0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 15/09/2009 22:43:06The First IncongruityIs the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state? This is a strange problem. I am not sure that we can any means by which to distinuigh different beginnings of the universe from any other. Regardless, the standard model of cosmology doesn't actually include the beginning of the universe, much like evolutionary theory does not include the first life on Earth.QuoteThe second IncongruityThere was not enough time to start the universe!The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to be homogeneous (3). I have no idea where you are getting these figures. The standard cosmological model does run back to a time where the distances that we currently see out to were constricted to a small region, but it is unknown so far whether or not the entire universe is finite or infinite in spacial extent. The time between that small region and today works out fine.QuoteThe Third IncongruityThe universe had to expand faster than light!This is not an incongruity, and it is something that the universe is still doing. Regions far away from us are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. This is something entirely kosher according to general relativity and does not require inflation, which is an entirely separate physical theory. QuoteThe Fourth IncongruitySomething Came from Nothing?If nothing existed at one time, then who knows what the rules of something coming in to being are? Regardless, the standard cosmological model doesn't speak of this.QuoteThe Fifth IncongruityParallel Universes and its Conceptual NonesenseAgain, not required by standard model.
The First IncongruityIs the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?
The second IncongruityThere was not enough time to start the universe!The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to be homogeneous (3).
The Third IncongruityThe universe had to expand faster than light!
The Fourth IncongruitySomething Came from Nothing?
The Fifth IncongruityParallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense
what do you believe?
Nonetheless, the furthest observable galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 has been observed near the CMBR boundary and this is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young; this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in 500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at 500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that 13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests Universe was created in an explosion from a small hot ball is logically fallacious.
This Big Bang model postulation is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it is mathematically valid, it is logically erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no thought experiment could work for such a scenario. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with a 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the 13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; it is simply impossible.
It is only logical to think that at 13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy was already formed there at that spatial location.
In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.
It appears to be the distance is is not simply because of the expansion of the universe before the light that we observe left the galaxy but also because of the expansion since the light left the galaxy.
QuoteIn absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.Exactly, except that there is no absolute time. Typically one uses a specific cosmological time coordinate to talk of the age of the universe.
First, the galaxy that you speak of was not 13.2 billion light years away from our coordinate position at the time it emitted the light we see. If it is still in the same place, then it is currently about 31 billion light years away. It was probably less than 3 billion light years away when the light that we see left that galaxy.Second, the rate of expansion in the very, very early universe was much faster than the speed of light. This lets a finite amount of matter spread out over a large distance.
Third, the universe might be infinite in size. This means that there will always be galaxies out however far we can look.
Given my training and study, I am quite confident that I am right in step with the actual understanding of space as presented in the standard cosmological model. If you want some detailed information, I recommend Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another, distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.
You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.
I do not think you have to be an academic and use the language of mathematics to have a valid idea. Good ideas begin in peoples heads not with equations. And sometimes I get the distinct impression that scientists get lost in their theories like teenagers on WoW. I say this because you are ignoring some extremely interesting observationally testable ideas. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff. Science is not just a beautiful methodology it is also a never ending argument. And so it should be. So lets all enjoy it while it lasts.As for the point of the post, the question is the big bang theory correct? , I answered "other". It seems to me the current inflationary vision from a single point of nothingness is just senseless. To believe that Newton, Einstein and their scholarly progeny have everything explained is pure poop. Their genius is in taking us to frontiers of understanding, not in giving us ultimate truth. Such a thing will never exist for our minds that think the way they do. There will always be more questions, the next frontier.Everything seems so..... paradoxical. (You might be interested to take a look at a UVS topic on "The paradoxical effect of nature)"..... yet there is this aura of dictatorial, almost religious, arrogance like a council of Bishops, from the scientific 'body' to anyone who dare shout for a fundamental rethink.I might add that I live with this 'hunch' that really understanding black holes will unlock a whole new paradigm. Dark flow. And there is at least one large eddy, or counterflow, been detected. It is easy and intuitive to think of the universe as a fluid, the saddle shape version of space time commonly used to explain the Einstein universe does look a snapshot of 'flow' too. The truth is we are still stuck on 'what is gravity ?'. Without a meaningful answer to that all else remains meaningless. That is not to say it is all worthless. Add: That prominent galaxy in the above pic of the Cartwheel galaxy group has to have been called the condom galaxy.....shoorly