New Big Bang Theory

[remindkevin]

The Universe is not just expanding and stretching into endless time and space. It is rotating around the primordial ooze. I can only explain this position with a graphic:

http://c4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/imag ... 5cc8f258bb

 

[remindkevin]

Sorry, here is the graphic

 

[DrRocket]

Sorry, here is the graphic

This is an obvious candidate for The Unexplained. There is no science here. There are religious aspects, in the direct reference to a "creator" at the physical center (which has no meaning in modern cosmology) of the ujniverse. This will NOT produce any useful scientific discourse.

 

[remindkevin]

There are no implications of religion in this hypothesis. The creator is the "primordial ooze" which is, if you believe is the result of the Big Bang, the creator of the Universe. Creator, though, I should have never included, because now it gives way to religious implications; however, I meant creator as in "the tool or object, thing, or action that created" the primordial ooze. I have no creator in mind. I was merely referencing other material which has used "creation" as a word to describe "creation."

I have a BA in Business and common sense (of course I am not proposing a scientific answer, that is not my problem), there is no science behind it: other than the only law in which I understand, gravity, and if gravity is abundant in every cosmic body, then how can every body in the cosmos not be controlled by it? If PO is the begining, as was our Sun in our Solar System, does it not make sense to at least question whether or not we have given ourselves too much credit in our ability to understand the limits of the Universe?

I mean, I am really the only person who has ever considered that we are in an even greater gravtional rotation? Who says the Universe is as we see it is it? Maybe our PO is the star of the Universe and we are floating in a much larger galactic body of UV'(S)?

Just thinking under stars.

 

[MeteorWayne]

You say it's rotating. A simple question, before this is sent to The Unexplained. Rotating relative to what?

 

[remindkevin]

Rotating the Primordial Ooze (which could easily be a collection of powerful bodies such as the Sun, a collection of galaxies (of course unimaginably larger)), could it be the center of what we know as the Universe?- is all I am asking.

Quick answer:

Rotating what we believe is the Primordial Ooze. If the laws of gravity are the same throughout the Universe, shouldn't all cosmic bodies ultimately bond with an object like our sun? This would cause an initial expansion, but the gravity should be so great that it cause all of what we know to conform to it's (PO's) gravitational pull.

 

[origin]

Rotating the Primordial Ooze (which could easily be a collection of hyper-active nuclear bodies such as the Sun (of course unimaginably larger)), could it be the center of what we know as the Universe?- is all I am asking.

The sun is a hyper-active nuclear body? What does that mean.
The Primordial Ooze is rotated by giant suns?

No, I don't think this makes the slightest bit of sense...

 

[remindkevin]

Ok, read the rest of the posts. Look at the graphic. I will explain, to the best of my ability, what I am saying again.


The Big Bang, as it is accepted today, is the reason for all of our galaxies, etc.....

You should know all this, let me get to where I need to get..

Here is a graphic that most scientist accept is the result of the Big Bang:

Now explain to me why all of the galaxies and cosmic bodies do not have to abide by the laws of gravity and adopt an orbit around the largest body (i.e. the primordial ooze (as it is called). Can you say it is impossible?

:I will post again my adaptation (a more scientific version) of this graphic this week. Maybe even today. But can someone prove that it is not possible? Walk me through the equations and say it is impossible. Why are we so quick to throw away theories (The Unexplained)? Chaotic Inflation is not provable....the Big Bang itself can not be explained with 99% confidence!

 

[origin]

Now explain to me why all of the galaxies and cosmic bodies do not have to abide by the laws of gravity and adopt an orbit around the largest body (i.e. the primordial ooze (as it is called). Can you say it is impossible?

They do abide by the laws of gravity. The universe is expanding but the distribution of matter does tend to clump because of gravity. The milky way and the andromeda galaxies are moving towards each other. Both of these galaxies are also being gravitationally drawn to the virgo super cluster.

Maybe even today. But can someone prove that it is not possible? Walk me through the equations and say it is impossible.

This is not how science works. If you have a new hypothesis it is up to you to prove that it should be considered.

Why are we so quick to throw away theories (The Unexplained)?

Because there is zero evidence that what you are saying is possible. You have made a conjecture and asked us to prove it is not impossible - that is NOT a theory.

Chaotic Inflation is not provable....the Big Bang itself can not be explained with 99% confidence!

Inflation and the BB theory explain the observations of the cosmos quite well and have made accurate prediction about the universe. This is what a theory should do.

 

[remindkevin]

Ok, let me take a step back here.

I am not a scientist. But I am capable.

I am not asking you to disprove my conjecture; I am asking for help with my conjecture. I would like to put forth this hypothesis:

The Universe (everything we know), adhering to the law of gravity (as every body within it must), is a collection of cosmic bodies destined to begin orbiting, or is, orbiting a single (or clump of) super charged (unknown) nucleus created by the Big Bang.

My question, not my claim, is whether or not anyone thinks this is feasible. That is it.

I can not possibly prove my hypothesis, but I can, with help, or without, present evidence that suggests it is possible.

I will repost today.

 

[origin]

I am not asking you to disprove my conjecture; I am asking for help with my conjecture. I would like to put forth this hypothesis:

The Universe (everything we know), adhering to the law of gravity (as every body within it must), is a collection of cosmic bodies destined to begin orbiting, or is, orbiting a single (or clump of) super charged (unknown) nucleus created by the Big Bang.

My question, not my claim, is whether or not anyone thinks this is feasible. That is it.

No this is not feasible. The observational evidence does not indicate that the cosmic bodies (galaxies) are orbiting any single anything. There is no mechanism that I can fathom that would could cause the bigbang to produce a single super charged nucleus. I don't even know what a single super charged nucleus is suppose to be.

Edited to add: If the Bigbang produced a single super charged nucleus (SSCN), it would be essentially the center of the universe and since the BB theory clearly has no center of the universe your conjecture would invalidate the BB theory. You have quite a daunting task if you want to do that!

 

[DrRocket]

Ok, let me take a step back here.

I am not a scientist. But I am capable.

I am not asking you to disprove my conjecture; I am asking for help with my conjecture. I would like to put forth this hypothesis:

The Universe (everything we know), adhering to the law of gravity (as every body within it must), is a collection of cosmic bodies destined to begin orbiting, or is, orbiting a single (or clump of) super charged (unknown) nucleus created by the Big Bang.

My question, not my claim, is whether or not anyone thinks this is feasible. That is it.

I can not possibly prove my hypothesis, but I can, with help, or without, present evidence that suggests it is possible.

I will repost today.

Here is one basic problem. There is no evidence whatever, that the manifold that is space-time or the slices that are "space-like" even have a center, let alone that there is any large mass at a "center".

The theory that is used to describe the universe is general relativity. The theory that describes gravitation is general relativity. The models that you have seen are not only consistent with gravity, they are driven by and bound by essentially nothing else. It is only in the speculative models involving the extremely universe, fractions of a second after the "big bang" that any other forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) are significant or in models that involve ratther subtle quantum effects involving black holes -- things like Hawking radiation.

So, yes people have thought a lot about the effect of gravity on cosmological models. They have thought more about that than about anything else. It is not a question of "orbiting" per se, as the notion of an orbit is usually associated with a problem in which one can concentrate on only two bodies at a time with little loss in accuracy. In the case of the universe you are talking about a complex multi-body interaction. That problem is actually quite difficult. There are no known closed-form solutions, so scientists are forced to rely on computer simulations.

The issue of whether or not there is a big blob anywhere is addressed with the open issue as to whether or not space is closed, open or flat. If there were a huge blob, one might expect to see the universe at large scales as fairly strongly positively curved. Data to date shows the curvature to be very small, if it is not zero.

There is no reason to believe that the big bang would create a large blob. There is in fact good reason to think that it did not. First, there is no mechanism that has been suggested that would be consisent with such a blob. Second, the models that exist at this time seem to be reasonably good and consistent with observations. They are based on the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic -- which it most certainly would not be if a blob such as you suggest were to exist. So if your idea were correct, it would be a dramatic contradiction to one of the basic assumptions made by cosmologists. Now maybe they are wrong, but you need a lot more that speculation with NO supporting data to get anybody to take you seriously. There is at this time no reason whatever to take your idea seriously.

You statment that you are "capable" is in itself a rather clear indication that, with respect to these matters, you are not. And that you don't recognize that you are not.

It is generally a good idea, before you start making conjectures that will "revolutionize" science, to learn what is already known and understand the existing models. A lot of pretty smart people with a lot of education have thought long and hard on these issues. The chances of someone who doesn't even understand the basic principles of physics coming up with a valid model that the experts have missed is about zero. The probability of missing simple points is pretty close to 1. If you want to become "capable" you need to do undertake some serious study of the subject of cosmology and general relativity as it stands now. You can't advance a subject that you don't understand in the first place.

 

[remindkevin]

I am going to find the speed at which our galaxy is traveling, any galaxy, reverse the math and take it back home. Now that I have a home, I am going to start with the galaxy's rate of travel, and the angle in which it is diverting off a straight course. I believe, that if you did the math for a long enough time, you would see that one of these galaxies are already begining to curve outwards at such an angle that would ultimately reverse their route and bring them back to their center, above it, or below it, into an orbit of some sort. I don't know what that takes, but I think it is totally feasible. I am not counting on the Big Bang as a completed theory; no one has shown me proof that there is no center. What they've shown me, simply, and this is where technology stops; is that galaxies are moving outward, expanding, left and right, but that is it. We can't see any further than the Big Bang because technology does not allow it. That does not mean that the Big Bang is the end all be all.

Flat land- no, its round earth. When I stand in the front yard of my home in Florida, I see a flat land as far as I can possibly see. There is no telescope that I can place on my sidewalk, that will allow me to see that the earth curves in time.

That is exactly what this is. From our planet we only see a flat Universe; and even comparing this to the earth is ridiculous; the Universe is much more grand than the earth to earlier explorers, we are Cavemen not even talking about the shape of the earth/Universe at this point.

 

[remindkevin]

Dr Rocket, my last post I wrote while your post was coming up, if I had seen your post first I would have said this:

Thank you for your information. I accept your advice but not your conclusion.

But here is what I think: if no one has even studied the possibility of a universe moving into orbit, then all of that education is for nothing.

I didn't go to college to copy my boss, I went to do better than him. Everyone is so scared of breaking a law, or doing something different, you are right, no one will take me seriously now, why risk you reputation on a new idea?

If I cannot find someone to disprove this theory or help me, where can I at least find the formulas (mentioned in last post) to begin work myself?

Look, I am not even taking this that seriously! But I do want to disprove it. Where can I find formulas for cosmic bodies in route? Could I get that bone?

Thank you for your help

 

[DrRocket]

I am going to find the speed at which our galaxy is traveling, any galaxy, reverse the math and take it back home. Now that I have a home, I am going to start with the galaxy's rate of travel, and the angle in which it is diverting off a straight course.

Might we expect a hiatus from your babbling until you complete this task and report back with the results "

I don't know what that takes, but I think it is totally feasible.

Correct, you don't know what that takes.

Correct, you think it is totally feasible. That statement in and of itself proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Not much is traveling in a straight line locally, in the sense that you mean ( in a straight line in the sense of ordiinary high-school Euclidean geometry). In fact, the universe is curved and, without electromagnetic forces which are quite small at cosmic levels, bodies are following a geodesic in space-determined by a Lorentzian metric. Those geodesics are "curves" relative to the Euclidean concept. Our galaxy is part of a local group of gravitationally bound galaxies, which are in terms part of a larger group.

What you will find is that if you take out the effects of the proper motions and look only at the larger scale motions, that the galaxies are all moving directly away from us. So the center is right here, according to your calculation. If you assume the cosmological principle, as do most modern cosmologists, then an observer anywhere else would see the same thing and conclude, from your calculation, that he is also at the center of the unviverse.

So, now you have a couple of choices. You can conclude that you are standing in the center, right there in Florida if you like. But we don't seem to have any "super blob" around us. You can conclude that anywhere else, literally anywhere, is the center of the blob, and you have a similar problem. Or you can reach the correct conclusion, which is that the geometry of the universe is a lot different from the Euclidean geometry that you learned in high school, and that you need to learn a LOT more science before you go any further.

 

[DrRocket]

If I cannot find someone to disprove this theory or help me, where can I at least find the formulas (mentioned in last post) to begin work myself?

You probably need to read, that is read and understand not just try to copy formulas, because formulas are NOT how the subject is constructed, two books:

Gravitation, by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler

Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles

Research scientists question and test the status quo all the time. That is what scientific research is all about. But before you can do that you need to completely understand the theories that you are questioning and trying to improve.

If you try to do research with first understanding the subject you will only look foolish.

 

[remindkevin]

Well hold on now. I didn't say that the center of the Universe was our galaxy. You are now arguing with yourself. I am suggesting that the center of the galaxy is exactly where it began, where we can now see the primordial ooze. What? You think that I don't know that we are a galaxy in a clump of galaxies, and I am assuming that we are the center? Where did you get this?

Look over the last graphic. What I am saying is that any galaxy, of course they are moving away from us (I am not arguing that we are not expanding), is expanding but is slowly curving to orbit our origin (the Big Bang).

LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC. READ THE CAPTIONS. I just sat here with a few people and showed them what I am trying to say, they get it; forget the formulas and follow my lines, read the captions, then you'll understand why your own quote "we are curving" even supports my theory because if we are curving, and if you were to follow the curve of one object long enough, unless it reaches a point where it can no longer curver (a wall in the Universe) and must just expand straight, it will eventually turn around, and I believe that whatever pushed us out, has the ability, mass, and gravitional pull to help pull it back.

This might be the most important post other than the graphic you need to reread.

 

[remindkevin]

But thank you for the info, it will be put to good use.

 

[DrRocket]

Well hold on now. I didn't say that the center of the Universe was our galaxy. You are now arguing with yourself. I am suggesting that the center of the galaxy is exactly where it began, where we can now see the primordial ooze. What? You think that I don't know that we are a galaxy in a clump of galaxies, and I am assuming that we are the center? Where did you get this?

Look over the last graphic. What I am saying is that any galaxy, of course they are moving away from us (I am not arguing that we are not expanding), is expanding but is slowly curving to orbit our origin (the Big Bang).

LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC. READ THE CAPTIONS. I just sat here with a few people and showed them what I am trying to say, they get it; forget the formulas and follow my lines, read the captions, then you'll understand why your own quote "we are curving" even supports my theory because if we are curving, and if you were to follow the curve of one object long enough, unless it reaches a point where it can no longer curver (a wall in the Universe) and must just expand straight, it will eventually turn around, and I believe that whatever pushed us out, has the ability, mass, and gravitional pull to help pull it back.

This might be the most important post other than the graphic you need to reread.

You don't even understand that you don't understand.

I did not say that "we are curving". I said that space-time has a non-zero curvature tensor. That is clearly true since there is such a thing as gravity. What that tensor looks like on the largest scales is still a matter of research.

Your statement ".....if we are curving, and if you were to follow the curve of one object long enough, unless it reaches a point where it can no longer curver (a wall in the Universe) and must just expand straight, it will eventually turn around, and I believe that whatever pushed us out, has the ability, mass, and gravitional pull to help pull it back" is quite simply nonsensical and simply proves that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. I am quite sure that you do indeed "believe" exaclty what you said, that simply proves my point.

You really do need to learn enough physics to at least phrase your ideas in a meaningful manner. The problem is that you are babbling and you don't even know that you are babbling. You may well have explained this to your friends who "got it", which means that their understanding us just as flawed as your own. Captions and cartoons are not physics. I understand your cartoons. I understand what you think they mean. I also understand that what you think they mean has nothing to do with the way that the space-time manifold described by general relativity actually works, and that the cartoon is inconsistent with the observed universe.

I understand what I said perfectly. It in NO WAY supports your position. The problem is that you do not understand what I said, and have completely misconstrued it. The unfortunate fact is that a BA in business does not even begin to provide you sufficient background in the language of physics (mathematics) to permit a reasonable discussion. The unfortunate fact is that this material requires some understanding of concepts that are not consistent with everyday experience, concepts of the special and general theories of relativity, and until you have some understanding of those theories you have absolutely no basis for understanding what is going on. Cartoons won't cut it.

"That's not right. It's not even wrong" -- Wolfgang Pauli

 

[DrRocket]

Unexplainable

This is getting ridiculous.

This really belongs in "The Unexplainable" but perhaps "The Unexplained" would do.

 

[Saiph]

I disagree that this belongs in Unexplained. Unexplained is for conspiracy theories, UFO's, aliens, and paranormal phenomena. This conversation is about the BB and cosmology. It belongs here, even if the content is unclear, and IMO, wrong (for all the reason's you've expounded Dr. Rocket). I really don't like the idea of sweeping such topics under the rug into unexplained. I'd rather address the subject until it dies it's own natural death, and if the posters insist on taking the topic into other threads, or spawning new ones to try to restart the discussion, that's when I'll just close them down as hijacking.

Remindkevin:

I have a few questions for you. 1st, do you realize that the graphic you're using is based not on a the percieved shape of the universe, but is just an illustration of the expansion of the universe, where the 'width' of the universe is the verticle axis, while TIME is the horizontal? I.e. the bright point on the left where the bell shape tapers isn't a 'center' its a 'beginning'. I'm asking just to make sure the confusion isn't spawned by a misinterpreted diagram.

Second, do you know that ALL observations of the apparent motions of distant galaxies point to the center of origin (i.e. all paths traced back to their origin) is right here, smack dab on earth? These are observations, and must be accounted for by our theories, not the other way around.

This observation leaves us only two possibilities: Either the earth IS the center of the universe, despite it's motion about the sun, it's motion about the galactic disk, and other galaxies tugging on the milky way... Which, on top of the massive egocentricity of the idea, is why this idea is discarded.

OR there is no center, and things are such that any observations from any point will indicate that the center is located there. I.e. EVERYWHERE is the center, just as much as any other point.

The third possibility, that the center is somewhere else, is disproved by the observations, as they all point to earth.

It is because the current, and quite successful BB theory proposes just such an arrangement, that any point can be considered the center, that you're met with such confusion here. I highly suggest borrowing from a library, or buying from a Barnes & Noble astronomy section, a layman's text on the BB and cosmology so you can fully understand the mainstream approaches to the very subjects you're addressing. Then bring questions here as to why you don't get it, or don't think it works. KNOW THY ENEMY! (if it is an enemy :geek: )

 

[remindkevin]

Thank you. I do understand question 1 and 2. Typing with iPhone now, will respond later.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes, shortly this will ooze off to The Unexplained. Sorry, but when you can't speak the language of science, it doesn't belong in a science forum...

 

[ArcCentral]

Re: Unexplainable

This is getting ridiculous.

I agree. DrRocket should be banned, or at the least be warned about degrading people on a regular basis. He could do a number of things, like ignore the thread (who would have thought), or go to Physics Forums, or gut it out and try to explain the error of a posters ways, but he chosses to act like a snot faced kid instead, and make insults as his only course of action.

Moderators?
An attitude adjusment is needed here. It shouldn't matter how knowledgeable DrRocket is, if for instance he is demeaning and degrading other posters, on a regular basis I might add.

 

[DrRocket]

Re: Unexplainable

This is getting ridiculous.

I agree. DrRocket should be banned, or at the least be warned about degrading people on a regular basis. He could do a number of things, like ignore the thread (who would have thought), or go to Physics Forums, or gut it out and try to explain the error of a posters ways, but he chosses to act like a snot faced kid instead, and make insults as his only course of action.

Moderators?
An attitude adjusment is needed here. It shouldn't matter how knowledgeable DrRocket is, if for instance he is demeaning and degrading other posters, on a regular basis I might add.

If pointing out that the OP's statement that he is "capable", is incorrect and showing why is an offense, then ban away. In order for the OP to understand the errors, which have been pointed out, it is necessary to understand the basic language of the subject. To understand the language of the subject one must put in a little study, and when one doesn't even understand that one doesn't understand, there is little motivation to undertake that study. It then becomes necessary to point out the source of the lack of understanding so that one can and perhaps will read the references provided earlier and therby improve one's knowledge and ability to actually understand the material being presented to one.

You might try a little study yourself.