Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: GoC on 14/12/2016 15:20:46
-
How much leeway are we going to give the BB before we have to say we were wrong? In the 1980's we found fully formed galaxies as far back as we could distinguish galaxies. So we had to change the interpretation of what we were viewing. We are now on a balloon surface where the BB happened everywhere at once. This violates relativity but we have to now understand that light curves around the universe even when you pear in the direction of a balloon wall. So light must bounce off the balloon wall. Now where the BB happened in space is no longer normal space. We can go through a worm hole and reach any position in the universe where the space used to be? Really? We are going to go with that? The problem is in order to be respected in the field of physics you have to sign on to the BB. We are constantly looking for reasons to remain in the BB box. We need to let the BB die by logic.
Not only do we observe fully formed galaxies we also observe super massive Black Holes (BH) for short. We look back in time and observe BH on the order of 400 AU. If we condense our sun to a black hole it would occupy ~1.8 miles. How many suns need to be consumed to be 37,200 million miles large? Our sun is about 4 billion years old and it will last about 10 billion years. That time is on the order of the total time of our predicted BB existence. No way a BH could consume that many suns in 13.6 billion years. Really? Still sticking with the BB?
Well then lets discuss GR red shift caused by a 37,200 million mile BH in a galaxy by dilation. The lensing affect fro the mass in a galaxy is the accumulation of dilation of mass inside of the galaxy. We measure red shift as SR for expansion while ignoring the GR contribution. From our perspective 75% away from the more concentrated GR dilation in the center its no wonder we observe all galaxies as red shifted in our more blue shifted dilated position. The only way we know Andromeda is moving towards us is the approaching arm is more blue shifted than the receding arm is red shifted.
So we have relativity GR red shift to explain the universe is not necessarily expanding and we have super BH volume to show the universe must have existed much longer than we can measure back in time. 13 billion years is a mere blip in time. 13 billion light years is just our ability to distinguish objects on the spectrum. I suspect we are more insignificant then what we believe in science.
Our galaxy only rotated ~52 times since the beginning of the BB. Ok in 4 billion years our 4 million sol BH will collide with Andromedas 25 million sol BH. We have tiny BH's compared to a super 400 AU black hole. One sol being about a 1.8 mile diameter.
Lets let the BB die a logical death.
-
Is there anyone out there to explain the BB logically or are we just sheep following the whims of imagination? Even if we are in an expanding Universe (which I suspect to be GR red shift not SR) it might be a mega oscillation. When you interpret observations to confirm a theory that is not science. Equal weight needs to be placed on the issues that logically show your position to be impossible. How can the Earth be only 6,000 years old if there were dinosaurs? The BB is based on faith not science. And by the way if you sail far enough you will not fall off the earth.
-
The "Big Bang" theory has been around for quite a while. It's about due for replacement by a revived "Steady State" theory.
These theories come and go, according to fashion.
-
So what's up to data(available data)?
1-Universe started along with space?
2-Universe was able to start for ordinary reasons?
Universe is the whole single entity(quanta) trying to reemerge as the "universal expansion/+dilatation", over a infinite space-time as it grows in diameter?
In this last question, I'm wondering that universe(limited existence of "particles/matter") over a field that is infinite (space), the marriage between both, "primordial energy" with "now" void, resulting in the mechanics we experience today?
All this above a prelude to the true consideration:
3-Universe begins, for this ever growing void, got big enough for energy to re-appear, this time mixed?
3-Universe (mix between re-emerging energy + C of space)?
Like in a paradox, where one needs to expand a singularity so large that it's center eventually starts to become able to rest? Possible?
What I'm asking is, "big bang" theory for space, and after, "nova" for universe?
Matter existence(possibility to exist) because of an ever growing void towards infinity, that as big it gets, more "time" it takes to "communicate" with the virtual center, this delay on C the reason behind scales, sizes, forms, time itself as behind the (reason/delay on C) which spited the forces, and anything else within the void?
I'm suggesting that the very seconds of an ordinary nova, observed from outside in, from inside out, could represent a very different existence of time, as long as the expansion(motion) is still taking place(forever)?
I'm wondering on a previous time, where the less void was "apparently" more filled with matter, when in fact stars and objects where simple able to form "apparently" bigger... Like as if the ever growing void (cumulative), is constantly "relocating" the energy in function of the now "slower" time, proportional as always sure, but slower in function of the speed of light (speed of tough/conscious real time observation)
I'm guessing that our notion of time, developed notion, is not only imaginary, but like math, a real thing as a discovery, in a more subjective speculation: "Thinking/Conscious mind, can bypass the rules, we can't think faster than the constant speed of light, perhaps more convenient, we can "think" faster of the speed of light "at any given "time", independently of our external tick..."
I'm just curious, if not big bang, what are the best(most solid) alternatives we have available?
-
I'm just curious, if not big bang, what are the best(most solid) alternatives we have available?
Is there a God and what does he or she look like?
I do not have that answer but I am also not going to describe one that is impossible to exist.
The BB has no logical path for existence when we view super massive black holes 37,200 AU and it will take 4 billion years for one BH to merge with another to produce a 29 million sol BH. One sol being about 1.8 miles as a BH. That is just over 3 merging BH's for ~90 million sols not even 1 AU using the inverse square law for volume. That is just under the predicted age of the universe 12 billion years for three mergers. 37,200 times 12 billion and that does not include the growth to there present size.
I do not care what anyone believes but science should follow logic.
-
I do not think the physical phenomena will lead to any information about the beginning of the universe or where it comes from. our knowledge is to explain what exists and not how it existed , our creative skills is to build things from what exists and not to create matter or energy.
-
our knowledge is to explain what exists and not how it existed
I would not want to limit my knowledge in any way. I would have bitten the apple and not blamed it on a woman. The desire for knowledge is strong and I would not want to discourage that in anyone.
our creative skills is to build things from what exists and not to create matter or energy
A theory has to include size dimensions we cannot detect or we believe in magic. We cannot view what causes c but we know it exists. We do not create energy or matter with mechanical interpretations. We strive to understand our relationship with our environment. c is the most fascinating part of the universe to me.
-
our knowledge having a certain limit is a fact , as well as our limit in our energy , health , lifetime etc , the determination of the limit is itself knowledge and wisdom , I do not say this is the limit because I can't know more , I say it because I feel no one can do it whether it is me or a clever scientist.
knowledge is based on experiments and observations , if you want to know what was there before all these observations and phenomena , then it is similar to say I can determine what light is without observing any of its properties ?
-
then it is similar to say I can determine what light is without observing any of its properties ?
There are orthogonal ways to determine our relationship to the universe. For instance the electron and photon are confounded to measure the same speed of light in every frame. This is not a coincidence. Something in space is causing this. Since we understand the photon as pure energy than energy must be the cause of electron motion and photon propagation. Undetectable directly but indirectly necessary for the photon and electron to be confounded.
The BB on the other hand shows super massive black holes that could not have formed in the timeline given by the ridicules restriction of 13 billion years. Our BH is just 4.5 million sols and one sol is about 1.8 miles. No where near one AU. We detect BH's 37,200 AU. Lets let the BB die a natural death from logic. Math and logic are the tools of science. Belief without all the facts is still a difficult obstacle to overcome. To un-believe is much more difficult than to believe even with undeniable facts.