If no big bang, what happened?

[why06]

You can change it back from it would suck now.... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[weeman]

Thanks for the links SEARCH!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />first off, how telling the site hosting Arp's book has 'quack' in its name, also noticed few derogatory terms (like 'blackholers' etc) in the article and that to me is always a sign to perk my bull&* antenae up (honest guys don't have need to ridicule competing theories)<br /><br />that said, I regard a theory as very weak when its main hypothesis is built up directly from observation because then its like a glove that was cut and sown to fit the hand - here the (supposed) observation of quasars being repeatedly ejected from Seyfert type galaxies (the observation which I won't dispute here but which is akin the 'Mars face' thing IMO and also that of bulk of community of astronomers who dispute that observation) and the theorizing following from that - />><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Arp <font color="yellow">proposes</font>that intrinsically redshifted matter has lower mass than local matter, that each particle of redshifted matter has lower mass than our local particles. According to standard atomic physics, mass differences would indeed produce the required red or blueshifts, but what could explain mass differences? <br /><br />Guided by the observation that a quasar's redshift declines as it ages, Arp proposes that quasars are made up of new matter. On this view, matter is continually created in active galaxies, and is episodically ejected in the form of quasars. Particles of matter are not eternal; they have a beginning in time. Each particle starts out with a low mass which increases with its age.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I would much rather see the 'young particle - /> low mass particle -> redshifted particle' chain of deductions to spring from some independent prior theorizing which would then be found also to fit the quasar observation (the supposed tie to Seyfert type ga <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

I do not agree with Arp or Narlikar on the mass change theory because it seems untestable to me, and is inadequate.<br /><br />Based on an assumption of gases or matter intergalactically very much is answered why there could be a CMBR, red shift, and dimming of distant objects.<br /><br />CMBR would then come from the cold blackbody from intergalactic matter, but original energy comes from the stars photons going thru space everywhere, some being captured and reemitted.<br /><br />Red shift is the correlating effect of photons and matter now coming into understanding. Quasars, as I understand, seem to have an enormous halo of gas around them.<br /><br />Dimming of distant objects is nothing more than absorption by intergalactic matter.<br /><br />I hope this is adding up for you.<br />

 

[xmo1]

I think SH was playing with the Church (which is a dangerous, therefore attention getting, thing to do). I think the (Catholic) Church teaches that the universe has no boundaries. Hence, no big bang. You could probably look around the Vatican and find the exact historical document that defines the position. However, nosing around the Vatican can get you in trouble too.<br /><br />Here's my formula:<br />Universe = {Eternity, Existence, Infinity, The Imaginary}<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[timlong01]

Positron-electron pair formation from 1.0216 MeV (threshold) gammarays provides a mechanism for the continuous creation of matter.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Positron-electron pair formation from 1.0216 MeV (threshold) gammarays provides a mechanism for the continuous creation of matter.</font><br /><br />that is erroneous and unfounded. there is no such pair formation, there is no such matter creation from pure energy. <br /><br />most of standard theory for gravity hinges upon a fictious big bang event. instead of forever shoehorning and ad hoccing moutains of extraneous ideas upon others, the entire big bang idea should finally be thrown away. <br /><br />

 

[tdamskov]

Say what? Exactly which part of the theory of gravity hinges on BB theory? I had no idea Newton and Einstein were in possession of a time machine?<br />

 

[astronaut23]

How about God created the heavens and the Earth.

 

[weeman]

Or, God created the Heavens and the Heavens created Earth. Meaning, the Heavens were placed here already, and Earth is random. <br /><br />As for Catholicism, does it state that the Heavens are unbounded as in they are infinite? Or is it more like Einstein's statement? "The Universe is finite but unbounded." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nevyn]

The real question is not how the universe started.<br /><br />It is how knowing how the universe started helps humanity. What does it give us? It won't give us new technology. It won't help us get off this dying planet.<br /><br />You just have to accept the fact that there are things that we will never know. And there are probably even more things that we think we know, but actually don't.

 

[weeman]

Precisely. <br /><br />The topic of this thread, and many others on this board, can only be answered philosophically. There is no scientific experiment that can be performed to test what existed before the Universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>