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 175925 times)

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #50 on: 18/06/2008 22:01:25 »
I hope you have learned that I make sure of my facts before I spout off about something.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #51 on: 19/06/2008 14:04:37 »
No! You make sure someone else has thought of it first and published it before you digest and regurgitate it without thinking for yourself. And when you find someone who does not conform to your way of non-thinking you begin to throw insults and suggest the person you are conversing with is unscientific in their line of thought. Well, how do you suppose science moves forward? Does it move forward by everyone accepting everything that has been written by someone else? Or does it take someone moving in the opposite direction to discover something unexpected and novel?

The other person who wrote do not feed the trolls did not think of the abbreviation himself but copied something that some other pleb had wrote in order to make himself look smart and in doing so has revealed he is not worth giving the time of day to. Fortunately my memory still holds true after 51 years and it will be used to great effect in remembering his rather short and meaningless post.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #52 on: 19/06/2008 14:37:03 »
I only speak as I find. Your behaviour has been very troll-like so I had to agree with the comment.
Your problem seems to be that you get set on some alternative view of a process and are not prepared to test that against all the existing evidence and models. If, instead of getting upset about my / our reactions, you did some proper reading around and, just possibly, accepting some of what you read of conventional Science, you might see why some of your ideas seem so whacky. After all, as I have said before, not ALL of Science is wrong, so which bits do you want to accept and which bits not? Pick the bits that you do accept and subject your new, alternative models to those bits. Do they fit? You may well find that they don't.

I do not 'regurgitate' thoughtlessly. I use my past knowledge and skills, based on a body of well accepted proof and on a certain amount of experiment by me.  I do have a track record of inventing (working) systems and producing technical papers. My advantage was that I had to justify virtually every line of reasoning to my peers and I didn't manage to throw a wobbly when I was disagreed with. 

Quote
Well, how do you suppose science moves forward? Does it move forward by everyone accepting everything that has been written by someone else? Or does it take someone moving in the opposite direction to discover something unexpected and novel?
But, unless that 'someone' actually understands what it's all about (including existing stuff he is building on) then, for 'novel', read 'unsupportable'. I have read enough of your ideas to realise that you basic knowledge of much of established Science is very shaky. This is why you are so reluctant to quote actual figures in your declamations. The wonderful thing about Science is that there are so many cross links which support one another. 'Basic' Science is not wrong. Learn that first.

What you write is interpreted as troll-like because you love to post but refuse to be pinned down to solid facts. Don't get offended; get better informed.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #53 on: 19/06/2008 15:24:09 »
My behaviour? Where have I once used foul language? Where have I got uptight about your reasoning? I have never thrown a "wobbly on this forum" I never try to belittle anyone. I may on occasions think aloud while getting my head around problems and offering an alternative explanation for observations like your back ground radiation. You never did reply to my suggestion that the background radiation may becoming from stars and not the big bang and the direction of that5 radiation might be travelling in the opposite direction to our insignificant spot in the Universe.

As for setting up a mathematical equation on the whole Universe to show it has already been there and never originated and will never end, I would need to live to infinity myself in order to complete it. And as I have more pressing things to do than write chalk on a blackboard and grow old, grey bald and demented while doing it. I will continue to think laterally.

You mention you have to get every line past your peers. Perhaps this might be because your peers are only interested if your line of thinking does not conflict with theirs?

I was not offended. I was informed about my opponents line of thinking, that’s all. You nor anyone here could offend me. However, if you were to insult or assault anyone of my family that might prompt a very different reaction from me and you probably would not like me any more.
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #54 on: 19/06/2008 15:39:53 »
Thank you Andrew for providing the most "entertaining" read since I bumped into a "free energy" forum.  I just had to register here to let you know.
By all means continue with this crusade against the scientific community I wont stop you.  Infact I may just go make a brew and go read the rest of your posts.  I have a mate here who only got a B in his GCSE science and he can see the funny side :)
If anyone wants a real laff check out the "conspiracy of science".  Its a corker


BTW if your theory is correct does that mean that our little solar system will eventually be 9 stars orbitting a black hole or some black holes and some stars orbiting a black hole?  If so wouldn't these structures be observable elsewhere in the universe?  I mean 9 stars spinning around a star/blackhole cant be easy to miss, especially if we have found gas planets that dwarf jupiter, I mean how much bigger do they need to get? lol
« Last Edit: 19/06/2008 15:42:08 by Flyberius »
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #55 on: 19/06/2008 16:27:56 »
Quote
As for setting up a mathematical equation on the whole Universe to show it has already been there and never originated and will never end
That would be too much to ask. No, I would be much more happy for some demonstration of  knowledge  of the most elementary bits of mechanics and Newton's Laws which would then be a basis for giving some credence to your more adventurous notions. If they don't satisfy Newtons Laws, to a first approximation, then they have to be nutty, remember.

And 'behaviour' doesn't have to be as unsubtle as being rude. It is a general term which describes the way someone conducts themselves, for instance the way they argue  scientifically. You can insult someone's intelligence too, you know, by expecting them to believe something with no foundation.

I can rest easy in the knowledge that I will not wake up with a horse's head on my pillow next to me, then?

Flyberius - they can get a lot bigger than Big J.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #56 on: 19/06/2008 22:27:13 »
The sad thing is that you think this is a crusade against the scientific community. It is nothing of the kind. All I have been trying to show is that there are many ways of looking at problems. When we are dealing with then Universe, nothing is set in stone! No one knows how it all works in a unified field theory and in our lifetime probably never will. The thing that gets me going is that people read a hypothesis and just because a large group of academics add their name to it, they dare not question it. Well, I learned a long time ago to take nothing for granted.

Not convinced there is a black hole out there except in the head of the person that came up with the weird notion.

The evolving planet hypothesis predicts that stars will form as mass increases, and yes there may be another star emerging in our own solar system and when it happens it will decompose and lose its particles into the universe and accelerate the growth of other planets. Eventually the sun will cool down when it reaches the point where there is insufficient gravity to provide the light bringing reaction and will become a dull star and eventually will reverse from decomposing to recomposing and repeating the cycle. The idea of all the planets turning into suns fits but not on the same timescale as you interpreted it to. As one star is born another is on the way to becoming ineffective and growing cold. It may be that two stars cannot be close together due to their polarity being reversed

The Gas phase of planets comes as the planet reaches sufficient size as to attract sufficient hydrogen to outnumber the oxygen molecules, again part of the evolutionary planet hypothesis. Hydrogen arriving here on Earth has to be pared off with oxygen in order to create water, this is how hydrogen is attracted to the mass for now at least.

I do not expect anyone to believe. I expect them to form an opinion for themselves and question everything because today’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!


 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #57 on: 19/06/2008 23:10:25 »
Quote
today’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!
Well there's your problem, Andrew. You clearly believe that but it is seldom true.
Today's Science has not 'proved the old stuff to be wrong'. It has extended it and modified it because it has been based on it.
Hence, tomorrows Science can be expected to do the same.
I am, of course, only referring to developments since the Enlightenment.

Today's daft ideas won't prove anything to have been wrong because they have no foundation. Do you not realise that an idea that is based on someone's fancy is about as likely to be proved right as I am to float up to the ceiling.

Yes, there are many ways of looking at things but, I'm afraid that most of them are just not valid - particularly the ones which are not based on evidence.

Do you really think you are in any position to challenge the competence of an eminent Cosmologist to propose Black Holes? That's a pretty arrogant statement from someone who is reluctant ever to get into any substantial theory. Do you actually understand the basis of the black hole concept? Do you think it is just based on fancy?

What is the basis for all this waffle about your alternative Cosmology? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you do any measurements or have you used existing data to come to this conclusion? Put it another way; what is your authority or basis for rejecting the accepted model?

If you refuse to engage in proper Science, how can you take exception to the 'Troll' epithet?
« Last Edit: 19/06/2008 23:13:25 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #58 on: 19/06/2008 23:37:43 »
Andrew can you show me an observation of any of these processes.  And some maths.  Some maths would be wonderful.  God knows I wont understand it but someone here will.  Anyway nuff said.  Flame war on a science forum. 


(BTW am I reading this right.  20,000+ posts!  How long has this forum been going?)
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #59 on: 20/06/2008 00:29:13 »
No! You make sure someone else has thought of it first and published it before you digest and regurgitate it without thinking for yourself.

Sorry for being a bit late again (stick to what I'm good at) but that's a totally unfounded accusation.  I've not been around here very long but I've been here long enough to realise that that is not sophiecentaur's modus operandi.

Foul!
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #60 on: 20/06/2008 00:48:26 »
Hi guyws,

Before this gets personal, can we back off and just take a breather? It will help a lot as we try not to let the discussion get to heated.

Thanks,

JimBob
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #61 on: 20/06/2008 00:55:57 »
Do you mean too heated?

Anyway, it's not even warm yet, and it's optional to participate ;D

Sophie seems to want to go for it, and I'm always happy to start throwing spanners around ;D
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #62 on: 23/06/2008 09:41:41 »
May I suggest an important read before you assume I have not researched my statements again. Forbidden Science by Richard Milton.

There is a review here: http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Science-Suppressed-Research-Change/dp/1857023021

Another revealing book from Milton is Alternative Science; More reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0892816317/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Milton, who I have spoken with about my own problems with academic attitudes towards anything that challenges their closely guarded and vehemently defended subjects has written a compelling account of deliberate attempts to suppress valuable research and emerging theories. And in some cases at a great loss of lives.

Dark matter candidates have not been observed. All that has been observed is anomalies with gravity! Even in our own galaxy we identify new planets. All planets generate gravity! The dark matter out there are large (currently obscured from detection) planets and dull / spent stars that will be found in due course as our technology improves. No mass = no gravity! The greater the mass = higher gravity!
Gravity is not a mystical force that lives in black holes and bends space time it is the sum of all of the particles that combine to make a planet. And contrary to popular belief this happens very-very slowly giving the earth an evolutionary age far older than the current estimates.

Great Beyond - New Planet Discovered

Jupiter
Geoffrey Marcy and Paul Butler, a pair of astronomers from the United States, have discovered a planet that closely resembles Jupiter. Though astronomers have found other planets out there, none so far have so closely resembled the planets of our own solar system. This new planet, which is being called Jupiter's cousin, orbits the star 55 Cancri and takes 13 years to go around the star once. It takes Jupiter just over 11 years to circle our sun.

 
Quote
today’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!
Well there's your problem, Andrew. You clearly believe that but it is seldom true.
Today's Science has not 'proved the old stuff to be wrong'. It has extended it and modified it because it has been based on it.
Hence, tomorrows Science can be expected to do the same.
I am, of course, only referring to developments since the Enlightenment.

Today's daft ideas won't prove anything to have been wrong because they have no foundation. Do you not realise that an idea that is based on someone's fancy is about as likely to be proved right as I am to float up to the ceiling.

Yes, there are many ways of looking at things but, I'm afraid that most of them are just not valid - particularly the ones which are not based on evidence.

Do you really think you are in any position to challenge the competence of an eminent Cosmologist to propose Black Holes? That's a pretty arrogant statement from someone who is reluctant ever to get into any substantial theory. Do you actually understand the basis of the black hole concept? Do you think it is just based on fancy?

What is the basis for all this waffle about your alternative Cosmology? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you do any measurements or have you used existing data to come to this conclusion? Put it another way; what is your authority or basis for rejecting the accepted model?

If you refuse to engage in proper Science, how can you take exception to the 'Troll' epithet?
« Last Edit: 23/06/2008 10:25:12 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #63 on: 23/06/2008 23:40:33 »
Quote
vehemently defended subjects
Do you actually know about any of this vehemently defended stuff.
Have you read and understood it?
Are you in a position to challenge it?
Can you suggest why so many clever people should be so easily fooled if it's such rubbish?
Rather than quoting, ad nauseam, this and that link about alternative views, why not actually read some of this stuff which you feel you have to reject?

Try applying Newton's Laws to some simple orbital problem and see that they give you a very nearly right (observed) answer. Then try to apply your ideas to the same system and see if you still get  the same answer. That is the acid test. It would also be very un-trollish. Go on.

Quote
Great Beyond - New Planet Discovered

Jupiter
Geoffrey Marcy and Paul Butler, a pair of astronomers from the United States, have discovered a planet that closely resembles Jupiter. Though astronomers have found other planets out there, none so far have so closely resembled the planets of our own solar system. This new planet, which is being called Jupiter's cousin, orbits the star 55 Cancri and takes 13 years to go around the star once. It takes Jupiter just over 11 years to circle our sun.
Fascinating but apropos of what?
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #64 on: 01/07/2008 10:52:05 »
I know a "good" alternative.  TIME CUBISM!

Visit www.timecube.com and prepare to be assaulted on levels you never knew you had.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2008 03:28:40 by Flyberius »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #65 on: 01/07/2008 13:35:37 »
Visiting this website confirmed my doubts about this post, save yourself some time and have a cup of tea instead.
 

Offline Flyberius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #66 on: 02/07/2008 03:32:35 »
No seriously check it out man.

Its full of insight, and I quote:

"Educators are KILLING US -
teaching Death value ONEism."

sounds familiar,

oh, and who can forget

"The Word EARTH indicates
One, Entity or Singularity,
but Earth is not an Entity,
for the Half of Earth seen
from Space cannot exist
without the Opposite Half
NOT SEEN - existing only
as opposites with a plus &
minus zero existence."

Clearly this guy has an intellect far surpassing yours.  He invented it!  Time Cubism.  He is a doctor of Time Cubism.  Its like being a doctor of homeopathy


 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #67 on: 03/07/2008 02:40:24 »
What do you think?

Alan



CASE FOR OR AGAINST  STEADY STATE BIG BANG UNIVERSE

(SS =STEADY STATE UNIVERSE),(BB =BIG BANG UNIVERSE)      

SS
1.Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models   

BB
The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event.


SS
2.The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.   

BB
Another unacceptable statement. The variation in background radiation is independent of stars or galaxy clusters within our universe. It is extremely even – something one would predict from an expansion that began 14 billion years ago. The variation in background radiation is only 0.00001°K – the exact amount predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. This variation represents the large-scale structure of the universe only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

SS
3.Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.   

BB
The overall prediction of element abundance is exactly what would be expected from the Big Bang. Immediately after the quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other, atomic nuclei form (hydrogen) and for 3 minutes, the fireball remained hot enough to support nuclear fusion, which formed the 25% helium that we see in the stars today.

SS
4.The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.   

BB
The amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe.

SS
5.The average luminosity of quasar must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.   

BB
Since quasars have a very short lifespan (a few billion years at most), they would all have the same apparent brightness because they would be all roughly the same age. All quasars have large redshift values, since they were all formed over 5 billion years ago.

SS
6.The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.   

BB
This appeared to be true a few years ago. However, recent measurements have indicated that the Hubble constant is smaller than originally thought (making the universe older) and the ages of globular clusters younger than previously thought. The results of these studies are shown in the table below from a study published in Science.

SS
7.The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.   

BB
The motions of the galaxies are exactly what are predicted from the Big Bang. The farther galaxies are receding at a higher rate than those that are nearer. The relationship is extremely linear (very little deviation).


SS
8.Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.   

BB
At least four different scientific techniques have confirmed the presence of large amounts of cold dark matter in the universe.

SS
9.The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.   

BB
Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 14 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 14 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they "burn" so intensely, they do not burn for long.

SS
When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don't see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don't see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it.

10.   

 COMMENT

If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.   

Alan
« Last Edit: 07/07/2008 23:43:08 by Alan McDougall »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #68 on: 03/07/2008 13:04:02 »
Not familiar with static universe. The Universe is anything but static, it is in a constant evolutionary state and that everything in the Universe is constantly changing except for the Universe meaning the canvas on which all the planets stars, meteors, comets, atoms and sub atomic particles are being recycled over eternity is Static But not the components that are in it. And we have privilege to gaze upon it in nothing more than an equivalent nanosecond that encompasses the evolution of our own planet.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #69 on: 04/07/2008 16:21:13 »
Andrew,


Quote
Not familiar with static universe. The Universe is anything but static, it is in a constant evolutionary state and that everything in the Universe is constantly changing except for the Universe meaning the canvas on which all the planets stars, meteors, comets, atoms and sub atomic particles are being recycled over eternity is Static But not the components that are in it. And we have privilege to gaze upon it in nothing more than an equivalent nanosecond that encompasses the evolution of our own planet.

I agree!!

Regards

Alan
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #70 on: 07/07/2008 23:37:53 »
Andrew,

I meant "Steady State universe" E.G. Fred Hoyle

Alan
 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #71 on: 20/08/2008 01:23:44 »
Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything .
============ ========.
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles,
and frictionless gears?
by Tim Folger
published online July 18, 2008

When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, 
 is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "

  / Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"

 / Peter Milonni.
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico./
#
Etc.
============ ==.
Can the Nothingness be the Origin of the Universe?

 

Offline socratus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #72 on: 20/08/2008 11:47:29 »
Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?
One of the most basic facts of life is that the future looks different
from the past. But on a grand cosmological scale, they may look the same
By Sean M. Carroll
=========.
“ The universe does not look right. That may seem like a strange thing
 to say, given that cosmologists have very little standard for comparison.
 How do we know what the universe is supposed to look like?
Nevertheless, over the years we have developed a strong intuition
for what counts as “natural”—and the universe we see does not qualify.”

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-cosmic-origins-of-times-arrow
===========..
My question is:
“ Who is right: The Universe or the brain of some physicists? “
===============.

 

Offline imnotreallyaphysicist

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Physics is awsome-too bad im not a physicist
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #73 on: 24/08/2008 11:51:08 »
I Think that the universe is correct because of a single quote
"Only two things are infinite:The universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former" -Albert Einstein
and I also have that edition of scientific american and I read through the whole thing.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #74 on: 27/08/2008 13:31:38 »
Stone me!!! What a read!!! Are you trying to beat War & Peace???
Good job I didn't bother reading most of it.

To get back to the point, I cannot vote for the BB or the steady state.

As has been said, the universe is anything but steady.

As for the BB, when did it happen? Why? Where did the matter for it come from? Why did it not happen before?

Just a few questions to which we can never find the true answers. We must rely on supposition & belief. As for my belief, well I come down somewhere in the middle. To my mind the universe is in a cycle. All matter was at one time in one body. The gravitational pressure and temperature of this unbelievably dense body caused it to explode (The Big Bang) and scatter in every conceivable direction.

Today it is still moving away from the centre of this explosion. In time, these pieces will slow down and begin to reform into fewer larger bodies with immense gravitational force. Forces 100, 1000, 1000000 + times greater than anything we are likely to observe in the universe now. Such will be the radius of these gravitational fields, that these immense bodies will be drawn toward each other to form still fewer and still bigger bodies with even greater gravitational force and so great will be the force, that when these ‘super’ bodies collide, rather than shattering into trillions of pieces they will fuse together.

This will be repeated until all matter has once again been squeezed into a single body and the cycle starts again.

As for the empty space left when all matter is in this one colossal body, I seriously doubt that man has the intelligence or understanding to conceive of the notion of infinite empty space, without boundaries. So I certainly won't be attempting to explain that, since I fall into the category of ‘thicky’. ??? Also the time scale I am thinking of runs into ???? digits. Once again, I am far to much like that single body (dense) to contemplate such a time scale. [:o)]
« Last Edit: 27/08/2008 13:34:22 by Don_1 »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #74 on: 27/08/2008 13:31:38 »

 

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