Hi , Im new here, and would appreciate any comments about this . If it doesnt get slagged off totally as rubbish , I'll add the simplifications to the theory .
I'm not a physicist , nor a mathematician , merely a humble chem eng guy ...
Yes , Im aware that current theories state that time was zero befor e big bang and before that was just quantum gravity
As no-one was there , maybe it wasn't ?
Premise : nature is primarily simple , but complicates things remarkably quickly .
Premise : [ ignoring the blane and any other ideas ?] where did all the mass of the universe come from ?
Assumptions: the Universe started , and that mass/energy cannot be destroyed or created .
Ergo , the mass of the universe has to be zero at present from the above assumptions .
There must thus be an equal amount of negative mass in the Universe . With negative gravity [ to please another poster]
Thus there must be a maelstrom of creation/destruction of the equal and oposite particles . [ I know quanatum mechanics states this also - I found out when I started to look for what other guys had found/postulated]
If there exists a stable geometry when a particle is formed , the other quantum particles flying off , we have a mechanism to create matter/antimatter .
From gravity , with time , these will come together a long way apart , and form very large chunks and be drawn towards each other and finally create Big Bang when they collide ...
Predictions :
The centre of the Universe is a huge White hole [ full of antimatter] forced there from the initial explosion outwards forcing stuff inwards .
The universe will be lumpy [ its an explosion after all even if its the biggest collision ever ] .
There's probably more than 1 Universe .... Outside it is a negative one ....
The nett mass of the Universe is still zero , but 'normal' mass of the Universe is growing .
If that's all possible ,then I'll simplify my assumptions for part II
I am still trying to understand this myself, just through the occasional book. However from what i have gathered, i think you are misunderstanding there being a geometrical "center" to the universe...
I also do not believe the big bang was the result of a "collision", as it does not make sense for there to be anything to collide. But that is just a guess on my behalf based on what i have read, i'm sure some of the experts will chime in sooner or later.
I also do not believe the big bang was the result of a "collision", as it does not make sense for there to be anything to collide. But that is just a guess on my behalf based on what i have read, i'm sure some of the experts will chime in sooner or later.
Well, if matter cannot be created or destroyed, where did the two universes (pos & neg) get all their matter from?
Also, what is negative mass? I don't think that exists. Same with negative gravity. It just doesn't make sense.
Also, what is negative mass? I don't think that exists. Same with negative gravity. It just doesn't make sense.
they're created at the same time , so nett matter is the same, ie zero [ that doesnt violate any mass/energy balance law]
If you read the above , the idea is that theyre created at the same time and at the same place , if it wasnt clear , then I apologise [ most of them would simply reimplode of course]
If you read the above , the idea is that theyre created at the same time and at the same place , if it wasnt clear , then I apologise [ most of them would simply reimplode of course]
The question where matter arises is a perfect example to use to study the ideals of the implications of this topic. Generally speaking, it can be debatable whether there was a 'pre-bigbang'.
The last word spoken before the Big Bang was probably
"Ooops"
"Ooops"
Sort of like spilled milk?
On no, someone spilled the milk and 'poof', u have a new Universe?
On no, someone spilled the milk and 'poof', u have a new Universe?
QUOTE (Confused2+Aug 15 2009, 04:45 AM)
The last word spoken before the Big Bang was probably
"Ooops"
Funny.
"Ooops"
Funny.
What you have said is very unlikely but I think you've come to it mainly because you misunderstand basically the structure of the universe.
First of all there was no "explosion" it was an expansion, this is an immensely important difference, there was no space to explode into instead space itself grew. It grew incredibly fast (exponentially) in fact during the first few moments, and then slowed down.
We are also getting down to the quantum level when we are discussing the big bang, a singularity is hideous to attempt to describe but the kind of thinking you use in your idea is not that of these sizes. Things essentially do not work in the way you say.
The laws of thermodynamics can in fact be broken, and are broken regularly, provided this occurs on certain timescales (the timescales that major events in the big bang are thought to have operated in importantly). You can look this up if you like, even in the vacuum of space all the time particles of matter and antimatter appear spontaneously and annihilate one another, energy is supposedly "borrowed" (generally believed to have come from the future).
You say by the way that the universe is lumpy, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this but the universe is irregular and we know this. It was at one point a problem with the Big Bang as if the expansion came from a singularity it was thought that the universe should be completely uniform in which case observed formations would not have appeared. On the large scale the universe is essentially uniform but looking more closely there are slight irregularities which allowed the evolution of the universe to as it is seen today. A good observation of this is areas such as this which have grown as a result.
It is observed by the way that time and space curve differently in areas and it is postulated that at the point "before" the big bang (and I use the term "before" in a very non-literal sense) the planes of time and space were parallel, in which case we enter yet more complex maths in which again matter can appear spontaneously.
SirS
First of all there was no "explosion" it was an expansion, this is an immensely important difference, there was no space to explode into instead space itself grew. It grew incredibly fast (exponentially) in fact during the first few moments, and then slowed down.
We are also getting down to the quantum level when we are discussing the big bang, a singularity is hideous to attempt to describe but the kind of thinking you use in your idea is not that of these sizes. Things essentially do not work in the way you say.
The laws of thermodynamics can in fact be broken, and are broken regularly, provided this occurs on certain timescales (the timescales that major events in the big bang are thought to have operated in importantly). You can look this up if you like, even in the vacuum of space all the time particles of matter and antimatter appear spontaneously and annihilate one another, energy is supposedly "borrowed" (generally believed to have come from the future).
You say by the way that the universe is lumpy, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this but the universe is irregular and we know this. It was at one point a problem with the Big Bang as if the expansion came from a singularity it was thought that the universe should be completely uniform in which case observed formations would not have appeared. On the large scale the universe is essentially uniform but looking more closely there are slight irregularities which allowed the evolution of the universe to as it is seen today. A good observation of this is areas such as this which have grown as a result.
It is observed by the way that time and space curve differently in areas and it is postulated that at the point "before" the big bang (and I use the term "before" in a very non-literal sense) the planes of time and space were parallel, in which case we enter yet more complex maths in which again matter can appear spontaneously.
SirS
QUOTE (SirShanson+Aug 19 2009, 10:09 AM)
misunderstand basically the structure of the universe.
First of all there was no "explosion" it was an expansion
even in the vacuum of space all the time particles of matter and antimatter appear spontaneously and annihilate one another,
Many thanks Sirshanson for an erudite reply .
Yes , the structure of the Universe is hypothesized to be different than the one accepted today , and I totally accept that , which is why its controversial ! but simple and elegant .
I don't think I mentioned 2 singularities coming together into an explosion , but did mention an explosion ....
You mentioned matter/antimatter forming and annihilated each other , which is what my thoughts required from first principles , just that I hypothecate d that a certain geometries , these could form a stable geometry which could lead to the formation of quarks and anti quarks [ my theory falls 100% to pieces if positrons and the like do not have negative gravity -- assuming positrons are the negative matter I'm assuming- which could be incorrect] .
Hence my comment about the universe exploding rather than expanding ....
First of all there was no "explosion" it was an expansion
even in the vacuum of space all the time particles of matter and antimatter appear spontaneously and annihilate one another,
Many thanks Sirshanson for an erudite reply .
Yes , the structure of the Universe is hypothesized to be different than the one accepted today , and I totally accept that , which is why its controversial ! but simple and elegant .
I don't think I mentioned 2 singularities coming together into an explosion , but did mention an explosion ....
You mentioned matter/antimatter forming and annihilated each other , which is what my thoughts required from first principles , just that I hypothecate d that a certain geometries , these could form a stable geometry which could lead to the formation of quarks and anti quarks [ my theory falls 100% to pieces if positrons and the like do not have negative gravity -- assuming positrons are the negative matter I'm assuming- which could be incorrect] .
Hence my comment about the universe exploding rather than expanding ....
As much as we all would like to know, i predict that we will not find out within our lifetimes.
Is it there any truth in saying that "technology follows an S curve"
eg, there will be a maximum rate of increase followed by decrese, a flat, followed by another increase?
If so then i think we are at the top of the curve and its about to go flat again.
Is it there any truth in saying that "technology follows an S curve"
eg, there will be a maximum rate of increase followed by decrese, a flat, followed by another increase?
If so then i think we are at the top of the curve and its about to go flat again.
I have no proof and no training in Astrophysics, but I do have a post-graduate University education (Medicine), so I am not a complete crackpot. [Moderator: Unless you have experience in medical research as evidenced by publication of articles in journals of good reputation, a mere medical degree is no evidence of non-crackpot status. And as you immediately apply yourself outside the medical field, the perception is that you are at a minimum showing some of the signs of a classical crackpot. c.f. Michael Egnor, Neurosurgeon http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/12/...eurosurgeon.php for a case study where a M.D. is no credential guaranteeing good science.] I do not think in terms of equations, [Moderator: Which is the sole means by which astrophysical predictions may be compared with observations.] as it is beyond my capabilities and training,[Moderator: Since nursing students are routinely expected to apply equations and medical research journals require this skill for reading, your earlier claims of post-graduate education and not-a-complete-crackpot are called into doubt.] but i am able to think in terms of concepts. I believe that what we perceive as "The Universe" is but an infinitely small part of a much larger "everything". For the sake of argument, let's call this the "Omniverse". [Moderator: Or you could actually talk science instead of semantics if you adopted the mainstream "visible universe" (that which may be seen) and "universe" (the totality of what is)."]
I believe that the Big Bang theory is essentially correct in that it explains the beginnings of "our universe", and will likely explain the end of the our universe as we know it. [Moderator: Technically, it explains neither. It states only that there was a hot, dense beginning to the visible universe. It does not explain the beginning nor speculate on the nature of the distant future. Various refinements, such as the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (λCDM) model describe in more detail the nature of that beginning and implicitly describe the future fate of the universe, but such models have parameters which must be fitted (by equations) against observations and thus are outside of your concepts-only worldview.] But our universe is neither the beginning nor the end of everything. [Moderator: That is your particular belief. You have communicated that belief but no reason to suspect it is fact or even a test to see if it is true or not.] There is evidence that something beyond our universe appears to be drawing parts of our universe towards it. [Moderator: Lie or delusional belief.] I believe that if we had telescopes powerful enough, we would see that what is drawing the galaxies towards this "gravity well" is another universe's gravitational pull, we just do not currently have the technology to see it. [Moderator: If it is outside the visible universe, then what direction, pray tell, would one point a telescope or other detection equipment in? Or is that too hard a concept to grasp?]
If the Omniverse is infinitely older than our wildest imagination, and over this virtually infinite period of time there have been countless universes which have come in and out of existence, then it is likely that what will happen to us has happened countless times before. I think it would be arrogant for us to believe that our Universe encompasses "everything", just as Ancient man believed the Earth to be the center of the Universe. [Moderator: First of all, your misinformed belief that astrophysicists, cosmologists and particle physicists consider the visible universe to be synonymous with all that is incorrect. Second, your charges of "arrogance" seem oddly misplaced. Thirdly, your claims rest subject to an untested hypothesis -- one that you don't propose to test in any way.]
Could it be that the reason our Universe appears to be asymmetrical in its composition is that the Big Bang occurred near an area of the Omniverse where remnants of old Universe(s) previously existed? [Moderator: Assumes new hypothesis which is neither in evidence nor proposed to be tested.] Thus these remnants slowed parts of the expansion of our Universe, but other areas free of remnants expanded unimpeded? Could it also be that what is currently called "Dark Matter" is in fact material left over from long dead Universes? [Moderator: Assumes new hypothesis which is neither in evidence nor proposed to be tested. Even if dark matter was simply matter in a invisible universe which still interacted by gravity, why would such a place be considered "dead?"] Perhaps our technology cannot analyse such material simply because Dark matter does not follow the physical laws of our own Universe, and our instruments do not have the ability to detect it, but it still can exert gravitational force? [Moderator: If you were writing an essay or newspaper article, this would be your "lead," "topic sentence," or "core concept." Regardless of medium, you should not bury your lead. Among the many candidates for dark matter, there has been speculation that the visible universe is on one hyper-dimensional membrane in 10-dimensional space-time and that gravitational effects were capable of propagating off the membrane which would explain both the relative weakness of gravity and possibly the distribution and dynamics and distribution of dark matter. But the dynamics of the Bullet Cluster would seem to be contradictory to that hypothesis. Two galaxies, with their dark matter collided and the dark matter collided neither with the gas of the galaxies nor with itself. So it seems that dark matter is not just matter in "another membrane."]
Comments please? [Moderator: Banned 3 days as a danger to children's attempts to learn science.]
I believe that the Big Bang theory is essentially correct in that it explains the beginnings of "our universe", and will likely explain the end of the our universe as we know it. [Moderator: Technically, it explains neither. It states only that there was a hot, dense beginning to the visible universe. It does not explain the beginning nor speculate on the nature of the distant future. Various refinements, such as the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter (λCDM) model describe in more detail the nature of that beginning and implicitly describe the future fate of the universe, but such models have parameters which must be fitted (by equations) against observations and thus are outside of your concepts-only worldview.] But our universe is neither the beginning nor the end of everything. [Moderator: That is your particular belief. You have communicated that belief but no reason to suspect it is fact or even a test to see if it is true or not.] There is evidence that something beyond our universe appears to be drawing parts of our universe towards it. [Moderator: Lie or delusional belief.] I believe that if we had telescopes powerful enough, we would see that what is drawing the galaxies towards this "gravity well" is another universe's gravitational pull, we just do not currently have the technology to see it. [Moderator: If it is outside the visible universe, then what direction, pray tell, would one point a telescope or other detection equipment in? Or is that too hard a concept to grasp?]
If the Omniverse is infinitely older than our wildest imagination, and over this virtually infinite period of time there have been countless universes which have come in and out of existence, then it is likely that what will happen to us has happened countless times before. I think it would be arrogant for us to believe that our Universe encompasses "everything", just as Ancient man believed the Earth to be the center of the Universe. [Moderator: First of all, your misinformed belief that astrophysicists, cosmologists and particle physicists consider the visible universe to be synonymous with all that is incorrect. Second, your charges of "arrogance" seem oddly misplaced. Thirdly, your claims rest subject to an untested hypothesis -- one that you don't propose to test in any way.]
Could it be that the reason our Universe appears to be asymmetrical in its composition is that the Big Bang occurred near an area of the Omniverse where remnants of old Universe(s) previously existed? [Moderator: Assumes new hypothesis which is neither in evidence nor proposed to be tested.] Thus these remnants slowed parts of the expansion of our Universe, but other areas free of remnants expanded unimpeded? Could it also be that what is currently called "Dark Matter" is in fact material left over from long dead Universes? [Moderator: Assumes new hypothesis which is neither in evidence nor proposed to be tested. Even if dark matter was simply matter in a invisible universe which still interacted by gravity, why would such a place be considered "dead?"] Perhaps our technology cannot analyse such material simply because Dark matter does not follow the physical laws of our own Universe, and our instruments do not have the ability to detect it, but it still can exert gravitational force? [Moderator: If you were writing an essay or newspaper article, this would be your "lead," "topic sentence," or "core concept." Regardless of medium, you should not bury your lead. Among the many candidates for dark matter, there has been speculation that the visible universe is on one hyper-dimensional membrane in 10-dimensional space-time and that gravitational effects were capable of propagating off the membrane which would explain both the relative weakness of gravity and possibly the distribution and dynamics and distribution of dark matter. But the dynamics of the Bullet Cluster would seem to be contradictory to that hypothesis. Two galaxies, with their dark matter collided and the dark matter collided neither with the gas of the galaxies nor with itself. So it seems that dark matter is not just matter in "another membrane."]
Comments please? [Moderator: Banned 3 days as a danger to children's attempts to learn science.]
That seemed to go down like the proverbial lead balloon ....... [ see thread start]
If you simplify the initial assumptions somewhat ... to say that the matter is created and destroyed in couplets but that sometimes they can get blown apart before they destroy each other as before , but that each particle possesses not only mass/energy but also time [ and maybe dimension for the universe that is- but I cant get my head around that one totally ].
Then you still have the paradox of how the first particle happened in a zero dimension/time uninverse [ but let's say the blane or other hypothesis starts it off ] - we only need maybe a photon to be created in this way ......not a fully blown Universe of matter .
This creates a microuniverse with very slow time [ initially zero time flow] . Time in this intance is a pure dimension and the universe is at it's edge , but now we have dimension and it's easier for the next particle to be 'blown apart' as theree is somewhere for it to actually happen .
When the next patricle is created , time moves on one more step and the universe enlarges , which makes the next time step get quicker , and so on to create more until time flow is no longer quantum based but regular enlargement .
The particles created either go into larger all positive / negative or combine to create actual particles we know today . [ with some negative ones getting stuck amongst the positive to create different quarks ? ] . Could be either , I still prefer my initial idea of a slow matter creation though ....
Accumulation through gravity and a final collision to equal big bang [ yes , I still think of a HUGE explosion] . If the matter accumulation was in total positives , then the resultant explosion would creat vastly more positive stuff than negative [ the entire mass woudl be positive travelling through a sea of both] so would have the effect of creating 'normal' matter when the temperature started to drop . If the other , the explosion would probbaly disasociate the matter to the same extent anyway , and we would have the same maths as standard theory of Big Bang ....
So what ?
Well from this idea , time flow must be accelerating [ as must it be now if correct ]
If we look back in time [ ie light from stars ] . As their time flow is slower than now , when its observed [ by us] , we would see that all [stars] were moving away from us at a [near constant ] rate in relation to distance [ ie how long ago they emitted that light] . There would , however , be a change which would look like the universe was acelerating , which was the rate of change of the size of the universe . I havent the figures , but you shold be able to see that there was a further rate of change in the data .
Dark matter/energy : this idea implicitly shows that whichever idea is true [above.. if either] the UNiverse is full of the stuff , though possibly predicting too much . I just threw that in as its in the news ...
If you simplify the initial assumptions somewhat ... to say that the matter is created and destroyed in couplets but that sometimes they can get blown apart before they destroy each other as before , but that each particle possesses not only mass/energy but also time [ and maybe dimension for the universe that is- but I cant get my head around that one totally ].
Then you still have the paradox of how the first particle happened in a zero dimension/time uninverse [ but let's say the blane or other hypothesis starts it off ] - we only need maybe a photon to be created in this way ......not a fully blown Universe of matter .
This creates a microuniverse with very slow time [ initially zero time flow] . Time in this intance is a pure dimension and the universe is at it's edge , but now we have dimension and it's easier for the next particle to be 'blown apart' as theree is somewhere for it to actually happen .
When the next patricle is created , time moves on one more step and the universe enlarges , which makes the next time step get quicker , and so on to create more until time flow is no longer quantum based but regular enlargement .
The particles created either go into larger all positive / negative or combine to create actual particles we know today . [ with some negative ones getting stuck amongst the positive to create different quarks ? ] . Could be either , I still prefer my initial idea of a slow matter creation though ....
Accumulation through gravity and a final collision to equal big bang [ yes , I still think of a HUGE explosion] . If the matter accumulation was in total positives , then the resultant explosion would creat vastly more positive stuff than negative [ the entire mass woudl be positive travelling through a sea of both] so would have the effect of creating 'normal' matter when the temperature started to drop . If the other , the explosion would probbaly disasociate the matter to the same extent anyway , and we would have the same maths as standard theory of Big Bang ....
So what ?
Well from this idea , time flow must be accelerating [ as must it be now if correct ]
If we look back in time [ ie light from stars ] . As their time flow is slower than now , when its observed [ by us] , we would see that all [stars] were moving away from us at a [near constant ] rate in relation to distance [ ie how long ago they emitted that light] . There would , however , be a change which would look like the universe was acelerating , which was the rate of change of the size of the universe . I havent the figures , but you shold be able to see that there was a further rate of change in the data .
Dark matter/energy : this idea implicitly shows that whichever idea is true [above.. if either] the UNiverse is full of the stuff , though possibly predicting too much . I just threw that in as its in the news ...
Have a good time!
vixra.org/abs/0907.0015
I want to insert to the image and url
test
Have a good time!
I want to insert to the image and url
test
Have a good time!
- Whoops, never help a total headcake ... eternal shame and damnation on me.
At the risk of being suspended (again) for 3 days just for giving an OPINION, I'll add my bit. I will also NOT state my credentials because certain individuals seem to interpret this as some sort of insult.
In any case, does ANYONE really believe that all there is and all there will ever be, began only 13 or 14 billion years ago? I say "believe" because I am giving my opinion only. I believe that the simple answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang, is that there have been an infinity of Big Bang Universes before our Universe, and there will be an infinity of Universes coming in and out of existence after our Universe.
Our Universe is neither the beginning nor the end.
To the Moderator: There is indeed a force pulling galaxies towards it which has not yet been explained. This has been documented in a number of recent articles. What can possibly be of sufficient gravitational force to pull entire galaxies towards it? It would have to be of higher mass than the combined massive black holes at the centre of multiple galaxies. Only another Universe could have the mass to do this.
In any case, does ANYONE really believe that all there is and all there will ever be, began only 13 or 14 billion years ago? I say "believe" because I am giving my opinion only. I believe that the simple answer to the question of what came before the Big Bang, is that there have been an infinity of Big Bang Universes before our Universe, and there will be an infinity of Universes coming in and out of existence after our Universe.
Our Universe is neither the beginning nor the end.
To the Moderator: There is indeed a force pulling galaxies towards it which has not yet been explained. This has been documented in a number of recent articles. What can possibly be of sufficient gravitational force to pull entire galaxies towards it? It would have to be of higher mass than the combined massive black holes at the centre of multiple galaxies. Only another Universe could have the mass to do this.
You did not give just opinion, but made factual claims. You claimed evidence.
As a university graduate, that point ought to be understood.
Both the Great Attractor and the Shapley Supercluster are local mass concentrations within the universe. They mass no more than abut 5 orders of magnitude more than this galaxy and are thus much less massive than the visible universe.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/kocevski-1-06/
As a university graduate, that point ought to be understood.
Both the Great Attractor and the Shapley Supercluster are local mass concentrations within the universe. They mass no more than abut 5 orders of magnitude more than this galaxy and are thus much less massive than the visible universe.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/kocevski-1-06/
QUOTE (Satviewer2000+Oct 21 2009, 08:28 AM)
In any case, does ANYONE really believe that all there is and all there will ever be, began only 13 or 14 billion years ago?
I don't. I believe that the universe is substantially older and probably smaller than the Standard Model tells us.
Such opinions are allowed here. But you can fully expect to be labeled as "cranky" depending on how and where you express that. And you should be ready and able to defend the things you say on some level. And when you're arguments run out you should be prepared to say something like, "You're right ... I can't provide any further basis for my assertions". Then you can live mostly happily ever after.
In certain types of discussions it isn't useful or appropriate to use disclaimers such as "just my opinion" etc ... there are (and should be) expectations in those circumstances that one provide justifications for such positions.
It's difficult to express which conversations allow expressions of belief and opinion and which don't other than to say if you posit something theoretically then you'd best be prepared to back it up. Especially, if it is intended in any way to challenge an established proposition.
The longer you're here, the more you'll get the sense of what's appropriate. I'm a physics idiot and I've never been warned or suspended. Tthe feedback system helps differentiate turds that float from one's that sink.
I don't. I believe that the universe is substantially older and probably smaller than the Standard Model tells us.
Such opinions are allowed here. But you can fully expect to be labeled as "cranky" depending on how and where you express that. And you should be ready and able to defend the things you say on some level. And when you're arguments run out you should be prepared to say something like, "You're right ... I can't provide any further basis for my assertions". Then you can live mostly happily ever after.
In certain types of discussions it isn't useful or appropriate to use disclaimers such as "just my opinion" etc ... there are (and should be) expectations in those circumstances that one provide justifications for such positions.
It's difficult to express which conversations allow expressions of belief and opinion and which don't other than to say if you posit something theoretically then you'd best be prepared to back it up. Especially, if it is intended in any way to challenge an established proposition.
The longer you're here, the more you'll get the sense of what's appropriate. I'm a physics idiot and I've never been warned or suspended. Tthe feedback system helps differentiate turds that float from one's that sink.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 21 2009, 10:00 AM)
I don't. I believe that the universe is substantially older and probably smaller than the Standard Model tells us.
Can you explain why?
If you're worried about Trout, PM me. I'm interested to know why you think this.
Can you explain why?
If you're worried about Trout, PM me. I'm interested to know why you think this.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2009, 02:02 PM)
Can you explain why?
If you're worried about Trout, PM me. I'm interested to know why you think this.
I'm not worried about Trout; in any way shape or form.
1. Some of my doubt comes from "non-cosmological redshift" theorizations ...
2. Some of my doubt comes from Plasma/EU theories ...
3. Some of my doubt comes from nothing other than seeing BBT as grotesque ...
1a. Many solid pieces of evidence refute my reshift beliefs. The CMBR for example. However, I'd assert that the CMBR dataset could be interpreted differently than mainstreamers do. If I have to find the links I can ... where reputable cosmologists question the common interpretation.
2a. I also believe that the Standard Model has little if any consideration for the 4th state of matter in the universe (perhaps an overstatement?). Many of the propositions that Plasma/EU theories make are not at odds with observational evidence, others have no evidentiary basis ... yet.
3a. It's difficult to quantify intuition in any manner. However, I have an affinity for Maxwell. I really like what Fred Hoyle had to say. Hubble seriously doubted the interpretation of his dataset. I think EE's are underrated cosmologists mostly shunned by mainstream physicists.
If you're worried about Trout, PM me. I'm interested to know why you think this.
I'm not worried about Trout; in any way shape or form.
1. Some of my doubt comes from "non-cosmological redshift" theorizations ...
2. Some of my doubt comes from Plasma/EU theories ...
3. Some of my doubt comes from nothing other than seeing BBT as grotesque ...
1a. Many solid pieces of evidence refute my reshift beliefs. The CMBR for example. However, I'd assert that the CMBR dataset could be interpreted differently than mainstreamers do. If I have to find the links I can ... where reputable cosmologists question the common interpretation.
2a. I also believe that the Standard Model has little if any consideration for the 4th state of matter in the universe (perhaps an overstatement?). Many of the propositions that Plasma/EU theories make are not at odds with observational evidence, others have no evidentiary basis ... yet.
3a. It's difficult to quantify intuition in any manner. However, I have an affinity for Maxwell. I really like what Fred Hoyle had to say. Hubble seriously doubted the interpretation of his dataset. I think EE's are underrated cosmologists mostly shunned by mainstream physicists.
uaafanblog,
I see the creation of the Big Bang Theory as an example of fairly straightforward logic.
We know that the universe is expanding.
We know that the most distant stars are moving away from us at a certain velocity. Many of those stars are almost as old as the universe itself, so thanks to the distance of several billion light years, we can effectively see back in time.
Based on the distribution of galaxies and their relative velocities, we know that space itself is expanding.
Knowing all these enables us to make the logical leap that the universe was at one time much smaller. At that point, the only questions are "how small" and "how long ago."
As far as red-shift calculations, I can't speak specifically to anything in that regard, but I would promote caution when it comes to people who disagree with the mainstream. If they are correct, what prevents other scientists from seeing their errors? The value of science is the ease at which people can change their minds when confronted with new evidence.
I see the creation of the Big Bang Theory as an example of fairly straightforward logic.
We know that the universe is expanding.
We know that the most distant stars are moving away from us at a certain velocity. Many of those stars are almost as old as the universe itself, so thanks to the distance of several billion light years, we can effectively see back in time.
Based on the distribution of galaxies and their relative velocities, we know that space itself is expanding.
Knowing all these enables us to make the logical leap that the universe was at one time much smaller. At that point, the only questions are "how small" and "how long ago."
As far as red-shift calculations, I can't speak specifically to anything in that regard, but I would promote caution when it comes to people who disagree with the mainstream. If they are correct, what prevents other scientists from seeing their errors? The value of science is the ease at which people can change their minds when confronted with new evidence.
Forgive me if I re-ordered your original post to answer the salient points ...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2009, 02:49 PM)
We know that the universe is expanding.
I won't deny that space is expanding -- i.e... whether it's accurate to say the universe is expanding is perhaps a different question but it's neither here nor there in the context of this discussion and you essentially "corrected it with the following;
That in and of itself doesn't conflict with anything I've said as far as I can tell. So we're all good so far ...
That in and of itself doesn't conflict with anything I've said as far as I can tell. So we're all good so far ...
Knowing all these enables us to make the logical leap that the universe was at one time much smaller. At that point, the only questions are "how small" and "how long ago."
This is the "wind the universe backward" principle. It's a complex process and has been underway essentially for decades. I'd submit that this sort of "forensic rewind" is fraught with opportunities for error. I'm skeptical of forensic techniques in the conviction of criminals and the rate of confirmed errors in that process buoys my skepticism of the BBT. Little "fudges" here and there in such a long term process tend to create large errors in the final product.
I'm not trying to say there is any dishonesty or otherwise in the process. Just that there is an inherent tendency in the process to reach a specific conclusion. And no matter what safeguards and even skepticism involved in the process there is still potential for "fudges". <--- better word than "error" but perhaps not the best ... just the best that comes to mind at the moment.
Institutions (and the BBT is clearly an "Institution") naturally evolve to states which ensure their own continuation. We should keep that in mind in all matters in our lives.
... according to our best estimates using best methods etc.
... according to our best estimates using best methods etc.
The value of science is the ease at which people can change their minds when confronted with new evidence.
I'd agree partially but assert that what you're saying is a double-edged sword. New evidence can be greeted with staunch and overwhelming resistance. I've got no problem though with the concept that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So far the extraordinary evidence supporting any of my assertions isn't there.
Allow me to ask you a question here.
What amount of time would you think is long enough to account for the genesis and distribution of elements we see locally (i.e.. in our solar system)?
I won't deny that space is expanding -- i.e... whether it's accurate to say the universe is expanding is perhaps a different question but it's neither here nor there in the context of this discussion and you essentially "corrected it with the following;
QUOTE
Based on the distribution of galaxies and their relative velocities, we know that space itself is expanding.
That in and of itself doesn't conflict with anything I've said as far as I can tell. So we're all good so far ...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Based on the distribution of galaxies and their relative velocities, we know that space itself is expanding. |
That in and of itself doesn't conflict with anything I've said as far as I can tell. So we're all good so far ...
Knowing all these enables us to make the logical leap that the universe was at one time much smaller. At that point, the only questions are "how small" and "how long ago."
This is the "wind the universe backward" principle. It's a complex process and has been underway essentially for decades. I'd submit that this sort of "forensic rewind" is fraught with opportunities for error. I'm skeptical of forensic techniques in the conviction of criminals and the rate of confirmed errors in that process buoys my skepticism of the BBT. Little "fudges" here and there in such a long term process tend to create large errors in the final product.
I'm not trying to say there is any dishonesty or otherwise in the process. Just that there is an inherent tendency in the process to reach a specific conclusion. And no matter what safeguards and even skepticism involved in the process there is still potential for "fudges". <--- better word than "error" but perhaps not the best ... just the best that comes to mind at the moment.
Institutions (and the BBT is clearly an "Institution") naturally evolve to states which ensure their own continuation. We should keep that in mind in all matters in our lives.
QUOTE
Many of those stars are almost as old as the universe itself, so thanks to the distance of several billion light years, we can effectively see back in time.
... according to our best estimates using best methods etc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Many of those stars are almost as old as the universe itself, so thanks to the distance of several billion light years, we can effectively see back in time. |
... according to our best estimates using best methods etc.
The value of science is the ease at which people can change their minds when confronted with new evidence.
I'd agree partially but assert that what you're saying is a double-edged sword. New evidence can be greeted with staunch and overwhelming resistance. I've got no problem though with the concept that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". So far the extraordinary evidence supporting any of my assertions isn't there.
Allow me to ask you a question here.
What amount of time would you think is long enough to account for the genesis and distribution of elements we see locally (i.e.. in our solar system)?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 21 2009, 02:23 PM)
I'm not worried about Trout; in any way shape or form.
1. Some of my doubt comes from "non-cosmological redshift" theorizations ...
2. Some of my doubt comes from Plasma/EU theories ...
3. Some of my doubt comes from nothing other than seeing BBT as grotesque ...
1 and 2 are known to be a crackpot theories (The Electric Universe being the leader) , debuked all over the internet.
Number 3 is something that only you can deal with. Delusions of this kind are serious.
1. Some of my doubt comes from "non-cosmological redshift" theorizations ...
2. Some of my doubt comes from Plasma/EU theories ...
3. Some of my doubt comes from nothing other than seeing BBT as grotesque ...
1 and 2 are known to be a crackpot theories (The Electric Universe being the leader) , debuked all over the internet.
Number 3 is something that only you can deal with. Delusions of this kind are serious.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 21 2009, 03:18 PM)
New evidence can be greeted with staunch and overwhelming resistance.
I think you are wrong with this sentiment. Science is about evidence, not opinion. A famous scientist long ago was working on a theory that had space-time with a built in property to expand in order to counteract the the force of gravity. Then Edwin Hubble documented that the universe is expanding. Not just Einstein but the scientific community basically fell flat on their faces. Then in a different century, the space telescope named after him sees the the universe isn't just expanding but accelerating. Which brings into question the cosmological constant that Einstein abandoned so long ago. It goes against almost everything that scientists thought was rational. You throw a ball up. It goes up and comes back down. What you don't expect is to see the is the ball accelerate and leave the atmosphere.
If evidence didn't cause people to rethink about the universe, it would be a pretty boring place.
I think you are wrong with this sentiment. Science is about evidence, not opinion. A famous scientist long ago was working on a theory that had space-time with a built in property to expand in order to counteract the the force of gravity. Then Edwin Hubble documented that the universe is expanding. Not just Einstein but the scientific community basically fell flat on their faces. Then in a different century, the space telescope named after him sees the the universe isn't just expanding but accelerating. Which brings into question the cosmological constant that Einstein abandoned so long ago. It goes against almost everything that scientists thought was rational. You throw a ball up. It goes up and comes back down. What you don't expect is to see the is the ball accelerate and leave the atmosphere.
If evidence didn't cause people to rethink about the universe, it would be a pretty boring place.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 21 2009, 11:18 AM)
This is the "wind the universe backward" principle. It's a complex process and has been underway essentially for decades. I'd submit that this sort of "forensic rewind" is fraught with opportunities for error. I'm skeptical of forensic techniques in the conviction of criminals and the rate of confirmed errors in that process buoys my skepticism of the BBT. Little "fudges" here and there in such a long term process tend to create large errors in the final product.
It's not like there are a million variables that could interfere here. If a twenty-ton block of concrete is seen falling, you can be pretty damned sure that it came from somewhere above where it is now. You can't easily 'fudge' its trajectory.
There's no point in talking about errors unless you want to cite specific examples. 'Might have' errors is a long way from 'does have' errors.
There's no point in talking about errors unless you want to cite specific examples. 'Might have' errors is a long way from 'does have' errors.
Institutions (and the BBT is clearly an "Institution") naturally evolve to states which ensure their own continuation. We should keep that in mind in all matters in our lives.
On what basis do you make this accusation?
I have no idea as to an accurate number, but given that gravity acts extremely slowly when given small masses (a.k.a. post-nebular debris) it would take billions of years.
I had a similar thought and came up with a "what if" scenario. I vaguely remember reading something on 'super symmetry' and how there was a simple unanswered question. For all this matter, where is all the antimatter? There were theories but nothing solid from what I could tell.
My 'what if' is this. Since matter and antimatter come together to annihilate each other, what if the big bang was the reverse of this process. Then where is all the antimatter? Well if time itself began with the big bang, what if there is a negative time line (relative to ours) and that the antimatter got sent 'back through time'.
It's not like there are a million variables that could interfere here. If a twenty-ton block of concrete is seen falling, you can be pretty damned sure that it came from somewhere above where it is now. You can't easily 'fudge' its trajectory.
QUOTE
I'm not trying to say there is any dishonesty or otherwise in the process. Just that there is an inherent tendency in the process to reach a specific conclusion. And no matter what safeguards and even skepticism involved in the process there is still potential for "fudges". <--- better word than "error" but perhaps not the best ... just the best that comes to mind at the moment.
There's no point in talking about errors unless you want to cite specific examples. 'Might have' errors is a long way from 'does have' errors.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not trying to say there is any dishonesty or otherwise in the process. Just that there is an inherent tendency in the process to reach a specific conclusion. And no matter what safeguards and even skepticism involved in the process there is still potential for "fudges". <--- better word than "error" but perhaps not the best ... just the best that comes to mind at the moment. |
There's no point in talking about errors unless you want to cite specific examples. 'Might have' errors is a long way from 'does have' errors.
Institutions (and the BBT is clearly an "Institution") naturally evolve to states which ensure their own continuation. We should keep that in mind in all matters in our lives.
On what basis do you make this accusation?
QUOTE
What amount of time would you think is long enough to account for the genesis and distribution of elements we see locally (i.e.. in our solar system)?
I have no idea as to an accurate number, but given that gravity acts extremely slowly when given small masses (a.k.a. post-nebular debris) it would take billions of years.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 21 2009, 12:42 PM)
You did not give just opinion, but made factual claims. You claimed evidence.
Both the Great Attractor and the Shapley Supercluster are local mass concentrations within the universe. They mass no more than abut 5 orders of magnitude more than this galaxy and are thus much less massive than the visible universe.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/kocevski-1-06/
Isn't it true that the "Attractor" has been calculated to be approximately 46.5 Billion light years away, which would certainly place it outside of the visible Universe, and likely outside the Universe as we know it?
Both the Great Attractor and the Shapley Supercluster are local mass concentrations within the universe. They mass no more than abut 5 orders of magnitude more than this galaxy and are thus much less massive than the visible universe.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/kocevski-1-06/
Isn't it true that the "Attractor" has been calculated to be approximately 46.5 Billion light years away, which would certainly place it outside of the visible Universe, and likely outside the Universe as we know it?
It is not true. -- I believe reports put the Great AttractorShapley Supercluster at a redshift of 0.03 to 0.06 which would put it:
0.4 to 0.8 billion light years from us. (Wikipedia has z=0.046 and 0.65 billion light years)
For comparison, the CMB marks the edge of the visible universe, and while the light from it has been travelling for 13+ billion years, the actual distance to where that spot is now is over 45 billion light years. That's because the universe keeps expanding even as the light is inbound.
The above link puts the Great Attractor at 0.125 billion light years and the Shapley supercluster at 0.5 billion light years. Wikipedia gives the distance to the Great Attractor as 0.15-0.25 billion light years.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/kocevski-1-06/
You could do detailed research to find what the most recent reports actually have, or what type of astronomical observational errors contribute to the wide spread of distance estimates, but all of them have:
distance to Great Attractor < distance to Shapley Supercluster < light travel time from furthest known galaxy < light travel time from CMB < age of the universe < co-moving distance to where the CMB edge that we see now is now.
0.4 to 0.8 billion light years from us. (Wikipedia has z=0.046 and 0.65 billion light years)
For comparison, the CMB marks the edge of the visible universe, and while the light from it has been travelling for 13+ billion years, the actual distance to where that spot is now is over 45 billion light years. That's because the universe keeps expanding even as the light is inbound.
The above link puts the Great Attractor at 0.125 billion light years and the Shapley supercluster at 0.5 billion light years. Wikipedia gives the distance to the Great Attractor as 0.15-0.25 billion light years.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/kocevski-1-06/
You could do detailed research to find what the most recent reports actually have, or what type of astronomical observational errors contribute to the wide spread of distance estimates, but all of them have:
distance to Great Attractor < distance to Shapley Supercluster < light travel time from furthest known galaxy < light travel time from CMB < age of the universe < co-moving distance to where the CMB edge that we see now is now.
This is my current (crackpot) belief about the big bang:
(Please correct any facts I have wrong, since my understanding of all elements is tentative)
It started as a black hole, which may have been collecting matter and energy for some time prior to "ripening" to the point of expansion.
I believe that inside a black hole an evolutionary process occurs in which particles initially continue fusing and collapsing on each other until the point where all matter is densely packed neutrons with no space between and maybe a densely packed "photosphere" of light orbiting it. This stage inside a black hole is reached after a significant amount of matter has been trapped within its Schwarzschild radius.
Once a black hole has reached its maximum mass and Schwarzschild radius, its space-time dilates as a form of entropy. What caused this dilation if this black hole was not part of another expanding universe preceding it? Maybe the energy of light within the black hole initiates space-time expansion by "loosening" the dense neutron mass slowly, and as it "loosens" its expansion persists as a result of its own increasing dilation.
In any case, I believe this dilation/loosening continues and the increasing kinetic energy of the neutrons colliding with one another eventually results in them breaking apart into all sorts of smaller particles, which themselves catalyze ever more energy-releasing reactions, which transform the "soup" into all possible combinations of elementary particles, all very turbulent because of the intensive containment of the Schwarzschild radius.
At some point, the space-time dilation of the system reaches a point where the Schwarzschild radius shrinks to a diameter smaller than the radius of the contents, at which point the black hole begins "erupting" its contents of mass and energy. Once this process of eruption begins, it continues rapidly because the mass being spewed out contributes to the further shrinking of the Schwarzschild radius. This eruption process should continue until whatever matter and energy remaining inside the radius have lost enough energy to go back to the shrinking process that creates a black hole in the first place, in which case the process of "ripening" begins anew.
Meanwhile, of the matter and energy that was erupted, it does not just expand as a consequence of the continuing entropic process of dilation, it also moves through space-time at the velocity it was expelled from the Schwarzschild radius. However, it may change direction since it is bounded by totally dilated space-time, which means space-time is bent back in the direction of the matter itself. It may also be that when the contents of the black hole "snap back" at the point its gravity re-initiates the consolidation process of matter and energy that shrinks black-holes inside their radius to begin with, a gravitational retraction would pull back on the matter that was moving outward in the direction of expansion until that point.
So, my theory is that there continues to be a black hole somewhere in the universe that is the site of the big bang, but it has long since become indistinguishable from any other black hole since dilation-expansion of space-time of all particles continues according to their (lack of) density and mass, and any uniform outward motion through space has long since been redirected according to the patterns of space-time curvature emerging from the uneven spreading of mass.
Is this plausible?
(Please correct any facts I have wrong, since my understanding of all elements is tentative)
It started as a black hole, which may have been collecting matter and energy for some time prior to "ripening" to the point of expansion.
I believe that inside a black hole an evolutionary process occurs in which particles initially continue fusing and collapsing on each other until the point where all matter is densely packed neutrons with no space between and maybe a densely packed "photosphere" of light orbiting it. This stage inside a black hole is reached after a significant amount of matter has been trapped within its Schwarzschild radius.
Once a black hole has reached its maximum mass and Schwarzschild radius, its space-time dilates as a form of entropy. What caused this dilation if this black hole was not part of another expanding universe preceding it? Maybe the energy of light within the black hole initiates space-time expansion by "loosening" the dense neutron mass slowly, and as it "loosens" its expansion persists as a result of its own increasing dilation.
In any case, I believe this dilation/loosening continues and the increasing kinetic energy of the neutrons colliding with one another eventually results in them breaking apart into all sorts of smaller particles, which themselves catalyze ever more energy-releasing reactions, which transform the "soup" into all possible combinations of elementary particles, all very turbulent because of the intensive containment of the Schwarzschild radius.
At some point, the space-time dilation of the system reaches a point where the Schwarzschild radius shrinks to a diameter smaller than the radius of the contents, at which point the black hole begins "erupting" its contents of mass and energy. Once this process of eruption begins, it continues rapidly because the mass being spewed out contributes to the further shrinking of the Schwarzschild radius. This eruption process should continue until whatever matter and energy remaining inside the radius have lost enough energy to go back to the shrinking process that creates a black hole in the first place, in which case the process of "ripening" begins anew.
Meanwhile, of the matter and energy that was erupted, it does not just expand as a consequence of the continuing entropic process of dilation, it also moves through space-time at the velocity it was expelled from the Schwarzschild radius. However, it may change direction since it is bounded by totally dilated space-time, which means space-time is bent back in the direction of the matter itself. It may also be that when the contents of the black hole "snap back" at the point its gravity re-initiates the consolidation process of matter and energy that shrinks black-holes inside their radius to begin with, a gravitational retraction would pull back on the matter that was moving outward in the direction of expansion until that point.
So, my theory is that there continues to be a black hole somewhere in the universe that is the site of the big bang, but it has long since become indistinguishable from any other black hole since dilation-expansion of space-time of all particles continues according to their (lack of) density and mass, and any uniform outward motion through space has long since been redirected according to the patterns of space-time curvature emerging from the uneven spreading of mass.
Is this plausible?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 21 2009, 06:32 PM)
It started as a black hole
Wrong initial assumption for the umpteenth time.
Why do you refuse to look anything up before posting?
Wrong initial assumption for the umpteenth time.
Why do you refuse to look anything up before posting?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2009, 10:55 PM)
Wrong initial assumption for the umpteenth time.
Why do you refuse to look anything up before posting?
I stated that this is my theory and that I'm not making claims that necessarily resonate with every aspect of other big bang ideas.
Mainly I am proceeding (tentatively) with my belief that black holes "blossom" into stars eventually as a result of dilation-entropy. My understanding is that all space-time progressively dilates, which is why the universe is expanding generally. I am hypothesizing that universal entropy of dilation is not just a consequence of the big bang, but it is an essential cause of it.
I think that the mass contents of any black hole is prone to dilation as entropy, but I'm not sure why this is. I thought that it might have something to do with the presence of light circulating around the neutron core inside the Schwarschild radius, but suddenly I'm wondering if EM radiation could all convert to matter inside the black hole, in which case there would be only matter and no energy.
If all energy was converted to matter inside a black hole, the gravitational force would still generate potential energy as neutrons push against each other toward the center, right? In that case, maybe that potential energy somehow gets translated into space-time dilation.
If that is the case, and black holes do eventually dilate to emerge as stars, then wouldn't it be plausible that the big bang began as a black hole?
BTW, did you read beyond the first sentence of my post or do you immediately stop and reply when the first sentence is wrong? If that's what you do, you might want to at least give the whole thing a read to evaluate the internal logic, albeit based on false assumptions. Maybe I paint interesting landscapes even if the colors are completely wrong.
Why do you refuse to look anything up before posting?
I stated that this is my theory and that I'm not making claims that necessarily resonate with every aspect of other big bang ideas.
Mainly I am proceeding (tentatively) with my belief that black holes "blossom" into stars eventually as a result of dilation-entropy. My understanding is that all space-time progressively dilates, which is why the universe is expanding generally. I am hypothesizing that universal entropy of dilation is not just a consequence of the big bang, but it is an essential cause of it.
I think that the mass contents of any black hole is prone to dilation as entropy, but I'm not sure why this is. I thought that it might have something to do with the presence of light circulating around the neutron core inside the Schwarschild radius, but suddenly I'm wondering if EM radiation could all convert to matter inside the black hole, in which case there would be only matter and no energy.
If all energy was converted to matter inside a black hole, the gravitational force would still generate potential energy as neutrons push against each other toward the center, right? In that case, maybe that potential energy somehow gets translated into space-time dilation.
If that is the case, and black holes do eventually dilate to emerge as stars, then wouldn't it be plausible that the big bang began as a black hole?
BTW, did you read beyond the first sentence of my post or do you immediately stop and reply when the first sentence is wrong? If that's what you do, you might want to at least give the whole thing a read to evaluate the internal logic, albeit based on false assumptions. Maybe I paint interesting landscapes even if the colors are completely wrong.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 21 2009, 03:28 PM)
1 and 2 are known to be a crackpot theories (The Electric Universe being the leader) , debuked all over the internet.
Number 3 is something that only you can deal with. Delusions of this kind are serious.
As to #1 and #2 ...
Their conclusions have certainly been debunked. Not all of their precepts/propositions however have been debunked. And I in no way shape or form claimed or expressed that they are competing or valid alternatives to the widely accepted BBT.
As to #3 ...
Elegance and simplicity are widely held to be significant amongst cosmologists. Those factors certainly don't prove anything. Just because something is simple and beautiful doesn't make it so. As I said, the BBT is ugly enough for me to raise some doubt in my mind as to it's correctness. Label me as a crank all day. But (and it's pointless to go down this road again) it's not an appropriate label in my case. Ignorant and/or several synonyms might certainly apply ... but I've always been clear about that. So you see ... I deal with that EVERY time I post here.
Number 3 is something that only you can deal with. Delusions of this kind are serious.
As to #1 and #2 ...
Their conclusions have certainly been debunked. Not all of their precepts/propositions however have been debunked. And I in no way shape or form claimed or expressed that they are competing or valid alternatives to the widely accepted BBT.
As to #3 ...
Elegance and simplicity are widely held to be significant amongst cosmologists. Those factors certainly don't prove anything. Just because something is simple and beautiful doesn't make it so. As I said, the BBT is ugly enough for me to raise some doubt in my mind as to it's correctness. Label me as a crank all day. But (and it's pointless to go down this road again) it's not an appropriate label in my case. Ignorant and/or several synonyms might certainly apply ... but I've always been clear about that. So you see ... I deal with that EVERY time I post here.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2009, 04:35 PM)
There's no point in talking about errors unless you want to cite specific examples. 'Might have' errors is a long way from 'does have' errors.
On what basis do you make this accusation?
Accusation? Not the best choice of words by you I think. It wasn't an accusation ... I certainly "labeled" the BBT as being an institution. I suppose one could argue whether it meets that definition. I argue that it does.
However, you asked a general question. I gave a general answer. Why it would be incumbent upon me to provide links for a discussion I didn't initiate is beyond me. The point was that "institutions" of all stripes tend to evolve in ways that insulate themselves for continuation. It's a socio-cultural fact. You can look anywhere from religious institutions to governmental institutions for evidence of this unconscious but very real institutional characteristic. Been that way throughout human history. Google "institutional evolution" for any number of studies/discussions regarding the subject. Interesting stuff. Institutions take on almost "life-like" characteristics.
At the risk of exposing myself as less than fully versed on such matters ... it seems to me that if you add the 4."n" billions of years of our current "2nd generation" solar system's life to whatever "n" is for the 1st generation star that preceded this epoch that you might be getting close to 10 billion years? Again, I'm not well versed in stellar evolution except to know that observations are teaching us ... that the 1st step might be "stellar nurseries" ... the death of those initial short-lived stars leads to more discrete systems ... which in turn have "n" for a lifetime before dying and spreading their elemental creations to the next "birth" which I'd assume our system is currently in.
Speculating from there then, it seems somewhat possible to me that we're actually in a "3rd generation" system. If so ... then we're getting pretty close to the # that the Standard Model tells us is the age of the universe. That being the case I can certainly see that it's reasonable to extrapolate additional "generations" ... with the widespread elemental distribution in our system tending to point in that direction. I have no links for this and the mainstream doesn't accept such a notion. Seems to me that the "mainstream" settled on the "2nd generation" label because it fits their model.
On what basis do you make this accusation?
Accusation? Not the best choice of words by you I think. It wasn't an accusation ... I certainly "labeled" the BBT as being an institution. I suppose one could argue whether it meets that definition. I argue that it does.
However, you asked a general question. I gave a general answer. Why it would be incumbent upon me to provide links for a discussion I didn't initiate is beyond me. The point was that "institutions" of all stripes tend to evolve in ways that insulate themselves for continuation. It's a socio-cultural fact. You can look anywhere from religious institutions to governmental institutions for evidence of this unconscious but very real institutional characteristic. Been that way throughout human history. Google "institutional evolution" for any number of studies/discussions regarding the subject. Interesting stuff. Institutions take on almost "life-like" characteristics.
QUOTE
I have no idea as to an accurate number, but given that gravity acts extremely slowly when given small masses (a.k.a. post-nebular debris) it would take billions of years.
At the risk of exposing myself as less than fully versed on such matters ... it seems to me that if you add the 4."n" billions of years of our current "2nd generation" solar system's life to whatever "n" is for the 1st generation star that preceded this epoch that you might be getting close to 10 billion years? Again, I'm not well versed in stellar evolution except to know that observations are teaching us ... that the 1st step might be "stellar nurseries" ... the death of those initial short-lived stars leads to more discrete systems ... which in turn have "n" for a lifetime before dying and spreading their elemental creations to the next "birth" which I'd assume our system is currently in.
Speculating from there then, it seems somewhat possible to me that we're actually in a "3rd generation" system. If so ... then we're getting pretty close to the # that the Standard Model tells us is the age of the universe. That being the case I can certainly see that it's reasonable to extrapolate additional "generations" ... with the widespread elemental distribution in our system tending to point in that direction. I have no links for this and the mainstream doesn't accept such a notion. Seems to me that the "mainstream" settled on the "2nd generation" label because it fits their model.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 21 2009, 04:24 PM)
I think you are wrong with this sentiment. Science is about evidence, not opinion.
If evidence didn't cause people to rethink about the universe, it would be a pretty boring place.
No disagreement with your 2nd sentence here. Except to add the word "supposed" immediately after "is". In response to your first sentence; I'd submit that there is a long history (in the scientific exploration for truth) of repression (certinanly less so than many other "institutions" historically) of some challenging ideas. Mostly, it falls along the lines of the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" concept. And that is well and fine. It should be so.
However, I'd submit the experiences of Geoffrey Burbige and his inability to secure necessary telescope etc time to explore his (and others) views. I'd go even further and say there was a consistent and persistent effort to keep him away from pursuing the necessary research to develop some "exceptional evidence" in support of his "exceptional claims".
I've no doubt that my assertion here will result in Burbige being labeled as a crank. But the guy is a good scientist in my view. He may or may not be right. IMO, he (and others) didn't get the full opportunity to prove it.
If evidence didn't cause people to rethink about the universe, it would be a pretty boring place.
No disagreement with your 2nd sentence here. Except to add the word "supposed" immediately after "is". In response to your first sentence; I'd submit that there is a long history (in the scientific exploration for truth) of repression (certinanly less so than many other "institutions" historically) of some challenging ideas. Mostly, it falls along the lines of the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" concept. And that is well and fine. It should be so.
However, I'd submit the experiences of Geoffrey Burbige and his inability to secure necessary telescope etc time to explore his (and others) views. I'd go even further and say there was a consistent and persistent effort to keep him away from pursuing the necessary research to develop some "exceptional evidence" in support of his "exceptional claims".
I've no doubt that my assertion here will result in Burbige being labeled as a crank. But the guy is a good scientist in my view. He may or may not be right. IMO, he (and others) didn't get the full opportunity to prove it.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 22 2009, 02:30 AM)
Accusation? Not the best choice of words by you I think. It wasn't an accusation ... I certainly "labeled" the BBT as being an institution. I suppose one could argue whether it meets that definition. I argue that it does.
You are accusing astrophysicists of not doing their job. Calling any scientific theory an 'institution' is an insult to the scientists who work with it. By 'labeling' BBT or Evolution as 'institutions' you are inferring that they are resistant to change, which is the antithesis of science.
There are a few things that we know about the previous solar system.
a) It ended in a supernova. We know this because there are black holes or white dwarfs in our local region of space.
Because of this, we know it was big. The minimum size for a supernova is 2.5 solar masses (I might be wrong).
c) It didn't live for very long. Big stars die faster. They burn up fuel quicker, and thus start fusing heavier and heavier atoms sooner than our sun will. Some stars only live a few million years.
This is all standard astronomy. Very interesting stuff.
Main Sequence
You are accusing astrophysicists of not doing their job. Calling any scientific theory an 'institution' is an insult to the scientists who work with it. By 'labeling' BBT or Evolution as 'institutions' you are inferring that they are resistant to change, which is the antithesis of science.
QUOTE
At the risk of exposing myself as less than fully versed on such matters ... it seems to me that if you add the 4."n" billions of years of our current "2nd generation" solar system's life to whatever "n" is for the 1st generation star that preceded this epoch that you might be getting close to 10 billion years? Again, I'm not well versed in stellar evolution except to know that observations are teaching us ... that the 1st step might be "stellar nurseries" ... the death of those initial short-lived stars leads to more discrete systems ... which in turn have "n" for a lifetime before dying and spreading their elemental creations to the next "birth" which I'd assume our system is currently in.
There are a few things that we know about the previous solar system.
a) It ended in a supernova. We know this because there are black holes or white dwarfs in our local region of space.
Because of this, we know it was big. The minimum size for a supernova is 2.5 solar masses (I might be wrong). c) It didn't live for very long. Big stars die faster. They burn up fuel quicker, and thus start fusing heavier and heavier atoms sooner than our sun will. Some stars only live a few million years.
This is all standard astronomy. Very interesting stuff.
Main Sequence
QUOTE
Ergo , the mass of the universe has to be zero at present from the above assumptions .
There must thus be an equal amount of negative mass in the Universe
There must thus be an equal amount of negative mass in the Universe
I had a similar thought and came up with a "what if" scenario. I vaguely remember reading something on 'super symmetry' and how there was a simple unanswered question. For all this matter, where is all the antimatter? There were theories but nothing solid from what I could tell.
My 'what if' is this. Since matter and antimatter come together to annihilate each other, what if the big bang was the reverse of this process. Then where is all the antimatter? Well if time itself began with the big bang, what if there is a negative time line (relative to ours) and that the antimatter got sent 'back through time'.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 22 2009, 06:59 AM)
However, I'd submit the experiences of Geoffrey Burbige and his inability to secure necessary telescope etc time to explore his (and others) views.
Maybe its a UK article... But I couldn't read it. Wikpedia would be better.
The HST has been up there for about twenty years.
Maybe its a UK article... But I couldn't read it. Wikpedia would be better.
The HST has been up there for about twenty years.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 22 2009, 01:41 PM)
Maybe its a UK article... But I couldn't read it. Wikpedia would be better.
The HST has been up there for about twenty years.
You couldn't read it? What does that mean?
IIRC Geoffrey Burbige lives in California.
And do you think that every astronomer that wants time on HST gets it? That piece of equipment is the most highly governed resource in the astronomy community. You get time on it when you've got a well defined, well funded and well accepted study to perform. One gets those three attributes only by adhering to mainstream pathologies.
And before anyone says it ... yes ... you get funding because you've got a program or idea that has convinced those with money to fund it. Burbige should take some responsibility for not convincing enough people. I have no detailed information about him specifically. But his case is a valid example for my point that science can supress/repress evidence as well as the more usual situation being the vehicle for truth.
The HST has been up there for about twenty years.
You couldn't read it? What does that mean?
IIRC Geoffrey Burbige lives in California.
And do you think that every astronomer that wants time on HST gets it? That piece of equipment is the most highly governed resource in the astronomy community. You get time on it when you've got a well defined, well funded and well accepted study to perform. One gets those three attributes only by adhering to mainstream pathologies.
And before anyone says it ... yes ... you get funding because you've got a program or idea that has convinced those with money to fund it. Burbige should take some responsibility for not convincing enough people. I have no detailed information about him specifically. But his case is a valid example for my point that science can supress/repress evidence as well as the more usual situation being the vehicle for truth.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 22 2009, 06:30 AM)
I certainly "labeled" the BBT as being an institution. I suppose one could argue whether it meets that definition. I argue that it does.
Generating knowledge about something is a way of institutionalizing it in one's consciousness. The most basic process of institutionalization is naming. Therefore everything known is an institution. The question is how it is institutionalized, etc. The fact that something is an institution is a moot point.
Generating knowledge about something is a way of institutionalizing it in one's consciousness. The most basic process of institutionalization is naming. Therefore everything known is an institution. The question is how it is institutionalized, etc. The fact that something is an institution is a moot point.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 22 2009, 08:13 PM)
Generating knowledge about something is a way of institutionalizing it in one's consciousness. The most basic process of institutionalization is naming. Therefore everything known is an institution. The question is how it is institutionalized, etc. The fact that something is an institution is a moot point.
Ummm, no. That's not what 'institutionalized' means.
Ummm, no. That's not what 'institutionalized' means.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 23 2009, 12:53 AM)
Ummm, no. That's not what 'institutionalized' means.
I was just explaining it from a social science perspective. After reading your post, it seemed to me that you would describe any discursive situation where there are conflicting and competing arguments as non-institutionalized. I would look at such a discourse and look for institutionalized ideas within the competing arguments.
All institutionalization refers to, from my perspective, is repetition of knowledge, especially if it has been named and objectified as a "thing." But, for the most part, anyone can recognize a pattern, give it a name, and regard it as an institution. Others may debate it, but the debate with further reify its existence as a "contested institution."
I was just explaining it from a social science perspective. After reading your post, it seemed to me that you would describe any discursive situation where there are conflicting and competing arguments as non-institutionalized. I would look at such a discourse and look for institutionalized ideas within the competing arguments.
All institutionalization refers to, from my perspective, is repetition of knowledge, especially if it has been named and objectified as a "thing." But, for the most part, anyone can recognize a pattern, give it a name, and regard it as an institution. Others may debate it, but the debate with further reify its existence as a "contested institution."
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 22 2009, 11:19 PM)
You couldn't read it? What does that mean?
I don't trust the article.
I don't trust the article.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 23 2009, 01:16 AM)
I don't trust the article.
Oh. LOL.
Okay then.
Oh. LOL.
Okay then.
QUOTE (likkleme+Aug 10 2009, 09:07 PM)
Yes , Im aware that current theories state that time was zero befor e big bang and before that was just quantum gravity
Not quite correct. The big bang is a singularity of general relativity (GR). There is agreement that singularities are meaningless, and that they show only that the theory which predicts them fails in some environment of it.
Thus, current theory fails (becomes incorrect) already some time after the big bang itself, and makes no prediction at all for the time before it.
Everything which goes beyond this is speculation.
There are alternative theories of gravity without a big bang singularity, with a big bounce instead of a big bang.
Mass can be created, and is often in reactions we can observe in accelerators.
Not quite correct. The big bang is a singularity of general relativity (GR). There is agreement that singularities are meaningless, and that they show only that the theory which predicts them fails in some environment of it.
Thus, current theory fails (becomes incorrect) already some time after the big bang itself, and makes no prediction at all for the time before it.
Everything which goes beyond this is speculation.
There are alternative theories of gravity without a big bang singularity, with a big bounce instead of a big bang.
QUOTE
Assumptions: the Universe started , and that mass/energy cannot be destroyed or created .
Mass can be created, and is often in reactions we can observe in accelerators.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.