Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: atbb on 23/02/2006 20:42:04
-
Hello,
As a new member and a way of introducing myself please take a look at my site. It gives an alternative to the big bang.
It shows a universe with no beginning and no end, covers all big bang criteria, CMB, even how galaxies may have formed (a new way)and a reason for creation. I have now revised my Theory of creation due to remarks from other astronomers. Please have look when you can.
Regards,
David.
http://www.artbydecart.co.uk/page2.html
http://www.artbydecart.co.uk
My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.
-
if the universe has no begining and no end,how did it start,and how will it end.
nothing lasts for ever.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Ray hinton
if the universe has no begining and no end,how did it start,and how will it end.
nothing lasts for ever.
That is always the dilemma for cosmology: if the universe has a finite life, then what came before or after; if it has an infinite life, then how did it start or end.
Ofcourse, within the confines of science, since science is based solely upon the observable, and one can say that cannot observe beyond the start or end points of the universe, so to ask what is beyond the start or the end of the universe is unscientific. Nonetheless, since philosophy can ask questions of all that can be imagined, not merely all that can be observed, so it is still a perfectly valid philosophical question to ask what came before the start of a finite lifespan universe, or comes beyond the end of such a universe.
George
-
what if our whole universe is just an atom in someone elses universe,now i do feel tiny.
-
pensées.
Do you think ' thought ' has any implication towards our existence in the Universe ?
I am wondering that if we were to have the knowledge of how the Universe came into being and that we could understand the final consequence that the act of ' knowing ' that knowledge could have serious ramifications.
Perhaps it is part of our very being (being finite creatures) that we are not supposed to discover the true nature of our existence. Understanding it may denigrate us,
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
quote:
Originally posted by neilep
Do you think ' thought ' has any implication towards our existence in the Universe ?
Thought, whether or not it influences reality, would certainly influence our perception of reality, and we inevitably are not capable of knowing how far reality actually diverges from our perception of it.
quote:
I am wondering that if we were to have the knowledge of how the Universe came into being and that we could understand the final consequence that the act of ' knowing ' that knowledge could have serious ramifications.
Are you talking about abstract knowledge, or emotional understanding?
We know that people living in San Francisco will suffer an earthquake some time in the future, but people still keep living there as if they were totally oblivious of the fact. The same is true of all sorts of regions of the world where local risks are ignored. And, ofcourse, one cannot ignore the fact that people keep smoking tobacco, in spite of the known risks.
Knowing that disaster is impending at some distant time does not really make much of a difference to most people's lives unless it is about to happen tomorrow.
quote:
Perhaps it is part of our very being (being finite creatures) that we are not supposed to discover the true nature of our existence. Understanding it may denigrate us,
To my mind, using the word 'supposed' somehow implies 'intelligent creation'.
Clearly, being of this universe, we are constrained by the limits of this universe. If the universe is bounded by the limitation that information from outside of the universe cannot influence the universe, then it does follow that anything of this universe cannot have definite knowledge (through a lack of information) about anything beyond the bounds of this universe.
George
-
Can I recommend the recent Anthropic Universe radio program to this thread ...
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/
Dr B
Istanbul
-
Hello again,
Ray stated;
if the universe has no begining and no end,how did it start,and how will it end.
nothing lasts for ever.
Ray I will answer with the following. My theory, and I presume no one looked at it is of a cosmos that as no beginning or end similar to the steady state theory. An infinite cosmos that may contain millions of universes like ours would be infinite in distance and infinite in time therefore it as always been there and always will. You say it will end, what ends, if our milky way disappeared the cosmos is still there. It had no beginning.
Regards,
David.
http://www.artbydecart.co.uk
My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.
-
Sorry atbb your hypothesis (because it is most certainly not a theory) just doesnt hold water.
What you describe appears to me to bear no relationship whatever to what we observe. Maybe you have thought it out in more detail but as far as I can see it is just an idea with no support from the evidence so if you want to be taken seriously could you please explain how a few of the observed properties of our visiblew universe fit with your hypothesis
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
Welcome back Ian [:)]
Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!
-
Logic dictates: (1) Space, something that in its absolute form can be devoid of anything, can only be endless/infinite in extent. (2) Energy cannot be created out of absolutely nothing. Hence (3) Our expanding universe must have been created from some previously existing (form of) energy. Consequently (4) Energy must have always existed and that there must be an infinite amount of it.
Our universe (if it is expanding/finite in size), however, can only contain a finite amount of energy - so consequently there must be other regions in endless space (universes of various forms and sizes) that contain the rest of the energy.
-
The word universe actually means everything, the whole cosmos. Because I contend that space is endless I use the word “Our” to distinguish that finite region of space that “our universe” currently occupies from other regions of infinite space that I reason must also contain energy/matter (matter that is very likely to be of a different form compared to that contained in our universe). Ref: “Just Six Number” – an excellent book by Sir Martin Rees, the current Astronomer Royal.
In my opinion the fact that our universe has a finite age is not significant, neither is the manner of its creation, big bang or not, when it comes to making a case for an infinite universe that has no beginning. What matters is why and how our universe was created in such endless space – and from what.
The age of our Universe is currently thought to be about 13.7 billion years. Putting aside the age derived from Hubble’s constant, the figures from the following sources also support the idea that our universe was created a finite time ago – between 10 to 18 billion years ago.
Method Billion Years Note
Radioactive dating of chemical elements 11.5 - 17.5 1
Radioactive dating of old stars 11- 18 1
Study of the oldest star clusters 10-13 2
Study of the oldest white dwarfs 11-14 2
Note 1: Radiometric Methods Note 2: Stella Evolution Methods.
You mention “A super cloud” and “very dense (endless clouds of) gaseous material”. What do these clouds consist of and what life span do they have? As you can see from above, radioactive dating of the chemical elements in our universe reveals a life of only 11.5 to 17.5 billion years. How do you explain this in the context of your theory?
Our universe does appear to have had a start point – a beginning. But where did the energy come from in the first place? And why did our universe come into existence when it did (why not earlier, why not later?). Because some previously existing energy source triggered off /caused its creation?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Bryn
Our universe (if it is expanding/finite in size), however, can only contain a finite amount of energy - so consequently there must be other regions in endless space (universes of various forms and sizes) that contain the rest of the energy.
What if energy were recycled? Say through black holes across the universe all connected to a (for the lack of a better word) "white hole" where energy is constently being generated from the black holes that collect. I know this is far fetched, but if we are talking random what if's then why not offer it up.
-
atbb (David),
in your theory you state
"I do not believe Olber was correct when he stated if stars went on forever the night sky would appear white. Light from stars is bent by gravity when
passing other bodies. I believe over a massive distance the light from a feint star would have been bent so much its light would never reach us."
This appears to be faulty.
Please demonstrate why, over massive distances, where the light passes many stars, that it would on average be bent away from us.
Please demonstrate why an equal number of light rays, not originally directed towards us, would not be bent so that they do reach us.
I think you will find that in an infinite, non-expanding Universe, the net effect of gravitational deflection will be zero. If you feel it is not please demonstrate your justification for this.
I should be intereste to hear your thinking on these points.
Your ideas are certainly imaginative, but I would agree with SoulSearcher that calling them a theory is going a little too far. Perhaps 'conjecture' would be a more appropriate term.
-
Fascinating concept will give it some thinking. How do you think it explains the lumpiness of matter distribution?
-
Answers to Bryn and Ophiolite and Hadrian.
Bryn,
The clouds very likely would contain hydrogen and helium, these being the most abundant in our universe. The big bang had a hard time explaining the creation of heavier elements, but they found a way. These huge cloud banks may contain the heavier elements but even if not they could come into being with my central exploding mass just the same as in the big bang. The age of our universe would be from the point of the big bang or from the point of my central explosion. Matter of trillions of years of age once going through a hot violent birth would be if you like reborn. Any carbon dated would have only just been created.
Ophiolite
Even though the deflection would be small with each body it passed stars with an immense distance, light could well pass close to a body with great bending force, black hole, dense galaxy etc. The light would not reach us. Yes I agree light from some distant stars heading in the wrong direction could be bent to head back to us. The point I am trying to make and I admit I could well be wrong is if some stars light does not reach us at all then we would not end up with a white out. Again I admit I could be wrong. We are all learning.
Ever seen one of those games in arcades where you drop a coin in the top and the coin deflects randomly off steel rods. Most of the coins go to the sides and you win nothing. If most end up at the sides then it would add up that if the games depth was greater only one in a thousand would reach the central point at the bottom.
Lets leave this, I am either right or wrong.
Yes it is more of a philosophy than a theory, I agree but I will leave it because more people search for theory of creation to find my site than they would for conjecture of creation.
Must fit in with the old search engines eh!
Hadrian
Many super giant stars as the central mass expanded would not all be evenly spaced as the fine matter of the big bang expansion was so could easily explain a lumpy universe.
Regards,
David.
http://www.artbydecart.co.uk
My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.
-
I would go with the idea that the universe is strange them we can imagine it to be. The big bang is not a full stop or a beginning it’s a possible event that explains more about our lack of understanding then anything.
-
quote:
I do not believe Olber was correct when he stated if stars went on forever the night sky would appear white. Light from stars is bent by gravity when
passing other bodies. I believe over a massive distance the light from a feint star would have been bent so much its light would never reach us.
If the universe was infinite in extent, in age and wasn't changeing size, then the sky should appear white as if you went far enough in any direction you would find a star so the entire sky would appear like the sun. In fact that is the case you can see the reminants of the big bang in all directions however it has been red shifted so far instead of white it is in the microwave part of the spectrum.
atbb: Have you an explanation for the hubble red shifts of things?
-
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts
atbb: Have you an explanation for the hubble red shifts of things?
Without wishing to argue in favour of one theory or another, can we prove beyond doubt that red shifting is due to Doppler shifting, and not some other manifestation of light travelling through cosmological distances?
We know of no mechanism in a terrestrial context other than Doppler shifting that could create that effect, but the terrestrial domain is a microscopic part of the universe, and are our experiments sensitive enough to be scaled up to the distances at which red shift if observable, and be sure that such minute reduction in the energy of EM waves does not exist, and maybe manifest at superlarge distances?
George
-
In a word, No.
-
Doppler shifting is by far the most probable and no other process fits however there are several other observables that confirm that the universe was hotter and smaller in the past and has changed its structure and composition over times comperable with the time since the big bang.
Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer
Doppler shifting is by far the most probable and no other process fits however there are several other observables that confirm that the universe was hotter and smaller in the past and has changed its structure and composition over times comperable with the time since the big bang.
Thanks.
Is it possible to enumerate on the other observables?
George
-
Radiation travels in waves. Visible light falls into a narrow band of this radiation. As far as I understand it light waves get longer between the peaks when an object is going away from our viewpoint giving the red shift. Light passing through fine particles will also increase the wave length, so how can we be sure of the speed of expansion.
Regards,
David
http://www.artbydecart.co.uk
My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.