# The Naked Scientists Forum

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
« on: 17/10/2016 18:34:27 »
For my own personal reasons I do not have faith in the Big Bang. Please help me to have faith.

1. We know the visual perspective is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. So there is a distance where the potential visual perspective is that of planks length. Should we claim the size of the universe is limited to the distance our measuring tools can take us?

2. If you follow the relativity postulate light being independent of the source and the expansion is at the speed of light, the distance from when the light started 13.6 million light years ago will have an additional fraction of 13.6 million light years larger. So do we consider the physical size by relativity or the measured size of the universe, according to the BB?

#### Alex Siqueira

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 156
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #1 on: 19/10/2016 11:20:41 »
For my own personal reasons I do not have faith in the Big Bang. Please help me to have faith.

1. We know the visual perspective is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. So there is a distance where the potential visual perspective is that of planks length. Should we claim the size of the universe is limited to the distance our measuring tools can take us?

2. If you follow the relativity postulate light being independent of the source and the expansion is at the speed of light, the distance from when the light started 13.6 million light years ago will have an additional fraction of 13.6 million light years larger. So do we consider the physical size by relativity or the measured size of the universe, according to the BB?

I can't explain ether, most likely no one can, but I came to believe, that for a true mesurement of space-time, size and origin. One would need to push the actual knoledge and understandng of relativity, much beyond...

Untill we still need to use the "clock" to estimate the age of the universe, using current time, the result will always be a hipotetical number... Actually to awnser the big bang or any other scenario, one would need that the laws back there were much different or that they even existed in the first place...
My problem looking at the big bang, is the same most of others, we start to think about it, already starting, using scales and observations made over the concept of the big bang, for would be impossible diverge the big bang without a complete knoledge about relativety, more spoecific, why...
The first man to trully understand the reason behind relativety, as a whole, probably will naturaly have a glimpse of the begining, without the necessity of being thinking about it from inside the BB concept...

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #2 on: 19/10/2016 13:24:22 »
Alex,

I am a realest with relativity being a real ratio of our visual universe. For me things are built from the bottom up and not from the top down. You have a car and blow it up. Then you try to put back the pieces to see how the car was created. Its illogical to believe the car was not there before it blew up. That is the basis of the BB.

A more likely scenario is micro mass is created by micro mass (energy) in suns by fusion. We know the fusion process increases the elements and a sun grows towards a iron giant. it is likely that the breeder reaction is from dark mass energy. Similar to black holes being produced by their size increase to gravity attraction greater than the speed of light. Micro Energy can no longer keep protons and neutrons apart. It depends on your operating system which is more logical. The BB is a magic system of self deluding belief to my mind. Lets stick with mechanics and reality.

I have mentioned several times the mechanical relativistic GR red shift due to our position of less dilation in our own galaxy while 75% of light in all galaxies are produced in 25% located in the center where dilation has the greatest lensing (dilation). Its natural that we view all galaxies as red shifted.

The increase in red shift with distance could be our measuring devices for concentrating light by convex and concave collectors having a prism affect changing the wavelength by dilution of photons over the surface.

It depends on your understanding of physics. If your understanding is not as a realest magic can seem appealing.

If you are brought up believing in witches and warlocks they become real to you even when you never come across one. Relativity is mechanics bottom up not top down.

Where did micro energy (Dark Mass Energy) come from? Magic I guess.

#### Alex Siqueira

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 156
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #3 on: 19/10/2016 18:47:02 »
I don't know how far cultural differences affects, but I never have said that your doubts about the BB were incorrect, more than that I was adding my own point of view over the same question...

You have your basis to doubt, my it's simple the fact that is very dubious set a clock "apart from the universe", and let it run untill nowadays using the current time and fields presented today.
This may be a good idea to explain what cannot be explained, but I still not sure how there is people that believe on that number, as being, the actual precise age of the universe...

What I ment is, you and I sit to think about the begining, or even if it had one, our tools would be the effects that causes relativety, altough, we still do not know the why. We can turn the problem, upside down and stil l not achieving the why...
A car that exploded, is "now" a exploded (car), we knew what it was before, so we can defnetly put the pieces togueter and learn what type of car it was...

The problem with universe, is that different from a car, that was submited by the same constant before and after being destroyed, universe is different, cause it is the field, the very coinstant...
One can predict what the universe was, sure, specialy someone that undestands relativity the way you do.
Even so we still not sure about the why there is relativity, is it and acident, why does relativity froms those perfect planetary systems outhere? Was life ment to be? What about evolution?
What i mean is, as long the "why" is so distant from our complete understanding of the present, we can't hope to describle the beggining, BB was so far the best someone could possible come up with, and even so sounds like magic, what to do?

I was simple explaining, that any inverstigation starts with clues, fine we have plenty of understanding of many things, but at the moment we count, 13,6 billions as a clue, we have already failed. That is no clue, it's simple something that was decided to settle a beggining...
The question is, no one should be fighting with the BB, unless this person become able to explain and prove our remaining questions, about manythings... Relativity does, explain how things work, but we still not understanding why... If someone estipulates that there is no why, that isonly our subjection, at this very moment, the own person has determined that BB if fine, that there is no meaning or purpose to find out the truth...

I have being reading all your work on the forum, it's very sharp, no much space for doubt, you do have a practical visualisation of your talking about, science...
I support any atempt to disprove anything, any concept, even light, but as for BB, if we considet for a moemnt the age, 13,6 billion years, we wil, once again end uo with a BB of a different colour, in resume, we need to fully undestand universe and how it works, than finnaly setle it with our notion of time, and only than, one would be able to explain the exact age, and the order of the events...

As for your question: Where did micro energy (Dark Mass Energy) come from? Magic I guess.
I'm at work right now, but I'll take a look on that, but as for a bigining, reason of the awnser, one still haven't find the awnser cause the age is completly wrong...
Time is constant, also is only a concept of our minds, but we can't scape we need time, everything we know is bound to it, we need to know if speed of light, that is constant, was always this constant, faster, slower, space itself was always what it is now, "for this discosidering the 13,6 billions years old explanation", is there another?
Was it even only one dimmension?

Realativity can explain the universe in its present formation, but we barely can't explain our own solar system, how to expect to consider a age determinated by relativity, if it's very laws, are provenient from the present state and organization of the universe we know...
It'll probably take another Einstein with a advantage brain, to figure it out, or A.I., we're like obsolete machines, we work prety well untill a certain point, our normal brains, simple can't process the visual of what our math does... The best qualities of Einstein, was his brain that was trained his whole life, music, art, science, he couldn't figure out the math at the biggining, and even so, he was already able to glimpse the reality, on his mind...
My friend there is things we can do, others we simple can't, our purpose is simple to pass on information, most of it wrong information, and eventually the right person can figure out, exclacly what he did, working over the research of others that couldn't visualise what he could when he was 20 years old...
I'm not trying to deny your own potential, I can cleary see on the parametes of your texts, that you do "see" relativity on action, happening...
The problem is, the solution Einsten did not have to confront and struggle with, he didn't had to worry about the age of the universe, and we believe that we know everything, and that everything we come up with over E=mc2 is correct...
It's hard to put in words, but we already know too much, some surelly know much more, if we can't sit, stand still and come up with something better, at this point?... Can be the case that they make the right call with the BB, but based on the wrong awnsers, by convinience or luck, there is no room to support it, although here it is...

For understand and find how to prove the beggining, one need to understand the reason behind it's very existence, otherway even if you are correct, or more correct, will not be able to prove...
As for me, I agree with you, BB was an convinience, to say otherwise, one need to break the staff where mainstrem is holding, your red-shift explanation, produce a better type of lens using moder technology and see what happen... One need to prove to be inccorect the universal expansion, to force their hands...

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #4 on: 20/10/2016 00:13:32 »
Alex,

The beginning is beyond our ability to understand. How far can light travel? Why do we appear to be in the center of a universe? 13.6 billion light years in every direction suggests a limit of view rather than a size of the universe. What are the odds we are in the center? To suggest we live on a balloon shell with no space in the middle while needing a worm hole to get through the no space and cross the universe to any point is just silly. Do you actually understand these necessities? The BB happened all over. We are on a shell. There is no center to this shell so mass no longer exists where it once existed. We can not get back in this space mass once occupied. The space is thinning as we expand. How long before someone says the King has no clothes? Logic has to win in the end of the day or what is the use?

The lengths used to maintain the theory is beyond ridicules. Relativity suggests other more likely scenarios for our observations. If the universe is infinite, does age actually have a meaning?

#### Alex Siqueira

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 156
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #5 on: 20/10/2016 04:13:56 »
This: One could not have describled it more precisely...
"To suggest we live on a balloon shell with no space in the middle while needing a worm hole to get through the no space and cross the universe to any point..."

I do not completely disagree a BB, not the one following the one we accepted now a days..
I started with a very confused Idea a few years ago, but than I can't deal with numbers nor formulas, although is kind of easy to understand,
I can't really opine over the issue here, not once I can't still explain my own thoughts about it. I really never paid much attention to the possible origins of matter, still looking on it...
As for age of universe, you're right, for what is important the age is irrelevant, but than again, it does mater, we humans, come this far by inventing the concept of time, our math and our brains are already to dependent on it, and in fact it seems to be a very reliable tool...
If wasn't for the time concept we would still be carving rock. Something always disturbed me, is that seems to be that as most connected with nature one is, as much less self-aware something is, more and more the time concept, for everything, becomes more and more important...
No mater for what or whom you look, even bacteria, or matter itself, everything suggests that, time, is as much real for the universe, as it is just a convenient tool for us, perhaps time is both, real and convenient... Sounds contradictory, our concept of time is based on our own necessities, although, if time is a practical tool we use to measure events and organize plans, if one stops to think, isn't relativity doing the same?

Anyway, understanding the begging wouldn't be of much help on the evolution of our technology, it was based over e=mc2, if we were to change that from upside down, we would prefer simple readjust the misunderstandings, and move along with it, to be fair, I can't disagree...
But if one was to come with the answer and potential proof to sustain, it would be of great help to understand how far and perhaps, addressed to us and our convenience, how long too....

My subjection likes to consider a beginning, cause it doesn't help to constantly deal with the paradox the absence of one would let open, the sun was formed millions of years ago, so was the Earth, but wait, if there was no beginning, back there and now are just the same, the only difference is the location... It defnetly doesn't help, cause constantly deal with that would eventually start to be an issue with our relation and understanding of time, and we need time working as good as possible... I believe that this is one of the main reasons they opted for the BB, so they could escape the terror of realizing that a universe with different gravity and different constant speed of light, could have and WOULD have had a different rate of "our time" occurrence, it (the clock) would most likely be running very very slower, this considering a beginning from a center...  This is what disturbs me with messing with BB, if one is to come with the answer that we would need to re-invent time, without the possibility of a simple "new rule" to help keep time working the way we know, we would be in serious problems... Not everyone would be quite possible to simple understand, within their minds, a change of perspective over what time is in comparison with they discovered that it should be, it's almost incomprehensible. It would delay the progress because scientists would soon find out, why something that previously did not fit on the frame, now with a different time occurrence, may become possible...
Even being a simple example, I'm not quite sure that they, the group who voted for BB, actually believed on that, maybe it was just decided by common sense, to avoid problems at the time. But as for the present I have to agree with you it's time to start accepting that BB was an invention, a convenience in order to help everyone to move forward...

You suggested the age of universe as being more related with a measuring of its visual field yet, that is correct, but than again, being infinity or not, it is already so vast, and our life time is so short, that we can't really give in on the, 13,6 billion years, not for age, not for length...
Those assumptions have for base the constant that is the speed of light, but we do not know if backwards in time, frame to frame, that constant was the same, maybe it was and than the number would be correct, but to know that, one would unveil the beginning, even if its for a more local one as for our galaxy formation, not how, relativity already explained how, but more as for where and from what,,,

I'm not done yet over those thoughts on the beginning, but some persistent thoughts always led me to believe that backwards in time, the universe was doing the same thing in bigger scale, what we are considering to be the universe with it's great atractor, I'm tent to be afraid that all this is nothing more than a broken egg, remaining radiation of what once was a super massive star, surely it had a lot of Hydrogen...
I consider the possibility that in reverse everything was happening slower as it does now, a different rate, although I have no clue on where, point of reference set point for a scale, the first thing that comes to mind is space itself, it should be as it is for a long time, but than again we know almost nothing about it yet...
All led me to consider that Milk-way and all those galaxies where simple ordinary stars and planets that where orbiting this super massive star, we call as great atractor... To be more specific, imagine the galaxy, not reverse the universe back in time to just the correct moment, we would be experiencing a completely different force of gravity, and a slower time occurrence, maybe enough to change the scales of the constants.
A super massive star the size of a galaxy sound pretty incoherent and it is when considering that such mass even if gathered together wouldn't last even a second before enter nova, even more consider it to orbit a hyper massive object...
What I have in mind, and trying to find evidence on the very laws we create, is that one back in time universe could and was doing the same thing that is doing now only in larger scale, and this field we measure and consider to be the "whole expanding universe" its just the left over of a hyper nova of this very great atractor, big indeed immeasurable, but only "now"...
There is matter missing on universe? Maybe one should consider that this missing stuff was ejected form this "place" a long time ago.
So can you already see the reasons why I can't disagree with the possibility of a BB?
I not believing or presuming, but wondering around the possibility that we are, all this universe we call, to be simple the left overs of a nova, if all the galaxyes are the way their look, is what I'm doing this last year, trying to glimpse of how a super nova could possible affect other stars and planets forcing them to follow the same course, like a chain reaction...

At this far, not the evidence or the beliefs, but my best guess, it that the hyper nova of this massive star (great atractor) is what expanded the dilatation of this we call universe, for the stars that where not pushed away maybe the size could explain how left overs could have remained inside this dilatation, trying to find evidence on how powerful electromagnetic filed could have helped those super massive planets to stood the dilatation, although could not prevent them to enter nova too...
For me the nova of this super massive star, expanded the dilatation to a point that all the stability between the forces that where presented on that field, as gravity, where all changed on a fraction of a secund, to a point that cracked all those stars(galaxies) setting them into nova, all of them...  Today there is a known mass limit for a star before it collapses, back there I'm wondering if simple this proportional mass, wasn't simple the same constant, but on large scale "only when compared to the present", by us...

I realist that your realistic and do not share the alternative parallel universes theories, but I can't completely discard, cause as much as I sit and think about it, more seems to be that is quite possible, not by magic but by scale alone... A universe, that is only differs from a ordinary galaxy in terms of proportion, and being so, each alternative parallel universe existing but not simultaneously, more as coexisting and orbiting one the other, the same way galaxies are...
I do not know the answer, but for me, is very plausible that our universe begins with a hyper massive sun entering nova, the rest was just causality.. And as the idea subjects, before the "big bang" was nothing, emptiness, other dimensions, and perhaps there was, but for myself before the "sun" there was just more of the same space, maybe hotter, maybe different, but space/energy nonetheless...
And there is a great chance that empty space "when given the correct tick to the correct clock", being as a simple "momentum" of the expansion of this nova... As if in larger scale this expansion had beginning just a fraction of a few seconds ago, and what for us would be and resemble to be "in our time scale" as billions of hundred years, as in large scale being as fast as we observing a super nova expanding...
There is much more to learn before even assume such thing, for now its just present, that's why I'm so fascinated with inner cores, I let it aside cause none seems to be truly interested into spent money on that, there I believe that I would find some answers...

There is still much missing, and I do believe will lead to nothing, trying to bring up the matter existence, as something that was not created here "on the universe" but something that was already here, and the visible universe part of what was gathered back, by the "new gravity", our known gravity", of this dilatation in space... I'm wondering fi the spinning of the electron, is constant as is the speed of light, and it is being given by those particles, now for already billions of years, that could "possible" on the large scale (the same as we consider to atoms), being only a fraction of a second... As far as I concern, the universe can be billions of years old and on area, that it could have still being born inside a nova expansion, that was already spinning on its own center, if you understood my proposal, you can see that hose billions of years of spinning particles, could be in fact represented as less than a minute when on large scale...
Tell me something, related with relativity, what it does reserve for the time occurrence(speed of events), when there is two general dilatation?
As for example, take a (planet), ignore what would have come of it, and set this planet inside the dilated space of a super nova, just at the right distance, surely the planet could not still exist there, so presume that the planet was formed there, the question is:
For an observer that is watching the nova, "Time occurrence", and by this I mean the speed of the events" frame to frame, would be faster for those observing the nova at distance, and slower for those inside the dilatation? If it's possible to conceive, what mechanics dictates? (ignoring how inconsistent the circumstances for this to happen could be)....

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3164
• Thanked: 47 times
##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #6 on: 20/10/2016 06:04:07 »
For my own personal reasons I do not have faith in the Big Bang. Please help me to have faith.

1. We know the visual perspective is reduced by the inverse square of the distance. So there is a distance where the potential visual perspective is that of planks length. Should we claim the size of the universe is limited to the distance our measuring tools can take us?

2. If you follow the relativity postulate light being independent of the source and the expansion is at the speed of light, the distance from when the light started 13.6 million light years ago will have an additional fraction of 13.6 million light years larger. So do we consider the physical size by relativity or the measured size of the universe, according to the BB?

I have explained how wrong the big bang is several times, so for one last time, here it is again.

Distance of X is relative proportional to the perspective size of bodies and light magnitude and intensity.

see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_angle

see here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(graphical)

When S=0 of an object travelling away from an observer the object is no longer visual observed because it loses it's dimensional quality of light relative to the observers   sight.

« Last Edit: 20/10/2016 06:31:37 by Thebox »

#### GoC

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 351
• Thanked: 56 times
##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #7 on: 20/10/2016 15:05:04 »
While our understanding is different we came to the same conclusion orthogonally.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Questions about the BB?
« Reply #7 on: 20/10/2016 15:05:04 »