0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
My opinion is that Fred Hoyle, one of the greatest theoreticians at the time, was very unjustifiably maligned for proposing a disprovable cosmological theory based on the theoretical principle that at the greatest possible scale of space and time the universe cannot change, only the local conditions (our observable universe) can change. Sadly like a determined biblical creationist he chose to have his static universe visible and defended it to the end. (a common human failing in many areas!)
There is a problem with the Big Bang that your idea may solve. We know that in the early bang, while it was getting big, it was a black hole. The problem is; how did the universe crawl out of that black hole? I guess if we are still inside the primordial black hole, the problem goes away.But I think it brings forth many more unsolved problems. For example; theory predicts that time may reverse inside a black hole. Our time does not seem to be reversed []
Where is the evidence that we emerged from a black hole?? It's all based on maths which is based on Einstein's GR, which is increasingly in doubt.
It could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.
Quote from: sophiecentaurIt could be simply a matter of Energy. If there was enough kinetic energy 'inside' your imagined 'black hole' then the black hole could still have expanded into a non-black-hole. Most of what we say about black holes involves their formation from 'conventional' material falling in whereas the BB was a non standard situation.You have found the key. [] The BB was a non-standard situation. It didn't follow our standard rules of nature.
Quote from: common_sense_seeker on 11/06/2009 13:33:46Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process) The big bang is a condition in which our entire universe is reduced to a planar surface of electrical charges. No mass exists at that time. Once a minimum radius is reached, the surface explodes and in the process produces the galaxies. Over time the galaxies will disintegrate and the charges will reform . They will contract again in the future and the next big bang will reoccur.
Why couldn't there be a build-up of matter BEFORE the big bang? (There is no need to imagine black holes in the creation process)
Then we would have to build a new big bang theory. The current one has space and time beginning with the event. The concept does not make sense within the presently understood rules of nature. The new big bang theory would probably not make sense within the same constraints also. []
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?I am not sure who this response applies to. If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.
Quote from: Vern on 11/06/2009 16:10:05If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?I am not sure who this response applies to. If it is me then I have my own variation of the BB theory. In fact many different variations. In all cases however it is a multi-lightspeed big bang theory.
If there were a build up of stuff before the big bang, that would not conform to the theory of the Primeval Atom that is the foundation of the big bang theory. So it would be a different theory. And when you are investigating a theory and you see that it does not match what has come before, you can't know what all does not match. Is it just the one exception, or are there many others?