Question BIG BANG EVIDENCE

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Cat,
Regading "unperceived dimensions": Even just expanding "time" along with "space" seems to be beyond our current intellectual capabilities. "Time" might be at least part of our perception of "flatness" that is actually more difficult to imagine than we can grasp. For instance, we do not believe that it can be "traveled" in both directions. We do not associate an equivalent to "mass" for time, such that changing the speed or direction of its passage can be accomplished with applications of energy. Yet, we have equations that seem to equate time to a dimension. We just don't seem to be able to get a physical handle on it, nor a conceptual handle, either.
 
Cat, I am basically agreeing with the conceptual possiblity of your post.

I am adding that humans do perceive "time", but in a limited fashion compared to other dimensions we can perceirve, and am sort of working off your concept to say that maybe time can do things we don't properly perceive.

But, maybe not. Either way, I agree that other, completely unperceived dimensions might exist, similar to your Flatland analogy. As you posted, there are things like "String" theories that conjure up 11 dimensions.

The trouble with that is it is sort of like the BBT and its conjuring of thing like "Inflation". These extra dimensions just become free "tuning" parameters for the theory until somebody can produce a test that makes a clear distinction between just 3 dimensions and the BBT, or more dimensions and a different theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Unc

These extra dimensions just become free "tuning" parameters for the theory until somebody can produce a test that makes a clear distinction . . .
I agree. Any problem can be "solved" by inventing suitable "unknowns", defined as assumptions which solve the problem.

Cat :)
 
Feb 14, 2020
108
25
4,610
If DM is present across them then what if these parallelly exist in sense of time.
I am not advocating or supporting them, just saying what the consequences will be.
Catastrophe has brought a good example that n+1 dimension vs a surface only entity?
:)
 
Apr 13, 2021
449
43
1,710
What is Dark matter and dark Energy.

Can we tell them apart?

Do we use them as an excuse to explain the unknown?

Dark / Energy can be explained by Condensates.

Compaction from 10^5 to 10 ^35 or so.

The properties can be explained by :

Chiral Supersymmetry
that creates.
Dipolar Electromagnetic vector fields.

Via these properties we can explain most images from Stars to galaxies.
 
Aug 14, 2020
1,123
151
2,360
Tired and relaxing at the moment and wide ranging in nothing more than random thoughts, Harry. I'll play the game for the sheer heck of it instead of seriously (sometimes something comes of such relaxed random thinking): "What is dark matter and dark energy?"

A) Matter and energy on the negative other side of the speed of light. That is to say matter and energy existing toward -300.000kps from preferred rest frame '0'-point / as opposed to matter and energy existing toward +300,000kps from that same preferred rest frame '0'-point.

B) Or matter and energy in time reversal reaching, progressing, cycling, toward time's distant horizon (T=0 (T=1)) of the universe from us here and now. Could be the same as A . . . or not.

C) Or matter and energy in the unobserved/unobservable future stage of universe due one day in the future to become observed/observable matter and energy in a then observed/observable universe replacing the current observed/observable universe. Matter and energy effectively evaporating out of the picture, besides what leaves by way of black holes, the total balanced precisely by replacement matter and energy forming into the picture out of the void, out of the vacuum, out of nothing (relatively speaking that is) . . . so to speak.
 
Apr 13, 2021
449
43
1,710
The game is on.
I understand your train of thought.

And yet disagree with it, it leads to a place of unexplained.

In my opinion understanding condensates can explain the unknown.
 
Apr 13, 2021
449
43
1,710
Interesting reading
form your own opinion.
Keep on researching.

[Submitted on 13 May 2023]

Unraveling Joint Evolution of Bars, Star Formation, and Active Galactic Nuclei of Disk Galaxies​

Woong-Bae G. Zee, Sanjaya Paudel, Jun-Sung Moon, Suk-Jin Yoon
We aim to unravel the interplay between bars, star formation (SF), and active galactic nuclei (AGNs) in barred galaxies. To this end, we utilize the SDSS DR12 to select a sample of nearby (0.02 < z < 0.06) disk galaxies that are suitable for bar examination (Mr<−20.12 and inclination ≲ 53∘). We identify 3662 barred galaxies and measure the length and axis ratio of each bar. We invent new bar parameters that mitigate the stellar and bulge mass biases and show, for the first time, that the evolution of non-AGN and AGN-hosting barred galaxies should be tracked using different bar parameters; the bar length for non-AGN galaxies and the bar axis ratio for AGN-hosting galaxies. Our analysis confirms that barred galaxies have a higher specific SF rate than unbarred control galaxies. Moreover, we find a positive correlation of bar length with both the SF enhancement and the centrally star-forming galaxy fraction, indicating the interconnectivity of bars and SF through the bar-driven gas inflow. We also find that while the AGN fraction of barred galaxies is the same as that of the unbarred control sample, galaxies hosting more massive black holes (BHs) have rounder (i.e., higher axis ratio) bars, implying that the bar is not a cause of AGN activity; rather, AGNs appear to regulate bars. Our findings corroborate theoretical predictions that bars in non-AGN galaxies grow in length, and bars in AGN-hosting galaxies become rounder as BHs grow and eventually get destroyed.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Those who might like to discuss A big bang, rather than THE big bang - or, better still, big bangS, there is an interesting article in the current All About Space, Issue 143, entitled "Is the Universe due another Big Bang", by Giles Sparrow.

The editorial (by Gemma Lavender) reads;
Some 13.8 billion years ago, our universe sprang into existence . . . again. According to some very recent research - and a study that dovetails with Nobel Prize winner Sir Roger Penrose - it's thought that there were multiple Big Bangs and there could be many more in the very distant future.

Sounds to me more like cyclic than singularity.

Cat :)
 
Apr 13, 2021
449
43
1,710
Hello Catastrophe

If people wish to think along the lines of the Big Bang, I can understand.

But the deeper we observe 13.4 billion years in any direction we observe billions of galaxies and some 100 times that of the Milkyway.

Our Star is 12 billion years old about.

If you understand probably, then there is no hell on Earth that the universe is 13.8 billion years.
 
Dec 29, 2022
122
12
85
You folks have already tried everything imaginable to try and fit space-time. We have just about heard it all. What's next? Even probability, randomness and chaos has failed to save you. It's something to watch decade after decade. And all of it based on the false narrative of light. All velocities are relative. Time and length are pillars and can not be changed. That's why relative velocity exists.

You folks should try and explain your measurements using omnipresent time and length. It makes much more sense. If you do this with light, you'll realize that the change in frequency and phase.........indicates that relative velocity. If light WAS constant V........frequency and phase would not change.

Light is intermittent and the only thing that changes with emitter V....is the space between the emissions. Which increases the time between wavelengths. A phase change. The wavelength of that emission does not change, because that length is emitted as a chunk. A snap, a strobe.

However....the V of the detector......changes both that space between the wavelengths and the duration of the wavelength. Phase and frequency change. Relative V affects interaction time.

If one compares the change in asymmetric phase(emitter V), and the change in symmetric change in phase(detector V)....one can discern the V of emitter and the V of detector.

Now, if one measures multiple light directions......one can determine our relative velocity in space.....to a stationary point.

A simple vertical rotating shaft destroys space-time and the stability and accuracy of an atomic clock.

We have yet to build a stable clock. It can NOT be done with oscillation.....our clock ticker.....must be rotational.....for stability. A rotational ticker will not change with gravity. And if the rotation is parallel with acceleration, the clock will remain stable with/under that acceleration.

We still need a clock maker. With a rotational ticker. Once we have a clock, a rotating shaft gives us the same time and length.....at two different locations.......for the one path measurement of light.

We spend billions every year on the small scale and the large scale, restricted by this false light narrative.

But we can't confirm c. It's all faith. And dogma.
 
Dec 29, 2022
122
12
85
Emit a length(an arrow) from a moving object(a train). Does the length of that arrow change with train velocity?

The only thing the changes with train V.......is the space(and time) between arrows.
 
Apr 13, 2021
449
43
1,710
Hello Classical Motion

Space and Time maybe the answer to some extent.
To understand the parts within the universe, one needs to know how things form.

Why has our Sun got long Jeopardy?
How do Spiral, Bar or elliptical galaxies form?
Why do Galaxies Cluster?

What type of energy is in place?
 
Dec 29, 2022
122
12
85
Hello Harry Costas

I am perplexed. Science says they have light and gravity down. And now they are working hard on creation or the beginning. And how and when it was. They tell us they have evidence of their work.

But we also know from observation and measurement thru-out time and conditions.........that the only source for light and gravity is mass and matter.

So, we propose to know what light and gravity is.....and a pretty good idea of the beginning.......and YET.....no one has a clue as to what mass is........the sire of light and gravity, which they say they understand.

So, we know and understand light, know and understand gravity, hints at the creation......and yet no one knows what mass is.....where light and gravity come from.

I believe this to be bass-ackwards.

The question is not how this universe was formed.......that's just a distraction. The real question has always been.......WHAT IS MASS? We propose to know the creation of an UN-defined.....unknown. Mass.

And science is NO closer to that answer than they were 100 years ago.....as a matter of fact.....the more they study.....the more they are confused.

The objective and goal of our modern science is the preservation of the institution......not the discovery of physicality. It's a huge phony industry. Many careers and reputations. And they will drop everything to preserve it. The purpose is replaced with preservation and funding.

When it comes to mass and matter.....their clueless. They can not even measure their corn pop dogma.......c.

So I suggest we find out what matter is........before we brag about light and gravity. And to do that, they need to abandon the math models.......because the ONLY way to understand physicality is with a physical structure model. All physicality HAS physical structure. It takes a structure to ratio and set the energy/mass ratio.

There can NOT be a dynamic of light and gravity...without a dynamic for mass first. The dynamic of mass.....will determine the dynamic of light and gravity.

Bass-ackwards.
 
Nov 19, 2021
998
405
1,260
"So, we know and understand light, know and understand gravity, hints at the creation......and yet no one knows what mass is.....where light and gravity come from." - Classical Motion

I can straighten this out.

- Yes we have a basic understanding of how light and gravity perform and interact. Whatever it is you want to know about times, speeds, forces, and how they interact, we have a formula for that. Some are very complicated that only a few dozen humans can understand. In other words, they make no sense to you or me. But the "experts" tell us they are based on observation, are consistent and are the shortest, most elegant description known to exist.

- As for what happened before the Big Bang, our physics prevents us from knowing anything prior to 10^-43 seconds. Before that we don't have a clue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0101
Aug 14, 2020
1,123
151
2,360
We have a new universe beginning instant to instant, thus an absolute Horizon, a universal constant of Horizon. So, instant to instant, moment to moment, we have clues in and from of that Horizon. There is more than one level to the universe. More than one dimension to that Horizon of all horizons as there is more than one dimension to all horizons despite what some say about this particular horizon.

Billions of years after this Earth is swallowed up and gone, on an Earth-like planet about a distance of 14-billion light years from the Horizon, astronomers and physicists will be talking the same creationism occurring about 14-billions ago. Billions of years ago, it was the same as today and as it will be billions of years from now.

Obviously, I'm not a nakedly singular (in time) creationist. Creation of the universe to me, occurring on its collapsed constant hyper-level of Horizon, is instant to instant, moment to moment, always well fed as is equally but oppositely being observed, an entropic inexorable circling back not realized for what it is.

Of course, there will be those that say they know I am wrong in my view of things. They know they are right and that I am wrong! They know things, absolutely, just as they talk things just as absolutely, as if no one should be disputing them in any way, as they did a thousand, two thousand, three thousand, years ago.

When they get around to it, they will find more or less mature galaxies evolved seconds after their version of Big Bang, and claim they were created and evolved just that fast (billions of years of creation, evolutions, and revolutions, squeezed into light seconds of spacetime horizon, yet still those billions of years, possible infinities of years, of creation, evolutions and revolutions just closed up so close to abutting that collapsed 'Horizon' . . . collapsed . . . so distant from us).

Amazing how we are inside a horizon on Earth yet see that same horizon as collapsed horizon so distant from us, always keeping its distance from us if we travel its surface. Things come out of it to us one way, things go away from us into it another way. But not that horizon (the 'Horizon' of the universe)! Nothing comes out of it toward us! Nothing goes away from us into it, according to many of today's astronomers and physicists who remind me of the isolated Pacific islanders of old who thought their local islands, and local waters of the Pacific, was all there was to the entire world . . . the entire universe!
 
Last edited:
Apr 13, 2021
449
43
1,710
What can I say.
You have a great imagination.

Right or Wrong your coming with me.

A bit of reading, does not mean I agree with it.


[Submitted on 22 Apr 2022]

How the Big Bang Ends up Inside a Black Hole​

Enrique Gaztanaga
The standard model of cosmology assumes that our Universe began 14 Gyrs (billion years) ago from a singular Big Bang creation. This can explain a vast range of different astrophysical data from a handful of free cosmological parameters. However, we have no direct evidence or fundamental understanding of some key assumptions: Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Here we review the idea that cosmic expansion originates instead from gravitational collapse and bounce. The collapse generates a Black Hole (BH) of mass M≃5×1022M⊙ that formed 25~Gyrs ago. As there is no pressure support, the cold collapse can continue inside in free fall until it reaches atomic nuclear saturation (GeV), when is halted by Quantum Mechanics, as two particles cannot occupy the same quantum state. The collapse then bounces like a core-collapse supernovae, producing the Big Bang expansion. Cosmic acceleration results from the BH event horizon. During collapse, perturbations exit the horizon to re-enter during expansion, giving rise to the observed universe without the need for Inflation or Dark Energy. Using Ockham's razor, this makes the BH Universe (BHU) model more compelling than the standard singular Big Bang creation.
 
Apr 13, 2021
449
43
1,710
In order to fine answers, one needs to look at all aspects of the theory.
I hope posting science papers is not out of the way.

[Submitted on 23 Apr 2023]

Massive black holes in galactic nuclei: Theory and Simulations​

Tiziana Di Matteo, Daniel Angles-Alcazar, Francesco Shankar
Massive black holes are fundamental constituents of our cosmos, from the Big Bang to today. Understanding their formation from cosmic dawn, their growth, and the emergence of the first, rare quasars in the early Universe remains one of our greatest theoretical and observational challenges. Hydrodynamic cosmological simulations self-consistently combine the processes of structure formation at cosmological scales with the physics of smaller, galaxy scales. They capture our most realistic understanding of massive black holes and their connection to galaxy formation and have become the primary avenue for theoretical research in this field. The space-based gravitational wave interferometer, LISA, will open up new investigations into the dynamical processes involving massive black holes. Multi-messenger astrophysics brings new exciting prospects for tracing the origin, growth and merger history of massive black holes across cosmic ages.
 
Dec 29, 2022
122
12
85
I believe that mass has an interaction impedance/reactance that is proportional with rate of change. And I believe this impedance distorts our measurements. Giving us false results. And false rational for those results. The increase in precision have given a false sense of accuracy. That precision is so good, we're picking up the mass reactance(the error)......and believe it's part of the stimulus dynamic. Instead of recognizing it's an inertia reaction to that stimulus. This inertia error increases with rate of change.....and presents a curve in the broad results.

So error increases with velocity or rate of change. But, this might be corrected with a reaction-less or reaction canceling sensor. Which have not been invented yet. There is no need. No one knows we need it. These new quantum detectors might offer some possibilities. Hopefully, a failed quantum sensor configuration.......might enlighten someone. Eureka!
 

Latest posts