of faith and fantasy based nonsense. 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #270 on: 03/06/2011 13:14:15 »
This is the pivot as I think of it. And another female unsung hero of astronomy, She was actually considered for a Nobel Prize but as they were making ready the paper work they found out that she had died three years earlier. They should have given it to her any which way. I think. Henrietta Leavitt made a incredible contribution to astronomy, before her there was no way defining galactic distances with any assurance. And she wasn't really an astronomer, she just got interested as she was hired as a 'computer' and then started to develop her own theory. A impressive feat.

You have to remember that all we know is educated guesswork, and logic, however mathematically intricate as I see it.

Henrietta Leavitt.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #271 on: 03/06/2011 14:36:14 »
If you read the link it's easy to get the impression that she didn't understand the importance of her work. That is terribly wrong and a shoddy presentation. She knew exactly the importance of it, it was a mathematical correlation between the fluctuations of its apparent luminosity and its real luminosity, where longer interval's meant a stronger real luminosity. She stated that she expected her mathematical curves to make it possible to correctly judge any Cepheid anywhere in the universe. So discussing Ejnar Hertzsprung, and make it seem as if he was the one realizing the importance of her 'period luminosity relation' seems embarrassingly wrong.
==

I tried to find her published work but :( I can't.

"Ψ Henrietta Swan Leavitt Henrietta Leavitt was born in Lancaster, Massachusetts, and graduated from Radcliffe College in 1892. In 1902 she became a permanent staff member of the Harvard College Observatory (HCO) and through her scientific ability quickly rose to head the department of photographic stellar photometry.

During her tenure at Harvard, she spent a great deal of time searching photographic plates of the night sky searching for variable stars in both the Large Magellanic Clouds (LMC) and Small Magellanic Clouds (SMC). In 1904, using a rather laborious process called superposition, she discovered 152 variable stars in the LMC and 59 in the SMC. Over the next year she reported 843 new variables in the SMC. These discoveries led Charles Young of Princeton to remark in a letter to HCO director E. C. Pickering, "What a variable-star 'fiend' Miss Leavitt is, one can't keep up with the roll of the new discoveries."

Probably Leavitt's greatest discovery came from her study of 1,777 variable stars in the Magellanic Clouds. She was able to determine the periods of 25 Cepheid variables in the SMC and in 1912 she announced what has since become known as the famous Period-Luminosity relation, "A straight line can be readily drawn among each of the two series of points corresponding to maxima and minima, thus showing that there is a simple relation between the brightness of the variable and their periods." Henrietta Leavitt passed away from cancer in 1921."
« Last Edit: 03/06/2011 14:56:55 by yor_on »
 

Offline tangoblue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • RANDOMNESS RULES!!!
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #272 on: 03/06/2011 23:20:26 »
all this talk of the big bang. Everybody just needs to face the fact that we were all created by the great arkvoodle, son of the sacred crotch. (if you know where i got that from shhh no one else knows).
 

Offline kornbredrsqar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #273 on: 20/06/2011 21:28:28 »
I just read a couple of different studies on gravitational redshift and they all seemed to back up what I had imagined might be true about the socalled proof that the universe is expanding by way of the doplar redshift, it makes much more sense to me that this obseved redshift is caused by the almost uncalculible amount of gravitational fields that light has passed through on it's way here from the outer reaches of spase, and the further it travels the greater the shift makes total sense to me, but what do I know I'm just a guy with an 8th grade education and an IQ of around 140, I'm sure there's a much more educated and less inteligent person out there who can explain exactly why I'm wrong!
 

Offline Dr. Junix

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #274 on: 28/06/2011 00:45:42 »
I vote creationism. I read the Bible and I believe it is true, especially if what is written therein have evidence found all over the world and are being studied by archeologist.

The big bang theory is just what it is, a theory. After all, with a bang that big which supposedly created the universe, nothing could have lived. And calculating the earth's age as billions of years old is really kind of far fetched (sorry Math is not my strong suite). With the big bang theory I'm sure evolution would follow and then mutation. Albeit mutation is true, but evolution and mutation are two different things. Now back to the big bang. There is no big bang, if there was, we would be on our way to a singular linear path to the outer of whatever is beyond space. No explosion could produce something that would make a planet or moon, to revolve another body.

If someone could simulate, lets say a an explosion, no matter how big or small and make a pebble revolve around a rock, and stay that way for even an hour. I would be a firm believer of the big bang. Which by the way would no longer be a theory. But a reality. For as far as I know, explosions or bangs throws thing away from the center of the explosion, instead of making them revolve around other things.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #274 on: 28/06/2011 00:45:42 »

 

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