To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: The Real Origin Of The Universe
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space

mptteam
Infinity

Infinities in Mathematics:

For this let’s consider the number line:

a) Infinity, (∞) = {1, 2, 3, 4…}
cool.gif Infinity, (∞) = {0, 1, 2, 3…}
c) Infinity, (∞) = {… -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 …} = {-∞…,-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 …, ∞}
d) Infinity, (∞) = {1, (1/2), (1/4), (1/8), (1/16), (1/32), (1/64) …}


The sets presented in (a), (cool.gif and (d) are all infinite sets with starting points 1, 0 and 1 respectively. Since, they are infinite they have no middle point or end point, just their starting points and their infinite size. Set © represents an infinite set with no starting point, middle or end point; this is due to the fact that, since, it is infinite in size, if its absolute size is to be divided by 2, to obtain two halves of equal size and less than the size of the whole. The answer obtained from this situation, (∞/2), would indicate that any or all points in the set could be the midpoint of the set; thus, the set contains no midpoint. Additionally, if any point (any real number or otherwise) is chosen at random it can be shown that on either side of this point there would be an infinite set (an infinite set of numbers again any real or otherwise ). Thus, technically the number line has no middle; it has the zero point which is a reference point between the negative and positive sections of the line.

The number line consists of many infinite sets, for example the sets of natural numbers, integers, rational numbers, even numbers, and odd numbers are all infinite in size (where size represents the number of terms present in the set). However, my favorite thing about the number line is the fact that if any two numbers are chosen at random there is an infinite set of rational numbers of various sizes between them. Set (d) from above shows an example of this: it shows one of the sets of an infinite amount of rational number of various size (size indicating their relative distance from the reference point zero) present between zero and +1. That is, this infinite set is present in the range of (+1 ≥ X > 0), where X is an element in the set. Therefore, if the numbers 2 and 3 are selected and a particular rational number between them chosen to be approached but never reached a set with an infinite amount of terms would be obtained similar to the example in set (d). Thus, it can be concluded that between 0 and 1 there is at least one infinite set of rational numbers of various sizes; the same could be said for between 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 1 and 5, 2 and 5, 11 and 12, 12 and 32, and so on. If this is still not clear, let’s say we have the number 1, if it is divided into 4 equal parts, each part would be a quarter with (1/4), (2/4), (3/4) and (4/4) representing the relative distance of each quarter from the zero point. If one of the four parts form above is then divided again into four equal parts and again one of these selected and divided in to four, and so on. This would result in an infinite set with zero as the asymptote; the same could be said if something or a number is continuously divided into say two, three, six or even one hundred equal parts. It should be noted that all the infinities above has the same size (that is, the same number of terms). If the same principles about infinite sets are adopted for the 3-dimensional plane of the X-axis, Y-axis and Z-axis the entire universe can be looked at in a new way.

Real infinities:

Let’s consider for a moment that we had the ability to do what ever we wanted to do, the power to do absolutely any thing. Then, let’s say we used this ability to remove the entire expanding cosmic matter web of the observable universe. The removal of all the cluster and super clusters of galaxies present in it (containing galaxies numbered in the hundreds of billions), all its dark matter, all its stars, all its super massive black holes, every organized body of matter, every unit of mass, every energy emitting body and particle, every electron, proton and neutron, every photon, every neutrino. That is, the removal of every particle that has the ability to absorb or emit any form of energy, the removal of every energy waves and particles of every size and the removal of every /any gravitational source. And let say that an innumerable amount of other universes exist alongside our and we also removed all these universes the instant ours was removed. Subsequent, an Infinite Void would be left or revealed, an infinite region of nothingness, an empty infinite region, space itself would be an infinite void/ vacuum.

This Emptiness/ Infinite Void should not be thought of in terms of when, where, how and why it exist or was created or how and when it will be destroyed, broken down or moved. It should be thought of as a single medium that has always existed and will always exist; and as a medium infinite in size with every meter, kilometer, square meter and cubic kilometer being of the same consistency and being made up of nothing; as this infinite medium would have no mass, no energy and no forces acting within it. That is, in every cubic meter of this Infinite Void only empty space would be present, and would be of the same consistency, and should not be thought of as more empty space being concentrated in one region or area compared to another.

Let’s look at it like this:

The entire Infinite Void could be looked at as consisting of an infinite amount of 1 cubic kilometer cubes, cubes the size of protons, cubes the size of atoms, cubes the size of planets, cubes the size of galaxies or cubes the size of universes made of empty space all of which are exactly alike in consistency. This emptiness could and would only be arranged in one way.

This Infinite Void could be looked at as a set which contains an infinite amount of zeros, this would be a null set and would be the same as a set containing only five zeros.
That is, Infinity, (∞) = {0, 0, 0, 0 …, 0, 0, 0, 0} = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0} = {}
Therefore, for the number of possible arrangements (0!) or zero factorial is used.
For this let’s use the set of five zeros {0, 0, 0, 0, 0} this set contains five repeating element, where all five of the element are exactly alike with no distinctions.
(0!) = N! / R! Where N is the number of terms and R is the number of repeated terms
(0!) = N! ÷ R!
(0!) = 5! / 5!
(0!) = 1

Therefore, there is only 1 way of arranging a set containing nothing or one possible arrangement for such a set. Therefore, in terms of the Infinite Void or nothingness of space being discussed, if a region of emptiness 1 cubic kilometer in size is say 1 light year away from another region of emptiness also 1 cubic kilometer in size, the first region can not be moved to replace the second one. That is the nothingness of space, which is empty or vacant of all matter, energy and forces, does not move or change; that is, in the Infinite Void, regions next to one another do not move to replace each other. Thus, it can be concluded that the entire infinite and empty medium is perfectly still or motionless (stationary or not flowing) however, even in this context time would still be moving.

The Infinite Void would have no middle point (no region in it / neither in space nor in time to call its middle); it would have no shape as it has no end points (that is, no physical or absolute point when or where this nothingness or emptiness ends in physical space or in time). Thus, there could be no traveling around the Void or traveling form one end of the Void to the next. It would only contain reference point that is one region would be a relative distance away from another region in space and also in time. That is, one region the size of earth could be said to be 1000 kilometers away from another region the size of Jupiter. These principles, above, were adopted from those which apply to infinities on the number line. Thus, within the single infinite medium called the Infinite Void, on any given side of any given region of any given size, within the Void, there is an infinite amount of other regions, infinite in number and size (that is an infinite amount of infinitely large and infinitely small regions). This not only applies to physical regions in space but it also applies to time span of the Infinite Void; as there would be an infinite amount of infinitely large and infinitely small regions or units of time on either side of any given single point or unit of time in the past, present and future. Since, one region or point in time could or would be Pico seconds, Nanoseconds, microseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, or even millions of billions of billions of billions of years away form another point in time, in any given direction (either in the past or in the future). The sentence that preceded this one, shows that regions or points in time are all relative to one other point in time; thus, all points in time, an infinite amount of them in the past or in the future, are relative to one point. Which is the reference point for time, and this point is exactly now, no wait it is exactly now, now, now, no wait a second, exactly now, no exactly this instant. Ok, from the illustration above it can be seen or it could be concluded that the reference point is the present (what we refer to or look at as now), and this reference point is not stationary, in fact it is motion or mobile. That is, 9 billionth of a Pico second, 2 Pico seconds, 6 Nanoseconds, 100 microseconds, 15 seconds, 3 minutes, 10 hours, 15 days, or even 6000 million billion trillion years from now will eventually become the present and will remain the present only for an instant. Since, if any point from now or from the present is consider to be in the future, it will remain or continued to be looked at as the future, until the instant it becomes the present, after which it will become the past. That is, a minute from now is looked at as the future or being in the future, at exactly one minute from now it will become the present and instantaneously changed in or become the past.

In terms of the consistency of the entire Emptiness or Void, if a region the size of a galaxy is selected and a second region the size of the space between the nucleus of an hydrogen atom and the electron in the lowest energy level (orbital/ shell) of that same hydrogen atom is selected; and the two regions compared they would be of exactly the same consistency of nothingness. Even if this second region is divided into ten parts and each of those into ten parts and each of those into ten parts, and so on in an infinite sequence or infinite amount of times, each of these infinite amounts of small regions of emptiness would be of exactly same consistency as the region the size of a galaxy.

Now that the Infinite Void or infinite region of nothingness has being carefully explained we will again use our ability, to do what ever we want, to instantaneously bring back all the matter and energy back into our universe and reorganized all this matter and energy back on or within the medium , the Infinite Void, which contains it. And in so doing bring back our cosmic matter web and all the other bubbles of universes, if any exists, that we might have move.

Now that the existence of the Infinite Void has been established, the question of the Big Bang and the creation of our universe can be brought into the equation, with a new way of looking at this entire situation. The Infinite Void would have always exist, infinite in its size and time scale, and for a very long time this medium would have contained nothing (would be absolute emptiness) but would have always had the ability to allow matter and energy to exist and organized itself within it. Now some 13 billion years ago, at the instant just before the Big Bang, this region where our universe is now currently located, would have been a part of the Infinite Void and would have contain no matter and energy of any form, size or intensity. However, in one instant at a single point (that is, at a single point in time and in space) all this would change; as from a single point all the matter and energy needed to create an entire universe would be spilled out into this particular region of the infinite medium. The particles, energy and forces from the Big Bang would be forced outwards in all directions away from this point of origination, like a rapidly expanding and very energetic bubble. Now the question could be ask was the only point in this infinite medium (the only location or region in this infinite space and in the infinite time span of the Infinite Void) where such a massive burst of energy could occur and why would this be the only location, point or region chosen for this occurrence? And derived from that question, another hypothetical question could be asked, did some 50 thousand million billion years ago in a region or at a single point some 9 hundred thousand million billion trillion light years away from our universe (or away from the point of origination of our universe) did a similar burst spill out another large quantity of energy into that particular region of the infinite medium to create another universe? For the above questions, don’t view the very large time span and distances as suspicious or speculative as when working with infinity those large values are considered to be comparatively small.
mptteam
The origination of our universe and other universes

Extracted from the above post

Now that the existence of the Infinite Void has been established, the question of the Big Bang and the creation of our universe can be brought into the equation, with a new way of looking at this entire situation. The Infinite Void would have always exist, infinite in its size and time scale, and for a very long time this medium would have contained nothing (would be absolute emptiness) but would have always had the ability to allow matter and energy to exist and organized itself within it. Now some 13 billion years ago, at the instant just before the Big Bang, this region where our universe is now currently located, would have been a part of the Infinite Void and would have contain no matter and energy of any form, size or intensity. However, in one instant at a single point (that is, at a single point in time and in space) all this would change; as from a single point all the matter and energy needed to create an entire universe would be spilled out into this particular region of the infinite medium. The particles, energy and forces from the Big Bang would be forced outwards in all directions away from this point of origination, like a rapidly expanding and very energetic bubble. Now the question could be ask was the only point in this infinite medium (the only location or region in this infinite space and in the infinite time span of the Infinite Void) where such a massive burst of energy could occur and why would this be the only location, point or region chosen for this occurrence? And derived from that question, another hypothetical question could be asked, did some 50 thousand million billion years ago in a region or at a single point some 9 hundred thousand million billion trillion light years away from our universe (or away from the point of origination of our universe) did a similar burst spill out another large quantity of energy into that particular region of the infinite medium to create another universe? For the above questions, don’t view the very large time span and distances as suspicious or speculative as when working with infinity those large values are considered to be comparatively small.


Gorgeous
QUOTE
Now that the existence of the Infinite Void has been established


It hasn't. There is no such thing.



g.
mptteam

Let assume that there is no such thing.

Where would you say our universe is?

Where does our universe exist?

Where is its positioned or located in space?

What did the Big Bang release all its energy into?

Did the Big Bang have a location?




For you I will gladly define this void or empty space.

Although, I will just be repeating myself; since, the void has already being defined.

The VOID or empty space is just this:

It is just regions of space or in the vacuum of space where is absolutely no form of energy whatsoever. No particles, no waves, no matter, nothing with mass, nothing with
any form of vibrational or rotational energy, nothing that absorbs or emits energy of any
form existing in it, present in it, traveling through it or moving in it.

It is just empty space

Could a region of absolute emptiness, a nothingness, exist.


IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT BEFORE THE BIG BAND, THERE WAS JUST EMPTINESS, A REGION VACANT ALL FORMS OF ENERGY

This empty region was then given or presented with energy of all forms by the big bang.


kjw
QUOTE
mptteam Posted: Today at 6:04 AM IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT BEFORE THE BIG BAND, THERE WAS JUST EMPTINESS, A REGION VACANT ALL FORMS OF ENERGY
you going to have to rethink this. the big bang theory clearly states that space and time did not exist befor the big bang. to say that the big bang occured within a pre-existing emptiness means that space already existed, and this is not what the big bang states.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
mptteam Posted: Today at 6:04 AM IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT BEFORE THE BIG BAND, THERE WAS JUST EMPTINESS, A REGION VACANT ALL FORMS OF ENERGY
you going to have to rethink this. the big bang theory clearly states that space and time did not exist befor the big bang. to say that the big bang occured within a pre-existing emptiness means that space already existed, and this is not what the big bang states.

Where would you say our universe is?

Where does our universe exist?

Where is its positioned or located in space?

What did the Big Bang release all its energy into?

Did the Big Bang have a location?
these questions are not at all difficult to understand if you consider that space was created during the big bang

Where would you say our universe is? - it is not located in a pre-exisiting emptiness, it is everywhere ie it is not possible to travel outside the universe, because if you did, you would still be in the universe.
Where does our universe exist? - by definition, all that exists is a part of the universe
Where is its positioned or located in space? - space is apart of the universe, the universe is not located in pre-exsiting space
What did the Big Bang release all its energy into? - expanding space
Did the Big Bang have a location? - no. for there was no location befor the big bang in which the big bang could occur.
iseason
Replying to having removed all descriptive forms of energy and then USING descriptive explanations of a time lime to complete it.

Can't work. Time measures space VIA motion and energy. take away either energy , Motion, and replacing it a term"infinite void" , well it's just words and numbers. kilometers were removed. So were Cubes. So was anything that could be reasonably used for description.
Even when I have proposed that a singular particle was responsible, I enabled the barest minimum interactive amount. Voids in what?There is no variation. No relativity. Your space could be an inch . Sorry, it can't, because you have nothing an inch long to compare it to.
Having said all that, I'm impressed with the conviction in the writing. Lots of posters have given me a hard time for things I have posted. Doesn't stop the searching and learning....Cheers

Iseason
Harry Costas
G'day

In my opinion the Big Bang is based on ad hoc ideas and on very weak fundations. Saying that it is important to understand the theory behind the Big Bang.

WMAP Big Bang Cosmology
Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

QUOTE
The Big Bang model of cosmology rests on two key ideas that date back to the early 20th century: General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle. By assuming that the matter in the universe is distributed uniformly on the largest scales, one can use General Relativity to compute the corresponding gravitational effects of that matter. Since gravity is a property of space-time in General Relativity, this is equivalent to computing the dynamics of space-time itself.



Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Big Bang model of cosmology rests on two key ideas that date back to the early 20th century: General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle. By assuming that the matter in the universe is distributed uniformly on the largest scales, one can use General Relativity to compute the corresponding gravitational effects of that matter. Since gravity is a property of space-time in General Relativity, this is equivalent to computing the dynamics of space-time itself.



Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.


QUOTE
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question
.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question
.

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.
To this point, the only assumption we have made about the universe is that its matter is distributed homogeneously and isotropically on large scales. There are a number of free parameters in this family of Big Bang models that must be fixed by observations of our universe. The most important ones are: the geometry of the universe (open, flat or closed); the present expansion rate (the Hubble constant); the overall course of expansion, past and future, which is determined by the fractional density of the different types of matter in the universe. Note that the present age of the universe follows from the expansion history and present expansion rate.
As noted above, the geometry and evolution of the universe are determined by the fractional contribution of various types of matter. Since both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists classify types of matter by its "equation of state" the relationship between its pressure and energy density. The basic classification scheme is:


QUOTE
Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Radiation: composed of massless or nearly massless particles that move at the speed of light. Known examples include photons (light) and neutrinos. This form of matter is characterized by having a large positive pressure.


Baryonic matter: this is "ordinary matter" composed primarily of protons, neutrons and electrons. This form of matter has essentially no pressure of cosmological importance
.

QUOTE
Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Dark matter: this generally refers to "exotic" non-baryonic matter that interacts only weakly with ordinary matter. While no such matter has ever been directly observed in the laboratory, its existence has long been suspected for reasons discussed in a subsequent page. This form of matter also has no cosmologically significant pressure.


Dark energy: this is a truly bizarre form of matter, or perhaps a property of the vacuum itself, that is characterized by a large, negative pressure. This is the only form of matter that can cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate, or speed up.


kjw
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted on Yesterday at 6:41 PM In my opinion the Big Bang is based on ad hoc ideas and on very weak fundations.

good link http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html you should of navigated to big bang tests (left hand menu)

Tests of Big Bang Cosmology: The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

summary of your points:

your opinion does not over rule prediction and observation.

there are no ad hoc ideas, the idea of the big bang stemmed from observation.

there are no weak foundations. the foundations are supported by observation.

Gorgeous
QUOTE (kjw+Jun 2 2008, 09:40 PM)


there are no weak foundations. the foundations are supported by observation.

But not by logic.

We already know that what we 'see' is not necessarily how things really are. We have evolved to see in terms of finiteness, necessarily, to survive the evolutionary 'journey' to this point of 'sentient existence'. This makes us rather blind to any potential Infiniteness, which we have a tough time trying to describe even though we have intuition of it.


There can be no 'spontaneous arising' of Space from any 'void'. This is absolutely no different from saying 'God did it'. Although, to be fair to the original poster, he did mention that a 'Big BanD' may be responsible...so maybe 'Glenn Miller did it' would be more appropriate? (Please note~ smile.gif ~that anyone serious about the kinds of topics being discussed is usually a person of quite some extreme accuracy, recognising as they do, the importance of such work...)



Space has always existed. It is 'what exists', and thus exists 'Infinitely' or 'Eternally'. Perhaps someone would like to explain why this is NOT a far more plausible explanation than all of the 'spontaneous magic' theories of the moment?

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology-hu...th-distance.htm

I do hope that Real scientists try to take this on board before the 'politico/religionists' get a chance to abuse it...





g.
mptteam
Ok, mptteam here

This is basically what I am saying

Various scientific observations have shown that the universe has expanded from an almost infinitesimally point with a tremendous amount of energy to create our universe in its current state and size. This was the Big Bang. Now since our universe has expanded and is still expanding; it could be implied that it is expanding to new locations. That its peripheral points are expanding to new locations, new regions.

But one question is new regions of what?

So would these new locations have always existed or were they created in the big bang. What would be the characteristics of the new, previously untouched, regions? Would these regions be pure space, part of a void of emptiness or just the vacuum of space?


Thus my question is what exists beyond the boundaries of our observable universe?

And obviously, something or some medium does exist beyond these boundaries because if it did not then the universe would not be expanding into it or towards it.

Unless you think that time and space were created during the big bang; which would mean that since the universe is currently expanding; then simultaneously in the peripheral regions of the universe, time and space are currently be created, to make new regions or locations in space and time for the universe to expand into, towards, through or along.
kjw
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Today at 8:57 AM There can be no 'spontaneous arising' of Space from any 'void'.
and your argument for this is
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Today at 8:57 AM There can be no 'spontaneous arising' of Space from any 'void'.
and your argument for this is
Space has always existed. It is 'what exists', and thus exists 'Infinitely' or 'Eternally'.
with this in mind you then state that the big bang
QUOTE
is absolutely no different from saying 'God did it'.
well to me saying that space has always existed is more like saying god did it. WSM theory does not explain how space came into existence, it states space has always existed. that reeks of "god did it". WSM theory does not attempt to explain how space was created, it dictates that everything was created from a pre-existing thing. alarm bells of "god did it".

WSM is not an explanation, it is a failure to explain.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
is absolutely no different from saying 'God did it'.
well to me saying that space has always existed is more like saying god did it. WSM theory does not explain how space came into existence, it states space has always existed. that reeks of "god did it". WSM theory does not attempt to explain how space was created, it dictates that everything was created from a pre-existing thing. alarm bells of "god did it".

WSM is not an explanation, it is a failure to explain.

Perhaps someone would like to explain why this is NOT a far more plausible explanation than all of the 'spontaneous magic' theories of the moment?
space is an emergent property of objects. create objects, create space. space does not require to be created in which then objects can be created on. if you remove all objects from the universe, empty space does not remain. let go of absolute space.

Harry Costas
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Kjw said

QUOTE
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology: The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:


They are not observation, they are opinions.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology: The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:


They are not observation, they are opinions.

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.


Observations do not show the galaxies expanding from each other. They show movement towards each other. We see this is clusters of galaxies and collisions. You can google for the info.


QUOTE
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.


It is general info that the elements from H to Fe are formed within the solar envelope of stars and that heavier element are formed which are unstable and break down to Fe. But during a supernova these heavier elements remain stable. Again you can google for this general info.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.


It is general info that the elements from H to Fe are formed within the solar envelope of stars and that heavier element are formed which are unstable and break down to Fe. But during a supernova these heavier elements remain stable. Again you can google for this general info.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.


The evidence for CMB has been disputed due to the fact that it failed the shaow test. Again you can google for the info.


QUOTE
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.


If I was you I would do a bit more research on the evidence. I have noted my opinions in several posts.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.


If I was you I would do a bit more research on the evidence. I have noted my opinions in several posts.


your opinion does not over rule prediction and observation.


Science method and observations over rule.

QUOTE
there are no ad hoc ideas, the idea of the big bang stemmed from observation.


I would ask you to study the Big Bang with an open mind and consider science first rather than being right with your opinion.

My opinion is not important without science back up.

================================================
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
there are no ad hoc ideas, the idea of the big bang stemmed from observation.


I would ask you to study the Big Bang with an open mind and consider science first rather than being right with your opinion.

My opinion is not important without science back up.

================================================
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe
.

============================================

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

============================================

Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm

QUOTE
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.

A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.


===============================================

Feb 14, 2005
Big Bang Distortions
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You’d never know it from official news releases, but the Big Bang is broken and can’t be fixed.

A concession speech may be unlikely in 2005, but the progressive decline of one of the twentieth century’s most popular theories now seems inescapable. The Big Bang has lost its theoretical foundation, which was the Doppler interpretation of redshift (linking redshift to the stretching of light wavelengths as objects move away from us). It is now known that, while almost all observed galaxies are redshifted, the Doppler interpretation of this shift does not provide a reliable measure of velocity or (indirectly) of distance. Quasars and galaxies of different redshift stand in physical proximity to each other and are observed to be connected by filaments of matter. Quasars, whose high redshift would place them at the outer edges of the visible universe, are in fact physically and energetically linked to nearby low-redshift active galaxies.


===============================================

Feb 14, 2005
Big Bang Distortions
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm

Halton Arp's intrinsic redshift observations contradict the big bang's assumption that redshift is a measure of distance (and thus of age; the higher the redshift, the farther away  from us and the closer to the beginning of the universe). Can this contradiction be tested? Three clues should be obvious: if redshift is distorting distance, then size, energy and distribution will all be systematically out of proportion as well
.

===============================================

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html

QUOTE
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."


A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.


QUOTE
"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.


============================================
Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/...lletcluster.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.


============================================
Sep 04, 2006
Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/...lletcluster.htm

Optical and x-ray images of the galaxy cluster named 1E0657-56 have provided direct proof that these clumps of disturbed galaxies are small, faint, and nearby. These and many similar observations directly contradict the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang, which place the objects far away.

What we have stated in the headline and abstract above is, of course, an interpretation, not a fact. But the distinction between interpretation and fact has become so muddled in the sciences that we felt obliged to underscore the point rhetorically. Unbending theoretical assumptions have wrought havoc on popular astronomy, which could not recognize our interpretation of the Bullet Cluster based on the known electrical behavior of plasma.

According to the authors of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website, the galactic cluster imaged above "was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang." Though the announcement by the Chandra team never uses the words "theory," "hypothesis," or "interpretation," its every sentence rests on a jumble of assumptions, from supposed galactic "collisions" to wildly conjectural "gravitational lensing," all wrapped around the discredited notion that redshift is a reliable measure of velocity and distance. The capper is the announcement appearing in numerous scientific media that the image "proves the existence of dark matter."


==============================================

Two world systems revisited: A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15526487


Auteur(s) / Author(s)
LERNER Eric J. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, ETATS-UNIS

QUOTE
Résumé / Abstract
Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a radio fog of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.


=================================================

Sep 14, 2004
Death Star
The Galaxy that Killed the Big Bang
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040914star.htm

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Résumé / Abstract
Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a radio fog of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.


=================================================

Sep 14, 2004
Death Star
The Galaxy that Killed the Big Bang
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040914star.htm

    For 80 years cosmology has been cascading down a riverbed carved through disciplines and institutions, careers, funding and journals.  It began with an assumption now proven false by the image above, and it must begin again from its source in empiricism and flow in another direction.  All that's counted as known -- the Big Bang, the expanding universe, the structure of the cosmos--must be left as a dry stream in history books.


==============================================

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes


http://metaresearch.org/publications/bulle...Mrb06cp8.asp#T1

QUOTE
As this issue was going to press in early October, the Nobel Prizes for 2006 were announced. The prize in physics was awarded to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for the discovery of the blackbody character of the microwave radiation in space with the COBE satellite. The significance of this finding, according to the citation, read as follows:

“The COBE results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE. These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science.”


Our regular members and readers will recall that the simplest explanation of the microwave radiation is the “temperature of space”, as correctly calculated by Eddington in 1926 and verified with greater accuracy by later authors: 2.8°K. This is the minimum temperature that anything bathed in the radiation of distant starlight can reach. No Big Bang proponent ever came close to predicting the correct temperature of this radiation, its dipolar asymmetry, or the tiny size of its fluctuations.


=============================================

Feb 15, 2005
Temperature of Space
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/...15spacetemp.htm


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As this issue was going to press in early October, the Nobel Prizes for 2006 were announced. The prize in physics was awarded to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for the discovery of the blackbody character of the microwave radiation in space with the COBE satellite. The significance of this finding, according to the citation, read as follows:

“The COBE results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE. These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science.”


Our regular members and readers will recall that the simplest explanation of the microwave radiation is the “temperature of space”, as correctly calculated by Eddington in 1926 and verified with greater accuracy by later authors: 2.8°K. This is the minimum temperature that anything bathed in the radiation of distant starlight can reach. No Big Bang proponent ever came close to predicting the correct temperature of this radiation, its dipolar asymmetry, or the tiny size of its fluctuations.


=============================================

Feb 15, 2005
Temperature of Space
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/...15spacetemp.htm


The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is popularly believed to prove the Big Bang. That proof is spot on—if you allow a big enough spot. One of the first predictions was that it would indicate a "temperature of space" of 5 Kelvin (5K). That prediction was revised upward until it reached 50K shortly before the CMBR was discovered. When the discovery measured it to be only 2.7K, the Big Bang proponents claimed it and ignored the size of the spot required to cover the gap.

They also ignored a long history of other predictions from other theories that required much tinier spots. In 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Regener predicted 2.8 in 1933.

The first astronomer to collect observations from which the temperature of space could be calculated was Andrew McKellar. In 1941 he announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules. But World War II occupied everyone's attention and his paper was ignored.


=============================================

Aug 23, 2006
The “Science” of the Big Bang
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/...bangscience.htm

QUOTE
Astronomer Halton Arp has called it “science by news release,” and some of the most disturbing examples come from statements “confirming” the validity of the Big Bang.

Many critics of modern theories in the sciences have noticed that science editors (newspaper, magazine, and television) appear to have lost the ability to separate fact from theory. When discussing the trademarks of popular cosmology, such as the Big Bang, the science media incessantly report that new discoveries confirm them—even when such reports are far from the truth.

One reason for this pattern is simply the momentum of archaic beliefs. But it is also apparent that good news is essential to the funding of exotic projects.

At the heart of conventional cosmology lies the dogma of an electrically neutral universe governed by gravity alone. Without the benefit of this dogma, the Big Bang hypothesis could never have achieved its present prominence. And it is here that we see most clearly how, under the necessities of funding, scientists are eager to “confirm” a theory that, according to many critics, has already failed. Editors, in turn, desiring to retain valued relationships with the spokesmen for established science, only rarely dig deeper than the latest news release delivered to them.



=================================================
THE TEN BIG QUESTIONS

Big Bang Theory
http://www.123infinity.com/big_bang_theory.html

=================================================

Non expanding universe
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+unive...g/0/1/0/all/0/1

=================================================

Cosmology in 2007: A Year-End Survey
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm

If you have time read through these papers.
=================================================


Gorgeous
QUOTE (kjw+Jun 3 2008, 09:33 AM)
and your argument for this is
with this in mind you then state that the big bang
well to me saying that space has always existed is more like saying god did it. WSM theory does not explain how space came into existence, it states space has always existed. that reeks of "god did it". WSM theory does not attempt to explain how space was created, it dictates that everything was created from a pre-existing thing. alarm bells of "god did it".

WSM is not an explanation, it is a failure to explain.

space is an emergent property of objects. create objects, create space. space does not require to be created in which then objects can be created on. if you remove all objects from the universe, empty space does not remain. let go of absolute space.

Space does not 'come into existence', as it is what exists, and always has done, always will do. If you are looking for a 'creation point myth' you will have to invent one...like a 'big bang', for example.

So, there is no 'explanation' for how Space came into existence and never will be. So, there it is...no 'god' needed to do anything whatsoever.... Got it? No? Why not?



g.
kjw
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Today at 12:19 AM Space does not 'come into existence', as it is what exists, and always has done, always will do.
same reasoning as "god did it" ie there is an ultimate, eternal thing that creates all other things

but what is space if you remove all objects from it? how do can you physically describe space without the use of objects? what your view means is similar in saying that time exists without events. in your empty space how do you measure time ?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Today at 12:19 AM Space does not 'come into existence', as it is what exists, and always has done, always will do.
same reasoning as "god did it" ie there is an ultimate, eternal thing that creates all other things

but what is space if you remove all objects from it? how do can you physically describe space without the use of objects? what your view means is similar in saying that time exists without events. in your empty space how do you measure time ?

So, there is no 'explanation' for how Space came into existence and never will be.
there certainly is and its call relational theory what is your grief with this idea?

QUOTE
So, there it is...no 'god' needed to do anything whatsoever....
but there is a substitute ie eternal empty space

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So, there it is...no 'god' needed to do anything whatsoever....
but there is a substitute ie eternal empty space

Got it? No? Why not
the idea of absolute anything is not a favorite of mine, and the basis of this is what relational theory states. why do you not get it? i do not mind helping you understand it
Gorgeous
QUOTE (kjw+Jun 3 2008, 09:43 PM)
same reasoning as "god did it" ie there is an ultimate, eternal thing that creates all other things

but what is space if you remove all objects from it? how do can you physically describe space without the use of objects? what your view means is similar in saying that time exists without events. in your empty space how do you measure time ?

there certainly is and its call relational theory what is your grief with this idea?

but there is a substitute ie eternal empty space

the idea of absolute anything is not a favorite of mine, and the basis of this is what relational theory states. why do you not get it?  i do not mind helping you understand it

No. You are not understanding the WSM theory, so you assume wrongly ideas concerning 'empty' Space.

'Emptiness' does not exist. It is a term we have erroneously attributed, based on our 'finite' misconceptions. Nothing 'wrong' with this. We are in the process of evolving into a more accurate understanding of how Reality is able to do the things it does, that is all.

You cannot 'remove all objects from Space'. All 'objects' are also Space, condensed from wave~form into the 'matter' we observe. The inherent wave-form we do not observe, only but as an occasional 'effect'; 'sound', 'wind', other forms of radiation, etc...


Your link causes me no 'grief' whatsoever. smile.gif Sorry to disappoint you!

Oh, and by the way, we are not discussing 'favourites' of anyone's. Infinite Space is necessarily deduced ~ as per the accepted scientific method.






g.
Harry Costas
G'day from the land of ozzzz

Why is that people want something to be created from nothing?

If it cannot be explained, than they bring God into it.

"MAN" has this thing about a START and an END.

In a way we do have that in the universe, its called a recycling process, that we can observe and study.

As for the term real origins of the universe, I think we are tooooooooo early to have enough info to say what is REAL.
kjw
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 10:02 AM They are not observation, they are opinions.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. observation

These results indicate that the yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of ordinary matter, above a certain threshold. We generically expect about 24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another major triumph for the Big Bang theory. observation

This figure shows the prediction of the Big Bang theory for the energy spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation compared to the observed energy spectrum. The FIRAS experiment measured the spectrum at 34 equally spaced points along the blackbody curve. The error bars on the data points are so small that they can not be seen under the predicted curve in the figure! There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum. The accurate measurement of its shape was another important test of the Big Bang theory. observation

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Harry Costas Posted: Yesterday at 10:02 AM They are not observation, they are opinions.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. observation

These results indicate that the yield of helium is relatively insensitive to the abundance of ordinary matter, above a certain threshold. We generically expect about 24% of the ordinary matter in the universe to be helium produced in the Big Bang. This is in very good agreement with observations and is another major triumph for the Big Bang theory. observation

This figure shows the prediction of the Big Bang theory for the energy spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation compared to the observed energy spectrum. The FIRAS experiment measured the spectrum at 34 equally spaced points along the blackbody curve. The error bars on the data points are so small that they can not be seen under the predicted curve in the figure! There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum. The accurate measurement of its shape was another important test of the Big Bang theory. observation

Observations do not show the galaxies expanding from each other. They show movement towards each other. We see this is clusters of galaxies and collisions. You can google for the info.
poor attempt at attempting to steer the discussion off course. while your statement is true it has nothing to do with expanding universe. observations of clusters of galaxies do not show the individual galaxies expanding from each other because they are clusters and are by definition gravitationally bound. the cluster can certainly be expanding away from the milky way http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-3881/116/2/584

QUOTE
It is general info that the elements from H to Fe are formed within the solar envelope of stars and that heavier element are formed which are unstable and break down to Fe. But during a supernova these heavier elements remain stable. Again you can google for this general info.
and where did hydrogen originally come from ?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
It is general info that the elements from H to Fe are formed within the solar envelope of stars and that heavier element are formed which are unstable and break down to Fe. But during a supernova these heavier elements remain stable. Again you can google for this general info.
and where did hydrogen originally come from ?

The evidence for CMB has been disputed due to the fact that it failed the shaow test. Again you can google for the info.
i could not find this dispute. could you please link it

QUOTE
that is like saying because i can see the moon through a window the moon must be in the window. how have you determined that it is not a distant quasar that is seen through the galaxy? are you claiming that it is impossible for a much further quasar to be seen through the disk of a spiral galaxy ie spiral galaxies are completely opaque?

coincidental alignments are also commonly used as poor arguements http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Oct 18, 2004
Fingers of God
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...fingers-god.htm
that is like saying because i can see the moon through a window the moon must be in the window. how have you determined that it is not a distant quasar that is seen through the galaxy? are you claiming that it is impossible for a much further quasar to be seen through the disk of a spiral galaxy ie spiral galaxies are completely opaque?

coincidental alignments are also commonly used as poor arguements http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
(1)Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models. um where does that leave GR and its non static model
(2)The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. space has no attribute other than its dimensions and its shape. how can space have a temperature laugh.gif objects have temperature

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. but they do work

QUOTE
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
same as Oct 18, 2004 Fingers of God

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Dec 27, 2004
Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04...ion-bigbang.htm
same as Oct 18, 2004 Fingers of God

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html
i have not read the journal entry. but the newspaper article does not provide a definitive answer.

QUOTE
THE TEN BIG QUESTIONS

Big Bang Theory
http://www.123infinity.com/big_bang_theory.html

1. There was "nothing". 2. "Bang". 3. There was everything. yep that is what the observational evidence suggests.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
THE TEN BIG QUESTIONS

Big Bang Theory
http://www.123infinity.com/big_bang_theory.html

1. There was "nothing". 2. "Bang". 3. There was everything. yep that is what the observational evidence suggests.

Cosmology in 2007: A Year-End Survey
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2007_year_end.htm
inflation is a work in progress and will either survive or be discredited during the development of other theories

QUOTE
Non expanding universe
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+unive...g/0/1/0/all/0/1

If you have time read through these papers.
your search criteria all:(universe AND (non AND expanding)) has not picked up the description you intended ie non-linear, non-trivial were returned hits laugh.gif

you read all 25 articles and not notice this?

i think you did not read any of these. can you provide one paper from arxiv.org that provides evidence against the big bang theory. if you had time you should of read them



kjw
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Yesterday at 8:43 AM No. You are not understanding the WSM theory, so you assume wrongly ideas concerning 'empty' Space.
okay i do not understand WSM and assume wrongly ideas of empty space. then i need your help in explaining it.

From WSM

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Yesterday at 8:43 AM No. You are not understanding the WSM theory, so you assume wrongly ideas concerning 'empty' Space.
okay i do not understand WSM and assume wrongly ideas of empty space. then i need your help in explaining it.

From WSM

From this most simple foundation of Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another substance) and continuous (not made of parts).
where has this substance been detected? what is this substance? please help me understand
QUOTE
The Wave Structure of Matter is founded on one thing, Space, existing as a wave medium.
what is this medium made of? is this medium the same stuff as space? please help me understand

then on the same page it quotes einstein

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Wave Structure of Matter is founded on one thing, Space, existing as a wave medium.
what is this medium made of? is this medium the same stuff as space? please help me understand

then on the same page it quotes einstein

When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.
to me that means einstein thinks you can not have time, space and gravitation without matter. but WSM states space is not bounded by another substance, in this case matter.
QUOTE
You cannot 'remove all objects from Space'. All 'objects' are also Space, condensed from wave~form into the 'matter' we observe. The inherent wave-form we do not observe, only but as an occasional 'effect'; 'sound', 'wind', other forms of radiation, etc...
but WSM said
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You cannot 'remove all objects from Space'. All 'objects' are also Space, condensed from wave~form into the 'matter' we observe. The inherent wave-form we do not observe, only but as an occasional 'effect'; 'sound', 'wind', other forms of radiation, etc...
but WSM saidFrom this most simple foundation of Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another substance) and continuous (not made of parts).


see where my confusion over WSM comes from. it contradicts itself. this contradiction gives supporters of WSM the maneuverability to counter arguments, by not having a internally coherent line of logic. WSM is devoid of any thing substantial.

WSM is itself is a collection of non-consistent statements, which in turn bestows its own confusion into the reader.
orestis
g

In your posts you have mentioned WSM a few times. I went looking for it, found the sites dedicated to the subject, then went looking for independent sites that also talk about it.

I found this in natscience.com while searching for Milo Wolff:

"Interesting quote from Milo wolff at the WSM discussion group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wave-Structure-Matter/

Milo Wolff wrote:

Hi WSM Members,
May I comment on the difficult situation described above? First, I
would like to say that learning and advancing the Wave Structure of
Matter is a once-in-a-life-time opportunity. This is because WSM is
the first true knowledge of the basic behavior of nature that created
the Universe, galaxies, Suns, planets, and we humans on Planet Earth.
WSM is indeed the 'Theory of Everything' if you like.

The opportunities offered to those curious persons who cannot wait for
someone else, are many and varied. What do you want? Power? success
in science? Money $$$$? or Fame? They are all there. For example, here
is the true success story of Prof Carver Mead (EE) at CalTech.

He was not satisfied with the magnetic induction equation of Maxwell
and classic physics - It gives the wrong answers in micro-chips. He
used experimental data at low-temperature of conducting loops together
with the knowledge that electrons were 100% wave structures (There are
no discrete particles). He used the magnetic vector potential A
(deriveable from the WSM) to find the correct magnetic behavior of
chip conductors. This was worth a lot of money to Intel Corp who
poured $$$$ into his academic chair at CalTech. In 2002 he wrote a
small book on this and won a $500K prize from MIT! MIT Press
published his book, "Collective Electrodynamics" available at: "


I tried to find it at the yahoo site mentioned but there were 8,593 posts.

Since you have argued for WSM would you tell me if this is a true quote from Milo Wolff or a smear that someone started.












Gorgeous
QUOTE
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Yesterday at 8:43 AM No. You are not understanding the WSM theory, so you assume wrongly ideas concerning 'empty' Space.
okay i do not understand WSM and assume wrongly ideas of empty space. then i need your help in explaining it. - Firstly, I have doubts about whether you actually want to understand it. Your closing statement is another condemnation before you have even given it a chance. This is not conducive to the act of attempting to learn about something new, and is certainly not the true scientific approach.

From WSM

QUOTE
From this most simple foundation of Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another substance) and continuous (not made of parts).
where has this substance been detected? what is this substance? please help me understand - Again, you can only help yourself understand if it is your honest intention to do some understanding. Just prtetending that you want to is not the act of understanding. A sensible fellow like you can surely see that your answer has already been given? All things are 'Space', therefore it is 'detectable' everywhere.
QUOTE
The Wave Structure of Matter is founded on one thing, Space, existing as a wave medium.
what is this medium made of? is this medium the same stuff as space? please help me understand - Yes, the 'medium' and the Space are not separate things.

then on the same page it quotes einstein

QUOTE
When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.
to me that means einstein thinks you can not have time, space and gravitation without matter. but WSM states space is not bounded by another substance, in this case matter. - Read again, as the Einstein quote and the WSM are not in disagreement. Your attempt to drive a wedge between the two is a failure.
QUOTE
You cannot 'remove all objects from Space'. All 'objects' are also Space, condensed from wave~form into the 'matter' we observe. The inherent wave-form we do not observe, only but as an occasional 'effect'; 'sound', 'wind', other forms of radiation, etc...
but WSM said
QUOTE
From this most simple foundation of Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another substance) and continuous (not made of parts). - Again, there is no disgreement. The 'parts' referred to by myself are the finite appearances of 'matter' that we observe. If you are serious about trying to understand WSM you will be spending quite a bit of time at the site learning from its extensive pages. My interpretation is exactly that, and my attempts at communication are to try to help people see a new thing from their old perspectives, thus we concern ourselves with 'matter' and other conducive terminology.


see where my confusion over WSM comes from. - I do. it contradicts itself. - No, it does not. It is the current beliefs of 'mainstream' physics that contradicts itself, and anyone who supports this will also be in automatic contradiction.  this contradiction gives supporters of WSM the maneuverability to counter arguments, by not having a internally coherent line of logic. WSM is devoid of any thing substantial. - Now we come to the part where you have already said you do not understand it, but are making erroneous assumptions about it anyway!

WSM is itself is a collection of non-consistent statements, which in turn bestows its own confusion into the reader. - You have already admitted to your own confusion on the matter.





g.
Gorgeous
QUOTE (orestis+Jun 5 2008, 02:43 AM)
g

In your posts you have mentioned WSM a few times. I went looking for it, found the sites dedicated to the subject, then went looking for independent sites that also talk about it.

I found this in natscience.com while searching for Milo Wolff:

  "Interesting quote from Milo wolff at the WSM discussion group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wave-Structure-Matter/

Milo Wolff wrote:

Hi WSM Members,
May I comment on the difficult situation described above? First, I
would like to say that learning and advancing the Wave Structure of
Matter is a once-in-a-life-time opportunity. This is because WSM is
the first true knowledge of the basic behavior of nature that created
the Universe, galaxies, Suns, planets, and we humans on Planet Earth.
WSM is indeed the 'Theory of Everything' if you like.

The opportunities offered to those curious persons who cannot wait for
someone else, are many and varied. What do you want? Power? success
in science? Money $$$$? or Fame? They are all there. For example, here
is the true success story of Prof Carver Mead (EE) at CalTech.

He was not satisfied with the magnetic induction equation of Maxwell
and classic physics - It gives the wrong answers in micro-chips. He
used experimental data at low-temperature of conducting loops together
with the knowledge that electrons were 100% wave structures (There are
no discrete particles). He used the magnetic vector potential A
(deriveable from the WSM) to find the correct magnetic behavior of
chip conductors. This was worth a lot of money to Intel Corp who
poured $$$$ into his academic chair at CalTech. In 2002 he wrote a
small book on this and won a $500K prize from MIT! MIT Press
published his book, "Collective Electrodynamics" available at: "


I tried to find it at the yahoo site mentioned but there were 8,593 posts.

Since you have argued for WSM would you tell me if this is a true quote from Milo Wolff or a smear that someone started.

I have no idea if this is a 'smear', but it is possible that it is not.

This is what I know...Milo Wolff is a mathematician/physicist. When he first worked out the equations he was not so concerned with the philosophy of what he had discovered, but this is why he has subsequently endorsed the logical reasoning of Natural Philosopher Geoff Haselhurst. The implications are very far reaching, and only just beginning to be 'touched on' now. The above quote, if indeed it was a Milo Wolff quote, would have been made a while before he himself had considered the philosophical implications. For a more up-to-date idea of how Milo Wolff's thoughts are progressing, he has just published a new book entitled "Schroedinger's Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws"

The Human race may progress more effectively, once we understand how existence (which is of course also 'ourselves') works. Then, we can make our finite time in existence a worthwhile experience, instead of this downward spiral of greed and blind self-abuse/destruction we are currently witnessing. It will be a struggle, as you may observe from the kinds of responses it receives, but this is to be expected, and those involved at source are fully aware and ready for it.

Essentially, our understanding is far from 'complete'. The WSM offers another way of viewing the Cosmos, which not only agrees with the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have accumulated, but also explains many current 'mysteries' in a more plausible way than the 'mainstream' is able to present. Thus, they simply 'do not like it', and it becomes a political issue instead of the truly scientific one that it should be.

The main thing against it, is that it is not funded (read 'controlled') by any government. I expect this will change also, sadly, but the new understanding of ourselves as parts of a single existence will have consequences beyond most peoples' current abilities to imagine. Now we see where the fear of it comes from.



g
kjw
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Yesterday at 10:15 AM  Firstly, I have doubts about whether you actually want to understand it.
let me assure you i want to understand what WSM has to say. i find a level of satisfaction in understanding what others have to say about space-time and matter-energy
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Yesterday at 10:15 AM  Firstly, I have doubts about whether you actually want to understand it.
let me assure you i want to understand what WSM has to say. i find a level of satisfaction in understanding what others have to say about space-time and matter-energy
Your closing statement is another condemnation before you have even given it a chance. my closing statement is not an expression disapproval of what WSM is saying
because i do not understand what it is saying. my closing statement means that i do not know if my confusion is because of me or WSM
QUOTE
This is not conducive to the act of attempting to learn about something new, and is certainly not the true scientific approach.
then let us discuss the issue
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
This is not conducive to the act of attempting to learn about something new, and is certainly not the true scientific approach.
then let us discuss the issue
All things are 'Space', therefore it is 'detectable' everywhere.

Yes, the 'medium' and the Space are not separate things.
i am unable to connect to meaning of these statements

All things are 'Space', therefore it is 'detectable' everywhere. since all things are space and is detectable, then space, as defined by WSM is the spatial dimensions of objects and not the spatial dimensions that objects reside in ? then the medium would not be the spatial dimensions that objects reside in ?

it appears that i have residual confusion here. what is your reconciliation of these two statements?
QUOTE
Read again, as the Einstein quote and the WSM are not in disagreement.
then i ask again for your help to string the meaning together. as i interpret these statements as

if time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter, means time, space and gravitation are properties of matter and do exist independently of matter.

Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another
substance) and continuous (not made of parts).
means that space is not a property of matter, since space is not bounded by another substance, not created by another substance and not made of parts.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Read again, as the Einstein quote and the WSM are not in disagreement.
then i ask again for your help to string the meaning together. as i interpret these statements as

if time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter, means time, space and gravitation are properties of matter and do exist independently of matter.

Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another
substance) and continuous (not made of parts).
means that space is not a property of matter, since space is not bounded by another substance, not created by another substance and not made of parts.
Your attempt to drive a wedge between the two is a failure.
i was attempting to highlight a difference that i read in the two statements. if it is not there then i need someone who understands the WSM comment to explain
QUOTE
The 'parts' referred to by myself are the finite appearances of 'matter' that we observe. If you are serious about trying to understand WSM you will be spending quite a bit of time at the site learning from its extensive pages.
i have spent much time reading the WSM site, it is rather extensive (space pun intended). the site does make use of some ideas from relational theory
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The 'parts' referred to by myself are the finite appearances of 'matter' that we observe. If you are serious about trying to understand WSM you will be spending quite a bit of time at the site learning from its extensive pages.
i have spent much time reading the WSM site, it is rather extensive (space pun intended). the site does make use of some ideas from relational theory
WSM A particle entirely alone in the universe cannot have dimensions of time, length or mass. 

These measures are undefined without the existence of other matter because dimensions can only be defined in comparison with other matter. 
where i am coming from is that the spatial relation of objects is not a property of any substance other than the objects themselves. all that we know to exist is objects and the interaction between objects. from this the question is raised do objects reside in a spatial dimension or is spatial dimension a property of objects?

i am not satisfied that WSM answers this question, since i can not understand what WSM is saying, in particular the statement Space as the one substance that exists we can then deduce that it must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another substance) and continuous (not made of parts).
Gorgeous
Dear kjw,

Please, you must take a look at your own postings...

QUOTE
i interpret these statements as

if time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter, means time, space and gravitation are properties of matter and do exist independently of matter.

Einstein says that there is NO separate existence from matter, and you say that these things DO exist independently. Thus, it is Einstein's quote you are in contradiction with. Do you think the WSM site uses the Einstein quote to make itself look contradictory? - You are grossly underestimating the intelligence behind these findings.

The rest of your post is littered with similar misunderstanding, and I think it would be a waste to 'dissect' it. Better to concentrate on how and why this happens in the first place.


We are trying to almost literally 'reach for the stars' here, with the kind of Cosmological understanding we are attempting to achieve. It is easy for us to underestimate Human-ness when we look at some of the ridiculous and downright stupid things we often do, but at the other end of the scale, we are also capable of many remarkable things. So, go over everything of your own with a fine-tooth comb, 'cos you can bet yr bottom dollar the really serious people do, and if we truly want to understand things at this level we must attempt to do likewise.

For one thing, 'existence' is not limited to just 'modern physics'. There have been many wizened people from many walks of life over many time-spans, who have considered many of the same things we are attempting to understand here. They are/were Human too, and their thoughts were turned to the same things..."How does this happen?" - A much wider appreciation for all of 'life', I absolutely guarantee, will help you to understand things in a 'grander' way. But you must be Honest with yourself, before honesty (which is also necessarily the Truth of how things exist) becomes your 'business'.


By way of an example, you say...
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
i interpret these statements as

if time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter, means time, space and gravitation are properties of matter and do exist independently of matter.

Einstein says that there is NO separate existence from matter, and you say that these things DO exist independently. Thus, it is Einstein's quote you are in contradiction with. Do you think the WSM site uses the Einstein quote to make itself look contradictory? - You are grossly underestimating the intelligence behind these findings.

The rest of your post is littered with similar misunderstanding, and I think it would be a waste to 'dissect' it. Better to concentrate on how and why this happens in the first place.


We are trying to almost literally 'reach for the stars' here, with the kind of Cosmological understanding we are attempting to achieve. It is easy for us to underestimate Human-ness when we look at some of the ridiculous and downright stupid things we often do, but at the other end of the scale, we are also capable of many remarkable things. So, go over everything of your own with a fine-tooth comb, 'cos you can bet yr bottom dollar the really serious people do, and if we truly want to understand things at this level we must attempt to do likewise.

For one thing, 'existence' is not limited to just 'modern physics'. There have been many wizened people from many walks of life over many time-spans, who have considered many of the same things we are attempting to understand here. They are/were Human too, and their thoughts were turned to the same things..."How does this happen?" - A much wider appreciation for all of 'life', I absolutely guarantee, will help you to understand things in a 'grander' way. But you must be Honest with yourself, before honesty (which is also necessarily the Truth of how things exist) becomes your 'business'.


By way of an example, you say... i do not know if my confusion is because of me or WSM

having previously stated...
QUOTE
WSM is devoid of any thing substantial.

So tell me, how would you know?



Whatever we learn from 'exterior' sources, and whatever these 'sources' are, our understanding is always a personal affair, always something peculiar to 'us' personally. We may share information and ideas, but the understanding is always personal. With this borne in mind, be aware that I do not use words like 'Honesty' lightly.



Now, the Space forms into the 'objects' (Collections of Standing Spherical Wave-centres) and is in a constant state of 'flux' (motion - always moving). Calling it 'energy', I think, will have more correlation with peoples' current ideas. WSM is not really anything to do with me, but it is my opinion that the term 'energy' is less confusing, especially as we can all readily agree upon the 'Law of energy conservation', as this makes it easier to understand how it can exist 'Infinitely', being that 'cause and effect' has no end.
Space, we observe as the great interconnector of all 'bodies' in the Cosmos, so WSM uses 'Space', because it is the interconnection that becomes the all important factor when considering the whole of existence as a 'wave-structure'. Thus, when we understand the interconnection, all quite Naturally falls into place. Actually, the advanced understanding of Evolution has been a catalyst for this kind of thinking...how things can 'morph' from one form to another, and of course this is not just restricted to what we currently call 'Life', as we also observe 'rocks' occasionally becoming 'liquid', and so forth.


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-...ory-Reality.htm

It is quite a radical departure from the way we currently think about our surroundings, and thus the ways we live our day to day lives, but if you think about it, this is one of the inevitabilities of developing a more 'Cosmological outlook'; a consequence of space travel and increasing knowledge.


Anyway, hope some of this is helping. It is a large and complicated topic, but that is mostly because we have evolved from a 'blind' position of how things exist, and our own personal assumptions must be 'leap-frogged' all of the time, if we truly wish to progress. Mostly, we create our own confusion, and then have to unlearn it all just to see what is Real.



g.
kjw
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted on Today at 10:10 AM Dear kjw, Please, you must take a look at your own postings...
i did and, yes
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted on Today at 10:10 AM Dear kjw, Please, you must take a look at your own postings...
i did and, yes
kjw Posted on Today at 7:44 AM means time, space and gravitation are properties of matter and do exist independently of matter.
i do apologise. i have indeed left out a very important word, and as said previously here in the correct form as evidence of my true intention
QUOTE
kjw Posted: Jun 5 2008, 01:21 AM to me that means einstein thinks you can not have time, space and gravitation without matter.

i meant to say that

means time, space and gravitation are properties of matter and do not exist independently of matter

i wanted to post this correction, befor i read the rest of your post, as i saw the importance of the mistake in expressing my thoughts to you.

i will continue to read your post and at a later time, when it will have been given enough attention, i will offer my response.

kjw
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Jun 5 2008, 08:15 PM  For one thing, 'existence' is not limited to just 'modern physics'.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gorgeous Posted: Jun 5 2008, 08:15 PM  For one thing, 'existence' is not limited to just 'modern physics'.

joseph margolis

"we need to be clear about the meaning of "exists" for at least the reason that every coherent account of knowledge presupposes that we are in touch, by means of the senses or otherwise, with one common world and presupposes that what belongs to that world exists"

modern physics not only standardizes the sense of this common world, but provides more senses in which to experience this common world. modern physics allows what is sensed in this common world to be verifies that we are all sensing the same thing.

QUOTE
Gorgeous But you must be Honest with yourself, before honesty (which is also necessarily the Truth of how things exist) becomes your 'business'.

i know i am honest with myself. if you wanted to convince yourself that i am being honest, what would you consider undeniable proof that i am being honest?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gorgeous But you must be Honest with yourself, before honesty (which is also necessarily the Truth of how things exist) becomes your 'business'.

i know i am honest with myself. if you wanted to convince yourself that i am being honest, what would you consider undeniable proof that i am being honest?

By way of an example, you say...

i do not know if my confusion is because of me or WSM

having previously stated...

WSM is devoid of any thing substantial.

So tell me, how would you know?

i would know when i

dissected what WSM is saying, interpret it, and then ask someone else