How many times has the universe doubled since the big bang?

Page 2 - 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.
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
The universe being here forever avoids the question of how all the (E) got here in the first place.

If we break the universe down to just different forms of (E) then a big bang is simple an expression of (E) into a region of space that is already part of the this universe.

It expands into itself so it never doubles.

Now how do we create a universe from nothing?
It took me the better part of 2 years to wrap my head around the fact that nothing probably occupies space and the fact that it does probably the reason quantum fluctuation happens and sets a balance.
Until that balance point quantum fluctuations dual particle creation probably don't annihilate each other and that is (E) and the building blocks of a universe.

Could be that simple that 0 has potential energy.

What version of the universe are we in?
#1 because a big bang is simply a phase of what is already here in the region of space/quantum fluctuation that is our universe already.
IMO a mistake to think of the big bang as a beginning.

I totally agree that a black hole is just compressed energy.
No crazy singularities and physics break down, just a region with the lack of activity/time so it can compress no further.

I also agree that time is simply activity.
A gravity well slows it and going fast also slows it.
Could be a property of quantum fluctuation, moving through or compressing .

All JMO but i think nature is going to tend to be in the simplest format possible.

On a side thought here is something to think about.
Quantum fluctuations activity happening all the time in all the universe.
Dual particle creation and destruction leaves behind temporary gravity. Dark matter?
Dual particle creation and destruction creates temporary energy.Dark energy?
If we break the universe down to just different forms of (E) then a big bang is simple an expression of (E) into a region of space that is already part of the this universe.

It expands into itself so it never doubles.
IMO, The universe is expanding into 'The Infinite', so it can double. I also think 'the infinite' contains 'something', as explained in the quote from post 19 above:

"If you accept space is infinite, it would be too bizarre to think our universe is the only matter in this infinite space. It would mean stuff in our universe is a one-off special, an other-wise exception to an infinite void. There's no reason to believe any laws of physics could allow 'something' here and absolutely nothing any where-else. What enables or gives rise to something here, will enable or give rise for something to be everywhere- so no void! Stuff here, is not a special case - If there's something here, there's something everywhere!

Since there's no reason to believe our stuff and laws of physics are special, it's reasonable to assume stuff and laws are the same throughout 'the infinite'. This, in turn, means there's a connection or something in common throughout 'the infinite'. So I suggest the underlying commonality is just space and what it consists of, (quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever)."
Could be that simple that 0 has potential energy.
I prefer to change that to "Could be that 'the infinite' has, quantum field/foam/fluctuations or aether or vacuum energy/dark energy".
I also agree that time is simply activity.
You use the phrase "time is", why not abandon time altogether, and say "there's no such thing as time, there's only activity"?
Dual particle creation and destruction leaves behind temporary gravity. Dark matter?
Dual particle creation and destruction creates temporary energy.Dark energy?
I like that, but obviously needs scientists to do the maths and verify it.
 
Nov 27, 2019
115
59
160
IMO, The universe is expanding into 'The Infinite', so it can double. I also think 'the infinite' contains 'something', as explained in the quote from post 19 above:

"If you accept space is infinite, it would be too bizarre to think our universe is the only matter in this infinite space. It would mean stuff in our universe is a one-off special, an other-wise exception to an infinite void. There's no reason to believe any laws of physics could allow 'something' here and absolutely nothing any where-else. What enables or gives rise to something here, will enable or give rise for something to be everywhere- so no void! Stuff here, is not a special case - If there's something here, there's something everywhere!

Since there's no reason to believe our stuff and laws of physics are special, it's reasonable to assume stuff and laws are the same throughout 'the infinite'. This, in turn, means there's a connection or something in common throughout 'the infinite'. So I suggest the underlying commonality is just space and what it consists of, (quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever)."

I prefer to change that to "Could be that 'the infinite' has, quantum field/foam/fluctuations or aether or vacuum energy/dark energy".

You use the phrase "time is", why not abandon time altogether, and say "there's no such thing as time, there's only activity"?

I like that, but obviously needs scientists to do the maths and verify it.
We get into that question of expanding into what?
If we can form one universe then probably we can form an infinite number of them.
So we are most likely expanding into a region of space that contains our universe, a foggy border is my guess.

Not a big fan of the word (time) either since i don't think it exists as more than an effect.
Activity/time would be a great word but using that term is sure to be confusing unless someone is willing to rethink time as it's understood.
Time is ok for me but i just see it as compression.

I've done a bit of the math on qf temporary gravity/energy.
27 billion year bubble X .0>22 38 jules cubic M.
Set point of vacuum energy.
The 27 billion year bubble only what we can see that number could be far bigger.

Little to no info on particle creation/destruction rates so near impossible to hazard a guess at the possible temporary energy and gravity of the quantum activity.

Not a human on earth with the idea so I'm it LOL
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2020
26
4
35
The universe is infinite. It has no edge so you can not measure something that is infinite. Theory goes & no we cannot grapple this, it began from a point of singularity & exploded in a shock wave. It transformed from a mass-dominated/energy deficient to a energy dominated/mass insufficient thing. This is because everything is moving away in expansion.
 
Jan 10, 2020
4
2
15
Each time the universe doubles the perception of time halves, if I was at the Big Bang and started my clock at the moment time took hold what time is it now?
If the universe is infinite, its meaningless to say how many times has it "doubled". Due to inflation of the spacetime metric, the visible universe has expanded from 13.7(thereabouts) bil ly radius , to 46.5 bil ly radius, an expansion of around 3.39 or 339% So its doubled on and a half, roughly, times.

How this affects your *perception* of time, is purely psychological. Actual time itself is invariant to this expansion of the metric. expansion has no effect whatsoever on the passage of time. Its just not how time works.
 
Nov 27, 2019
115
59
160
If the big bang was the beginning then we are expanding into forever or an impossible measure, and who can say if it's just 1 big bang and done? .
It could be big bang, space clears out, matter accumulates from quantum activity, rebuilds and new big bang

If the big bang is expanding into a region of Quantum fluctuation that is already part of our universe then expansion is an illusion.

I like to think of the big bang as just an exchange of (e) into a region of space that is already part of our universe.
Not really a start of our universe.

IMO a mistake to think of the big bang as the start.
 
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
The universe is infinite. It has no edge so you can not measure something that is infinite. Theory goes & no we cannot grapple this, it began from a point of singularity & exploded in a shock wave. It transformed from a mass-dominated/energy deficient to a energy dominated/mass insufficient thing. This is because everything is moving away in expansion.
Who said the universe is infinite? It's not a fact, just one of many views, and also not provable if it were true. I believe there's an infinite of something, but it's definitely not OUR universe. If OUR universe came from a very small patch of hot dense matter 13.8 billion years ago with the big bang and has been expanding at finite rates, then, it has a finite size now. From my theory called 'Steady State of The Infinite', page 7 in my book(below):

“Now, if our universe came from a big bang and is expanding, it must have a centre and boundary or edge, if it has an age then it has a finite size. That means it's an object – objects exist in a space, they are not the creation of space as most theories suggest. Consequently, it can't be homogeneous or isotropic and so violates the much cherished 'cosmological principle', which assumes the universe is even and the same in all directions, and from any viewpoint, and has no centre. So, my version of the universe might look different from the centre than from the edge.” (I'm referring to the 'whole universe' here).

Bear in mind 'universe' has two meanings, there's the 'observable universe' and the 'whole universe'.

The 'observable universe' is all that's relevant to us, because that is the furthest distance that light has had time to reach us, we cannot see all of the 'whole universe'. So, we can't see back further than 13.8 billion years in time. That doesn't mean however that the radius of the observable universe is 13.8 billion light-years. The universe started out expanding faster than the speed of light (inflation), so in that 13.8 billion years the observable universe has actually expanded to a radius of about 46.5 billion light-years. So, when you see reports of the oldest stars at around 13 billion years old, they are closer to that 46.5 billion light-years in the actual distance (I think 30 billion light-years is typical).

The 'whole universe', means ALL of the contents of the big bang. Because we cannot see the whole universe no one knows how big it is. Estimates range from 250 times bigger (7 trillion light-years across) than the observable universe.

Next, you mention 'singularity'. As the universe has been observed to be expanding, you can use Einsteins relativity equations to work backwards towards the big bang. If you wind the equations back as far as they'll go, you come to an infinitely small point with an infinite density which is called a singularity. So the singularity is only hypothetical and because of its absurdity, I don't think scientists believe it.

So, as far as I know, the big bang model started from a small, hot dense patch of matter, not a singularity. Even so, details of the beginning are not known because the current laws of physics only go back to a certain size and time.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
Cosmological constant abandoned
Main article: Cosmological constant
After Hubble's discovery was published, Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant, which he had designed to modify his equations of general relativity to allow them to produce a static solution, which he thought was the correct state of the universe. The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.[31] After Hubble's discovery that the universe was, in fact, expanding, Einstein called his faulty assumption that the universe is static his "biggest mistake".[31] On its own, general relativity could predict the expansion of the universe, which (through observations such as the bending of light by large masses, or the precession of the orbit of Mercury) could be experimentally observed and compared to his theoretical calculations using particular solutions of the equations he had originally formulated.

In 1931, Einstein made a trip to Mount Wilson to thank Hubble for providing the observational basis for modern cosmology.[32]

The cosmological constant has regained attention in recent decades as a hypothesis for dark energy.[33]

Einstein had a different theory until Hubble "Proved" him wrong through his observations. Again, we are in a cloud of dust that Hubble did not know about when he made his measurements. The equipment he used to do this is less accurate than what people have at home and this effectively ended the search for an answer. If Hubble was wrong, then it doesn't allow for Einstein work, his own WORDS. The bending of light that has been observed is better explained through atmospheric lensing.

Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies he studied and obtain a value for the Hubble constant of 500 km/s/Mpc (much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance calibrations). (See cosmic distance ladder for details.)


Hubble's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is so wrong it is terrible. It acts as if space is homogenous and it is in the article very clearly.

Idealized Hubble's law[edit]
The mathematical derivation of an idealized Hubble's law for a uniformly expanding universe is a fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional Cartesian/Newtonian coordinate space, which, considered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and isotropic (properties do not vary with location or direction). Simply stated the theorem is this:


Any two points which are moving away from the origin, each along straight lines and with speed proportional to distance from the origin, will be moving away from each other with a speed proportional to their distance apart.
Click to expand...
In fact this applies to non-Cartesian spaces as long as they are locally homogeneous and isotropic; specifically to the negatively and positively curved spaces frequently considered as cosmological models (see shape of the universe).

An observation stemming from this theorem is that seeing objects recede from us on Earth is not an indication that Earth is near to a center from which the expansion is occurring, but rather that every observer in an expanding universe will see objects receding from them.
 
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
If the universe is infinite, its meaningless to say how many times has it "doubled". Due to inflation of the spacetime metric, the visible universe has expanded from 13.7(thereabouts) bil ly radius , to 46.5 bil ly radius, an expansion of around 3.39 or 339% So its doubled on and a half, roughly, times.

How this affects your *perception* of time, is purely psychological. Actual time itself is invariant to this expansion of the metric. expansion has no effect whatsoever on the passage of time. Its just not how time works.
I just put my thoughts on why I think OUR universe is finite in post 33 above if you're interested. I stress our universe, because I do believe space is infinite, with an infinite number of other universes in it.

Also you said, quote:

"Due to inflation of the spacetime metric, the visible universe has expanded from 13.7(thereabouts) bil ly radius , to 46.5 bil ly radius, an expansion of around 3.39 or 339% So its doubled on and a half, roughly, times."

You said "expanded from 13.7(thereabouts) bil ly radius ," I think you'll find it started from an extremely small, hot dense patch of matter. There are some estimates of the initial size of the universe on the excellent webpage; https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-big-was-the-universe-at-the-moment-of-its-creation/#21c6be004cea

Your right about the size of the observable universe, so if you really, really want to work it out I derived a formula for it in post 13 above:).

Finally, you mention time, I personally believe; there's no such thing as time, there's only motion and regular or periodic motion. There's an excellent thread in this forum called 'Stopping time', which is an in-depth look at time. Also, there's an excellent chapter on time in my book below::):)
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
I just put my thoughts on why I think OUR universe is finite in post 33 above if you're interested. I stress our universe, because I do believe space is infinite, with an infinite number of other universes in it.

Also you said, quote:

"Due to inflation of the spacetime metric, the visible universe has expanded from 13.7(thereabouts) bil ly radius , to 46.5 bil ly radius, an expansion of around 3.39 or 339% So its doubled on and a half, roughly, times."

You said "expanded from 13.7(thereabouts) bil ly radius ," I think you'll find it started from an extremely small, hot dense patch of matter. There are some estimates of the initial size of the universe on the excellent webpage; https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-big-was-the-universe-at-the-moment-of-its-creation/#21c6be004cea

Your right about the size of the observable universe, so if you really, really want to work it out I derived a formula for it in post 13 above:).

Finally, you mention time, I personally believe; there's no such thing as time, there's only motion and regular or periodic motion. There's an excellent thread in this forum called 'Stopping time', which is an in-depth look at time. Also, there's an excellent chapter on time in my book below::):)
Look, the measurements are all bad because of https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-space-a-perfect-vacuum/ they ignore the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum and https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/ we are in a dust cloud. They are not smart enough to figure out why
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Nov 27, 2019
115
59
160
Who said the universe is infinite? It's not a fact, just one of many views, and also not provable if it were true. I believe there's an infinite of something, but it's definitely not OUR universe. If OUR universe came from a very small patch of hot dense matter 13.8 billion years ago with the big bang and has been expanding at finite rates, then, it has a finite size now. From my theory called 'Steady State of The Infinite', page 7 in my book(below):

“Now, if our universe came from a big bang and is expanding, it must have a centre and boundary or edge, if it has an age then it has a finite size. That means it's an object – objects exist in a space, they are not the creation of space as most theories suggest. Consequently, it can't be homogeneous or isotropic and so violates the much cherished 'cosmological principle', which assumes the universe is even and the same in all directions, and from any viewpoint, and has no centre. So, my version of the universe might look different from the centre than from the edge.” (I'm referring to the 'whole universe' here).

Bear in mind 'universe' has two meanings, there's the 'observable universe' and the 'whole universe'.

The 'observable universe' is all that's relevant to us, because that is the furthest distance that light has had time to reach us, we cannot see all of the 'whole universe'. So, we can't see back further than 13.8 billion years in time. That doesn't mean however that the radius of the observable universe is 13.8 billion light-years. The universe started out expanding faster than the speed of light (inflation), so in that 13.8 billion years the observable universe has actually expanded to a radius of about 46.5 billion light-years. So, when you see reports of the oldest stars at around 13 billion years old, they are closer to that 46.5 billion light-years in the actual distance (I think 30 billion light-years is typical).

The 'whole universe', means ALL of the contents of the big bang. Because we cannot see the whole universe no one knows how big it is. Estimates range from 250 times bigger (7 trillion light-years across) than the observable universe.

Next, you mention 'singularity'. As the universe has been observed to be expanding, you can use Einsteins relativity equations to work backwards towards the big bang. If you wind the equations back as far as they'll go, you come to an infinitely small point with an infinite density which is called a singularity. So the singularity is only hypothetical and because of its absurdity, I don't think scientists believe it.

So, as far as I know, the big bang model started from a small, hot dense patch of matter, not a singularity. Even so, details of the beginning are not known because the current laws of physics only go back to a certain size and time.
Galaxy style of the very distant would say that the universe isn't much older than the origin of the big bang.
Tends to say we see pretty much everything.
If our universe was far bigger then pretty much any galaxy you looked at would be about the same makeup/age.
The ftl expansion at the start.
ftl=infinite fast so edge might not exist in reality or might have already
collided with neighbors long ago.
An ideal mechanism to start a big bang/s somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
Look, the measurements are all bad because of https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-space-a-perfect-vacuum/ they ignore the fact that space is not a perfect vacuum and https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24153-solar-system-caught-in-an-interstellar-tempest/ we are in a dust cloud. They are not smart enough to figure out why
Thanks for quoting me. I agree space is not a void, My theory only works if space is a 'something' such as quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever, but I'm not sure which. As for actual dust, I guess there's a fair bit in galaxies. As for between galaxies, everything I've read so far indicates its nothing more than a few molecules of hydrogen per cubic metre, not sure though.

For my theory however it doesn't matter what the rate of expansion is, only that it's expanding.

Great links, it' nice to have some, well-respected sites for a change. :)
 
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
Galaxy style of the very distant would say that the universe isn't much older than the origin of the big bang.
Tends to say we see pretty much everything.
If our universe was far bigger then pretty much any galaxy you looked at would be about the same makeup/age.
The ftl expansion at the start.
ftl=infinite fast so edge might not exist in reality or might have already
collided with neighbors long ago.
An ideal mechanism to start a big bang/s somewhere else.
Galaxy style of the very distant would say that the universe isn't much older than the origin of the big bang.
I don't get what you mean, OUR universe isn't ANY older than the big bang because that's where it came from???
If our universe was far bigger then pretty much any galaxy you looked at would be about the same makeup/age.
I don't think it matters how big the universe is, I think it's only the age that's important, and how far back in time you can see that determines what sort of galaxy you see. No one knows how big the WHOLE universe is, because no one knows how much stuff there was in the big bang, so, it could be large.
The ftl expansion at the start.
ftl=infinite fast so edge might not exist in reality or might have already
collided with neighbors long ago.
I think it would be a NONSENSE for anything to travel at infinite speed, please tell me you don't believe that! So definitely a finite 'whole universe' with an edge.

As for colliding with neighbours, I completely agree.


An ideal mechanism to start a big bang/s somewhere else.
In my theory, 'Steady State of The Infinite', and book, I called it mixing and merging, but same as collision I guess. I mostly thought, though, that the galaxies in old expanded universes would have mostly become giant black holes before that universe collided with another one.

I envisaged new universes forming from the black holes and debris of old expanded universes (mostly black holes), by clumping together and collapsing into one massive black hole, which then explodes with a big bang to form a new universe! Recycling - An endless process without beginning or end throughout 'The Infinite' - with its infinite number of other universes. No overall loss of mass-energy, information/order (just rearranged), no heat death, no creation theories needed, no universes ever repeated. No need to wonder what's beyond our universe - just more universes.

A very similar process happens with new star formation Gas cloud collapse to form a new star which later explodes to make more gas. The cycle repeats.:):)
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
I think it would be a NONSENSE for anything to travel at infinite speed, please tell me you don't believe that! So definitely a finite 'whole universe' with an edge.
You believe in infinity, you brought up black holes. They require infinite gravity, which is not possible. Also, with gravitational collapse, which supposedly forms black holes, causes gases to turn into a star. The process described requires gravity to work upon itself to form heat as the matter gathers. This violates the laws of thermodynamics. No such thing as black holes. Also, did you not have problems the first time you saw the galactic jets coming out of the center of what they are claiming is a black hole? The explanation is horribly bad, why would an item with infinite gravity spit things out? They cannot really explain it and much like anything they did not expect they waved it off with a dumb explanation. Also, if you believe in the big bang you also believe that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light because it is not actually moving, space itself is expanding. That is insane to me.
 
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
You believe in infinity, you brought up black holes. They require infinite gravity, which is not possible. Also, with gravitational collapse, which supposedly forms black holes, causes gases to turn into a star. The process described requires gravity to work upon itself to form heat as the matter gathers. This violates the laws of thermodynamics. No such thing as black holes. Also, did you not have problems the first time you saw the galactic jets coming out of the center of what they are claiming is a black hole? The explanation is horribly bad, why would an item with infinite gravity spit things out? They cannot really explain it and much like anything they did not expect they waved it off with a dumb explanation. Also, if you believe in the big bang you also believe that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light because it is not actually moving, space itself is expanding. That is insane to me.
You believe in infinity, you brought up black holes. They require infinite gravity, which is not possible.
No black holes don't require infinite gravity. what reportedly does require infinite gravity is the purely theoretical concept of singularities, obtained if you extrapolate relativity equations for an object down to zero size. Its a purely mathematical concept. In reality, it's a nonsense, there simply would just come a time when matter cant be compressed anymore and you end up with a finite-size object. Yes, of course infinite gravity is impossible.

So yes, I believe in infinity as in space is infinite, and yes I believe in black holes, but not with an infinitely dense singularity. I don't see anything magical about black holes, they're just matter compressed as far as it will go. Only thing is, physics hasn't caught up with what that state of matter is yet.
Also, with gravitational collapse, which supposedly forms black holes, causes gases to turn into a star. The process described requires gravity to work upon itself to form heat as the matter gathers. This violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Why does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? You're not getting energy for nothing, the matter in the universe was blown apart by the energy of the big bang, so when it collapses again, you're just getting some of that energy back again. The work was done in the expanding, like stretching a rubber band, when you release it you get the energy back.
Also, if you believe in the big bang you also believe that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light because it is not actually moving, space itself is expanding. That is insane to me.
My theory: 'Steady State of The Infinite', only requires a universe to be expanding, the rate is unimportant. According to the big bang model, the whole universe is indeed expanding faster than light speed, including (I think) as soon as you get beyond the observable universe. Relativity allows that, because, as you say it's the space that's expanding fast, and not that, the objects are moving THROUGH space fast.

As for it being insane, I mostly agree, but it depends on what space is and its nature. It's something I'm looking into, and trying to get my head around at the moment, so I won't quite use the word insane yet. :)
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
No black holes don't require infinite gravity. what reportedly does require infinite gravity is the purely theoretical concept of singularities, obtained if you extrapolate relativity equations for an object down to zero size. Its a purely mathematical concept. In reality, it's a nonsense, there simply would just come a time when matter cant be compressed anymore and you end up with a finite-size object. Yes, of course infinite gravity is impossible.

So yes, I believe in infinity as in space is infinite, and yes I believe in black holes, but not with an infinitely dense singularity. I don't see anything magical about black holes, they're just matter compressed as far as it will go. Only thing is, physics hasn't caught up with what that state of matter is yet.

Why does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? You're not getting energy for nothing, the matter in the universe was blown apart by the energy of the big bang, so when it collapses again, you're just getting some of that energy back again. The work was done in the expanding, like stretching a rubber band, when you release it you get the energy back.

My theory: 'Steady State of The Infinite', only requires a universe to be expanding, the rate is unimportant. According to the big bang model, the whole universe is indeed expanding faster than light speed, including (I think) as soon as you get beyond the observable universe. Relativity allows that, because, as you say it's the space that's expanding fast, and not that, the objects are moving THROUGH space fast.

As for it being insane, I mostly agree, but it depends on what space is and its nature. It's something I'm looking into, and trying to get my head around at the moment, so I won't quite use the word insane yet. :)
This points out some of my arguments. I am guessing you may not know the laws of thermodynamics. More evidence against big bang, as it is actually closer to being debunked than the rest.
 
Last edited:
Jan 7, 2020
105
36
110
No black holes don't require infinite gravity. what reportedly does require infinite gravity is the purely theoretical concept of singularities, obtained if you extrapolate relativity equations for an object down to zero size. Its a purely mathematical concept. In reality, it's a nonsense, there simply would just come a time when matter cant be compressed anymore and you end up with a finite-size object. Yes, of course infinite gravity is impossible. :)
Every argument against why it should not work is based on, well it did not work that way in the beginning. The laws are different now or they changed. Do you see a problem with changing laws and rules? That breaks everything they have done because they should never get the same answer due to constant change. I have also shown the issues with red shift and the fact they are ignoring the fact we are in a dust cloud, which would affect all spectrums. It is one of the biggest reasons we do not get actual color photos of anything far away. Almost every NASA photo has been colorized by an artist JEK is one I see often.
 
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
This points out some of my arguments. I am guessing you may not know the laws of thermodynamics. More evidence against big bang, as it is actually closer to being debunked than the rest.
Hi, I have a basic knowledge of thermodynamics. My response had more to do with me not fully understanding your statement. You said: "Also, with gravitational collapse, which supposedly forms black holes, causes gases to turn into a star. The process described requires gravity to work upon itself to form heat as the matter gathers. This violates the laws of thermodynamics." If you could explain why it violates the laws, I might be able to give a better response.

As for the evidence you provided, I most liked that from 'Discover' quote:
"I’ve come across many proposed alternatives to the Big Bang, but I’ve never seen one that deals honestly and comprehensively with the vast observational evidence that our universe had a hot, dense beginning about 13.8 billion years ago. The closest to a true outsider alternative that I know of is the plasma-cosmology model of Eric Lerner, a plasma physicist who developed a cult following for his view that the Big Bang never happened. His model is thoroughly inconsistent with the data, however."
And, quote:
"We have a lot to learn about our place in nature’s grand scheme. But we can be quite confident that, wherever future theories and discoveries take us, the Big Bang will be a part of the picture."

lppfusion.com looked a bit wacky to me, and kgov.com seemed too religious, plus you'd need an extended lifetime to read through all their reasons. I'll wait until their evidence is published somewhere I can trust. :)
 
Nov 20, 2019
65
22
35
Every argument against why it should not work is based on, well it did not work that way in the beginning. The laws are different now or they changed. Do you see a problem with changing laws and rules? That breaks everything they have done because they should never get the same answer due to constant change. I have also shown the issues with red shift and the fact they are ignoring the fact we are in a dust cloud, which would affect all spectrums. It is one of the biggest reasons we do not get actual color photos of anything far away. Almost every NASA photo has been colorized by an artist JEK is one I see often.
I've never read anything that says the laws of physics are changing.

I would find it strange if they were ignoring the dust cloud, as it was reported well in a trusted magazine, New Scientist in 2013, as per your link above in a previous post. So, for now, I accept the big bang model. but not with a singularity though. :)
 
Nov 27, 2019
115
59
160
No black holes don't require infinite gravity. what reportedly does require infinite gravity is the purely theoretical concept of singularities, obtained if you extrapolate relativity equations for an object down to zero size. Its a purely mathematical concept. In reality, it's a nonsense, there simply would just come a time when matter cant be compressed anymore and you end up with a finite-size object. Yes, of course infinite gravity is impossible.

So yes, I believe in infinity as in space is infinite, and yes I believe in black holes, but not with an infinitely dense singularity. I don't see anything magical about black holes, they're just matter compressed as far as it will go. Only thing is, physics hasn't caught up with what that state of matter is yet.

Why does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? You're not getting energy for nothing, the matter in the universe was blown apart by the energy of the big bang, so when it collapses again, you're just getting some of that energy back again. The work was done in the expanding, like stretching a rubber band, when you release it you get the energy back.

My theory: 'Steady State of The Infinite', only requires a universe to be expanding, the rate is unimportant. According to the big bang model, the whole universe is indeed expanding faster than light speed, including (I think) as soon as you get beyond the observable universe. Relativity allows that, because, as you say it's the space that's expanding fast, and not that, the objects are moving THROUGH space fast.

As for it being insane, I mostly agree, but it depends on what space is and its nature. It's something I'm looking into, and trying to get my head around at the moment, so I won't quite use the word insane yet. :)
ftl at the big bang all depends on what the big bang is.
If it is everything then ftl is infinite speed into infinity.
if it's ftl into quantum fluctuation then ?
Does quantum fluctuation simply catch up and slow it to L or does that speed bypass it and it never slows to the reality of the universe.
Or is this just the mechanism to start other black holes in other universes.

Black holes. i totally agree with just compression.
No activity no time so no infinite density or gravity.

It seems logical that wee see everything since we started in the same place as everything else.
As soon as our speed combination is faster than L things will start to disappear.
I think we are either very close to that point or might already be beyond it.
One side of the universe trying to look at the other might already be well beyond light catching up.
The ftl expansion a topic for best guess i think :)

Insane is a good term, thinking of nothing and infinity is sure to get you pretty close :)

I like to think about other universes to infinity.
Each one has the same rules and no 2 will be the same.
Even if you have infinite numbers of them the random chaos/time/start of bang/quantity of E will create different universes from identical start universes.

infinite universes with infinite diversity

Just 1 of me and 1 of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
Each time the universe doubles the perception of time halves, if I was at the Big Bang and started my clock at the moment time took hold what time is it now?
The question is possibly (likely?) not a good question. You would have to reside outside of the universe to "start" your clock at the big bang. At least, that is what seems to be true, according to models consistent with the believed conditions of our universe.

To explain:

Our universe likely has a "boundless" condition. This applies to spacetime. Meaning, should you travel backwards in time, you would never, not ever, reach a "beginning".

Hawking struggled with this idea, until he finally (shortly before his death) formulated a mathematical explanation for this involving imaginary time.
 
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
infinite universes with infinite diversity
Given the cardinality of various types of infinite sets, the principle that all of these universes, themselves, contain a finite amount of information, and the pigeon-hole principle, I am not sure this is mathematically possible. In fact, I think it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Jan 13, 2020
54
27
60
Also, if you believe in the big bang you also believe that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light because it is not actually moving, space itself is expanding. That is insane to me.
Why, "insane"? It's not just possible, but actually completely necessary and a fact (given the known dimensions of our universe and the known constraints on its rate of expansion) that there are at least two points in space moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light. This would be true regardless of any belief in the Big Bang theory, so you can toss out that unnecessary constraint.

Let's reduce this to a one-dimensional analogy:

You and your friend hold taut opposite ends of a 1 meter long rope. The rope has the property that, every second, one meter of it lengthens to two meters. After one second, you and your friend are 2m apart. After 3 seconds, you are 4m apart. After 4 seconds, 8 meters apart.

After 18.2 seconds, your friend will be moving away from you faster than the speed of light.

So, in this analogy, you can see that your friend's motion away from you is accelerating, and, the further he is from you, the faster he is moving away. After enough time, he will be moving away from you at a speed greater than the speed of light. When he passes this speed, he will appear to you to disappear from existence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Nov 27, 2019
115
59
160
Given the cardinality of various types of infinite sets, the principle that all of these universes, themselves, contain a finite amount of information, and the pigeon-hole principle, I am not sure this is mathematically possible. In fact, I think it isn't.
As i once thought the infinity will have an infinity of me and you but even starting with identical universes that have identical matter/energy, big bang event, neighbors interference the chaotic nature of quantum fluctuation will diverge each one.

We might have an infinite number of them that start out identical but infinite random chaos is also a part of each one.

I have my doubts with individual timelines/big bang events that duplicates will even be possible.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY