New Big Bang Theory

[DrRocket]

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: )

That is a good idea, some study would clearly be beneficial.

But a word of caution -- reading a "layman's text" will not enable one to "fully understand the mainstream approaches". It will help a great deal. But the subject is sufficiently subtle that one simply obtain a full understanding at the level presented in popularizations. It is simply not realistic to beleive that one can read a popularized account of a subject as deep as the application of general relativity to cosmology and be ready to responsibly challenge mainstream theories let alone develop and advance new theories.

The popular accounts are "popular" largely because of the almost total absence of the mathematics necessary to really describe and understand the theories. It is lack of understanding of the mathematics of general relativity that is the problem in this thread. This is compounded by lack of understanding that there is lack of understanding -- whch is a near perfect impediment to communication.

Wrongly interpreted, even the usual " balloon" or "raisin bread" analogies can create as much confusion as enlightenment, and it is important to understand when one is not understanding. That requires a somewhat iterative approach to learning and willingness to make mistakes, recognize them and then stretch the mind a bit to overcome them. What is counter-productive is for one to think that one understands when one is in fact clueless, thendevelop one's own new theory and stubbornly support it when obvious difficulties are pointed out.

It would be a great error to believe that one can master a subject as intricate as cosmology based on only the over-simplifications found in the popular press. But that error is not uncommon.

 

[DrRocket]

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.

Saiph, here is something that you might enjoy thinking about.

As you say in that diagram the "width" is the vertical axis and the horizontal axis is "time".

Now, think about this. What does that mean ? The models are based on general relativity, and in general relativity the universe is a 4-dimensional space-time manifold. That manifold has curvature, and it is curvature that accounts for gravity. When you have curvature it is not possible to separate time from space. You can also see that time is not well-defined from the relativity of simultaneity. There is no global set of coordinates and no clear definition of either time or space. So what does that diagram really mean ?

The answer had to do with some additional assumptions that can be made, and that are not true in detail, but may provide an approximation to the real universe. You can find the answer in Wald's book General Relativity, chapter 5, "Homogeneous, Isotropic Cosmology". You will not find this question addressed in popularized books, but it is very important to really understanding what the cosmologists are talking about. To understand this topic it seems to me that there is no alternative other than to use some fairly advanced mathematics. The popularizations simply sweep the issue under the rug.

I finally tracked the answer down only after quite a bit of work, and a conversation with a man who is now retired but who spent a lifetime studying and doing research in general relativity.

 

[remindkevin]

=
I have enjoyed your insight.

Dr. Rocket

I think you should keep up your good work. Posters should know what they are talking about before they post their ideas. Really, its pretty moronic for someone to think that they can post on a site dedicated to such a serious subject, without the knowledge neccessary to back up their ideas.

Space.com is for professionals, and since I am a novice, I have no business posting things here, I get it. Let me ask you, where should I go next if I would like to pass the idea along to a site that is not as superior, is there a site where there are scientist that are not as smart as you, who may just want to play around with the idea? Meaning, where are the astro's that are not doing this as a profession so I don't waste your time?

I appreciate your help,
Kevin

 

[DrRocket]

=
I have enjoyed your insight.

Dr. Rocket

I think you should keep up your good work. Posters should know what they are talking about before they post their ideas. Really, its pretty moronic for someone to think that they can post on a site dedicated to such a serious subject, without the knowledge neccessary to back up their ideas.

Space.com is for professionals, and since I am a novice, I have no business posting things here, I get it. Let me ask you, where should I go next if I would like to pass the idea along to a site that is not as superior, is there a site where there are scientist that are not as smart as you, who may just want to play around with the idea? Meaning, where are the astro's that are not doing this as a profession so I don't waste your time?

I appreciate your help,
Kevin

I don't know of any restriction to professional astronomers. You might ask the mods for an official position. But so far as I know if only professionals were allowed to post, there would be zero posts around here.

I think you have the wrong idea. The issue is not related to one's profession. It is simply a matter of commonsense, and some respect for science.

Your remark that you are looking for a site that "is not as superioir" clearly indicates that you still have more desire to talk than to learn. In science, bad ideas get shot down quickly. That is the way of things, and even good scientists have bad ideas. But they learn from them, recognize the mistakes and develop new ideas, which may have merit.

Your idea simply doesn't cut the mustard. You can either learn from that, and eventually develop a greater understanding, or you can continue to try to defend an indefensible position and simply waste your time. As you have been told it is prudent to first understand the current state of science and the fundamental theories before trying to develop your own. The development of new ideas and a significant original contribution to science is the ONLY hard requirement for a Ph.D. If you think that you are ready to be awarded that degree, then continue to push your own ideas at the expense of the mainstream. If you think that perhaps you have a bit more to learn before you can conduct original research then the opportunity to learn is available -- but you have to be willing and you have to put forth quite a bit of effort.

If you want to post completely novel ideas, that is not unheard of. But when you post them in a hard science forum, and demonstrate that you don't understand the mainstream ideas, or why your model is inconsistent with observed facts and extremely well-supported basic physics, you are asking for trouble.

There is a specific forum here http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/ dedicated to "Against the Mainstream" ideas. You can post an idea there, recognizing that it is distinctly against the mainstream, and expect to receive some enthusiastic criticism from amateurs and professionals alike. But don't expect to be treated with kid gloves. That is most certainly not a place where there are "scientists not as smart as me". If you post your idea there, I will probably just watch from the sidelines, since there will be plenty of rather pointed questions for you in short order. Read the "stickies" with the rules before you post.

You could also post in The Unexplained here at SDC. The standards in that forum are somewhat different. Wayne can fill you in, as can the other mods.

If you want a forum where wild ideas are the normal fare receive litle criticism, and enjoy enthusiastic support, there are places like that too. http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi You are completely safe from me there.

 

[MeteorWayne]

With the last few comments, since the OP has declared he doesn't appreciate the scrutiny of the SS&A forum, it seems the time has come to move this topic to The Unexplained. In that forum, you will not be pressed as hard to defend your ideas, so you might be more comfortable there. That doesn't mean you won't be challenged, but people who don't understand the subject they are talking about are tolerated more kindly than in a hard science forum like Space Science and Astronomy. I'll move it a little later this morning.

Meteor Wayne

 

[remindkevin]

No no. I do care to prove my point, but instead of allowing me to do it, I have been attacked and in the first response to this thread, the thread was threatened to be moved to the Unexplained, which I didn't even know existed. This is my first time at Space.com and in my last post, I was simply showing my appreciation for all of your gracious help; but apparently, egocentricity trumps simplicity, the point was totally missed.

If the "Space Science and Astronomy" section does not allow for people to talk unless they have a P.H.D, I think Space.com will have a hard time selling ad's after awhile.

You want people to be interested in your subject, not run away from it. The fact that you attack at first sight says that you are so trained in the ways "geek" that you totally missed the first principle of business which is to attract people to your profession; you need customers - drawing capital is what allows you to have such wonderrful tools to practice with. If everyone was well read in science, you wouldn't have anything to offer in content and your site would be skipped over like a weight loss solicitation site.

Think about this, if you require everyone to have the knowledge you have to post here, then your position is in jeporady! Send it wherever you like, I understand you don't really have the capabilities to disprove my idea, its ok.

Keep your few members and sniff each others butts, I'll spend my time reading the advertisments of the Discovery Channel's website.

 

[DrRocket]

No no. I do care to prove my point, but instead of allowing me to do it, I have been attacked and in the first response to this thread, the thread was threatened to be moved to the Unexplained, which I didn't even know existed. This is my first time at Space.com and in my last post, I was simply showing my appreciation for all of your gracious help; but apparently, egocentricity trumps simplicity, the point was totally missed.

Sorry if your feelings ard hurt. People tried to show you the problems with your little idea. They also tried to provide you with some references and other resources that might help you to learn the basics of a fairly intricate subject so that you might talk intelligently about it.

You exhibition of appreciation is taken in the spirit in which it was offered. Think about the egocentricity that is implicit in entering a new field, demonstrating complete lack of knowledge with regard to field and utter comtempt for it by ignoring the hard-won knowledge that is quite pertinent to the discipline and completely invalidates your "theory".

If the "Space Science and Astronomy" section does not allow for people to talk unless they have a P.H.D, I think Space.com will have a hard time selling ad's after awhile.

Quite a few people post good ideas here and demonstrate rather impressive knowledge of the subject matter. Very few have a Ph.D. But most do their homework and they post knowledgeably, and learn from the discourse.

You managed to demonstrate utter ignorance and complete unwillingness to learn. That is bad combination.

You want people to be interested in your subject, not run away from it. The fact that you attack at first sight says that you are so trained in the ways "geek" that you totally missed the first principle of business which is to attract people to your profession; you need customers - drawing capital is what allows you to have such wonderrful tools to practice with. If everyone was well read in science, you wouldn't have anything to offer in content and your site would be skipped over like a weight loss solicitation site.

Things seem to be going pretty well. Since you don't seem to be able to grasp science, you might try exercising that BA in business that you mentioned and read The Discipline of Market Leaders by Treacy and Wiersema.

Think about this, if you require everyone to have the knowledge you have to post here, then your position is in jeporady! Send it wherever you like, I understand you don't really have the capabilities to disprove my idea, its ok.

No, you don't understand that "you don't really have the capabilities to disprove my idea". You don't understand at all. Your idea has been disproved, and disproved right here in this thread. You were shown the observational data that disproves it. You were shown how it is inconsistent with models from well-established physics, the general theory of relativity, that disprove it. You don't understand the disproofs. You don't understand the data. You don't understand the theory. You don't understand that you don't understand. But worst of all, you don't care that you don't understand.

It is because you don't care that you don't understand that you will never understand. To learn, you first have to want to learn. A willingnes to learn requires a willingness to listen. You can't learn with your mouth open.

Keep your few members and sniff each others butts, I'll spend my time reading the advertisments of the Discovery Channel's website.

Real classy rejoinder. Go read the ads. That should not be taxing, since as you know from you study of business, ads are directed towards those people who do not or cannot think critically. But, if you run into any big words you might try Wikipedia -- should you have tdeveloped a desire at that point to learn.

 

[MeteorWayne]

No no. I do care to prove my point, but instead of allowing me to do it, I have been attacked and in the first response to this thread, the thread was threatened to be moved to the Unexplained, which I didn't even know existed. This is my first time at Space.com and in my last post, I was simply showing my appreciation for all of your gracious help; but apparently, egocentricity trumps simplicity, the point was totally missed.

Not true, your ideas were attacked because they are unscientific. You refused to believe that when it was pointed out to you.

If the "Space Science and Astronomy" section does not allow for people to talk unless they have a P.H.D, I think Space.com will have a hard time selling ad's after awhile.

You want people to be interested in your subject, not run away from it. The fact that you attack at first sight says that you are so trained in the ways "geek" that you totally missed the first principle of business which is to attract people to your profession; you need customers - drawing capital is what allows you to have such wonderrful tools to practice with. If everyone was well read in science, you wouldn't have anything to offer in content and your site would be skipped over like a weight loss solicitation site.

Again, all that was done is that it was explained to you that your ideas make no scientific sense. You never explained what primordial ooze is anyway, it's a meaningless term because you have given it no meaning....

Think about this, if you require everyone to have the knowledge you have to post here, then your position is in jeporady! Send it wherever you like, I understand you don't really have the capabilities to disprove my idea, its ok.

No such requirements exist, only in this forum we talk about science. As I said, in the Unexplained, the community is a little more tolerant of ideas that cannot be backed up with some science. Your idea can't be disproved, because it has no real scientific meaning. We've tried to find some, without success.

Keep your few members and sniff each others butts, I'll spend my time reading the advertisments of the Discovery Channel's website.

Yes, and this fine example of discussion will ingratiate you to the community and show what an intelligent person you are....

 

[derekmcd]

The main problem with your proposal, remindkevin, is that you are using a graphic that is meant to describe the expansion curve, coinciding with time, using a Cartesian coordinate system on an x,y axis. The x axis is time, and the y axis is the rate of expansion. The graphic isn't even accurate... it's a very, very loose interpretation of how it would be plotted in reality. The 'artsy' graphics of the galactic clusters are just meant to show the evolution of matter as a passage of time.

This graphic has absolutely nothing to due with how the clusters travel through space.

 

[Saiph]

SDC is definitely not reserved for professionals, or the well read, even the hard science forums. Which is why I try not to sweep some subjects over into Unexplained as often as other Moderators, though there is nothing wrong with that Forum. I just view it's role a bit differently than other mods.

That being said, the issue here remindkevin, is that you've run afoul of one of the major misunderstandings most people have about modern cosmology, and that is the idea of the 'center' of the universe. Since it comes up so often, many posters here are a bit less tolerant of such ideas than they once were. Posters here can be a bit on the confident side at times, which leads to a very firm handling of new ideas. Not out of any personal motivations, it's just their familiarity with the subject means anybody who tries to debate them feels like they've run into a brick wall with the weight of understanding and confidence behind their posts.

So, don't be discouraged!

Two things to remember about the forum format for communication:

1) The written word is very poor at communicating emotions and tone behind the text. It's very, very easy to misinterpret the tone behind a comment that's written out. Quite often the error is on the negative side. What the writer might have intended, and believed to be a merely confident and clear response can come across as harsh or sarcastic.

2) Sadly the anonymity of the internet can actually exacerbate the problem, as readers can't usually read the cues either, so we can't tell exactly how you respond to us, and if, perhaps, we've come down a bit hard on what you see as an honest attempt at understanding.

It's these two barriers that, IMO, are the cause of most flamewars on the internet. That, and out right obvious trolls :twisted:

That said, as a science forum SS&A posters of all sorts will RIGOROUSLY examine any proposed ideas here, and the key for anybody bringing in unusual ideas is not just to defend their idea, but to try and learn from the questions themselves. You are asking all of us to stretch our brain and understand your idea, and you need to do the same. You need to step outside your creation and look at it as we do.

If we ask how it deals with Hubble's law, you should look at hubble's law and all it tries to explain, then see if/how your idea matches and/or replaces it. Ask US questions too if you're unsure as to what we mean.

Odds are any proposed new idea is completely wrong. MOST ideas proposed in the scientific community are wrong. I remember sitting in on analysis discussion in college, and PH.D's, graduate students and undergrads were all throwing out ideas, and usually getting shot down, or only partially accepted (e.g. "Yeah, that's a good point, this probably is important but what about..."). Then it continues on in the published material. Most published articles are actually in response to other papers, either in an attempt to expand upon them, or completely rebut them.

 

[Saiph]

DrRocket, I have indeed been puzzled by how accurate that diagram is, other than a general and illustrative timeline for a quick baseline. My general conclusion: It's a very shallow graphic. You've very aptly put into words some of the ideas that have made my brain hurt when I try to look deeper into that particular diagram.

 

[derekmcd]

DrRocket, I have indeed been puzzled by how accurate that diagram is, other than a general and illustrative timeline for a quick baseline. My general conclusion: It's a very shallow graphic. You've very aptly put into words some of the ideas that have made my brain hurt when I try to look deeper into that particular diagram.

A "quick baseline", indeed. All that graphic really depicts is the balloon analogy taken in 2 dimensional slices with an overlay of some pretty graphics and descriptive text.

 

[remindkevin]

Dr. Rocket,

I think you are misunderstanding my efforts; my interest stops where false absolutes begin. I would like to prove it is possible; however, I don't have the resources to do so. If I did, my first stop wouldn't be arguing with...ehh.

Study.

I hear this.

Understand what you are talking about.

I hear this.

You have to want to learn.

I also hear this.

Critical thinking? Something you should try. My idea is a concept, I can baby step you through the critical process, but I am sure you are well aware of it, you just refuse to accept the first part; concepts-you are only focusing on reviewing information, testing it, and concluding-maybe science is different, but we come up with concepts first.

Your first response to my idea was to get lost, suggesting (whether you knew it or not) that I didn't even have a concept! Just jibberish. Ok then, if it is jibberish, how about explaining which part is jibberish and why. That graphic is what is excepted by the scientific community, so that is what I used to better explain my position, if you remember, I had my own before I had even seen the "accepted" grapic. I don't care if it does not accurately portray the movement of the cosmos, it portrays an idea, which all I have. A concept.

It's true, I've been given new information here, but I need a moment to review it.

My feelings aren't hurt, believe it. If my feelings were hurt, I wouldn't keep posting. What I am trying to show is that it is possible. I don't care about any of that nonsense above. Just responding to it hoping that someone will do the following:

Back to my subject; what exactly would stop all cosmic bodies in our Universe from retracting from their progress (expansion) after the Bang?

I'll stop with that question; if it is answered, please use "simple" terms so I can put my critical thinking hat on..lol. Joke.

And if it is answered, I do have questions that would create data.

Thanks for any help, again.

 

[MeteorWayne]

The bottom line is, the universe is expanding, in fact at an ever increasing rate (or a close to neutral rate). So the expansion of the Universe is spreading things further apart faster than the gravitational attraction can bring them together (except on "local" scales, such as a few million light years.)

 

[SpeedFreek]

Back to my subject; what exactly would stop all cosmic bodies in our Universe from retracting from their progress (expansion) after the Bang?

I'll stop with that question; if it is answered, please use "simple" terms so I can put my critical thinking hat on..lol. Joke.

And if it is answered, I do have questions that would create data.

Thanks for any help, again.

Until a little over a decade ago, we thought the expansion rate of the universe was decreasing. Our observations had told us that galaxies were receding at a faster rate in earlier times than they had in more recent times. The question then was, would the rate of expansion decelerate to a halt or not?

The mass of the stuff in the universe seemed to be slowing the rate of expansion down through gravity. If there was enough mass, it should slow to a halt and everything (at the large scales) would start to move back towards everything else. But if there wasn't enough mass it would expand forever, at an ever decreasing rate, never quite stopping with everything continuing to become more distant from everything else.

But then we found something odd. We found evidence that the rate of expansion was not decelerating any more. Instead of continually slowing towards a halt, or slowing to a stop and starting to collapse, the rate of the expansion of the universe was accelerating! As more data has come in, we have built up a picture where the universe started out expanding incredibly fast but immediately decelerated from that rate of expansion and continued to do so for the next 8 billion years or so, until the rate of expansion levelled out and then started to accelerate something around 5 billion years ago.

It is as if it took 8 billion years for the clusters of galaxies to become distant enough from other clusters for some sort of replusive action to occur between them. One theory is that there is a repulsive background energy (perhaps left over from the beginning of the universe) that was weak enough not to be noticeable when everything was still relatively close together. We call that repulsion "dark energy" for want of a better description.

 

[derekmcd]

Back to my subject; what exactly would stop all cosmic bodies in our Universe from retracting from their progress (expansion) after the Bang?

I'll stop with that question; if it is answered, please use "simple" terms so I can put my critical thinking hat on..lol. Joke.

And if it is answered, I do have questions that would create data.

Thanks for any help, again.

Inflation. During the inflationary epoch, there was no matter or radiation for gravity to take hold. The universe was pure vacuum energy which provided the pressure for rapid expansion. Only after the universe expanded and cooled enough, did the potential energy of the vacuum get converted to the matter and radiation that we know and love today.

Immediately following the inflationary epoch, the rate of expansion was such that even all the matter in the universe could not overcome it.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It is as if it took 8 billion years for the clusters of galaxies to become distant enough from other clusters for some sort of replusive action to occur between them. One theory is that there is a repulsive background energy (perhaps left over from the beginning of the universe) that was weak enough not to be noticeable when everything was still relatively close together. We call that repulsion "dark energy" for want of a better description.

I think I'd word that a bit differently. It's not the galactic clusters that are being repulsed from each other, it's rather the space in between that is repelling itself.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

It is as if it took 8 billion years for the clusters of galaxies to become distant enough from other clusters for some sort of replusive action to occur between them. One theory is that there is a repulsive background energy (perhaps left over from the beginning of the universe) that was weak enough not to be noticeable when everything was still relatively close together. We call that repulsion "dark energy" for want of a better description.

I think I'd word that a bit differently. It's not the galactic clusters that are being repulsed from each other, it's rather the space in between that is repelling itself.

How does the space in between [the galactic clusters and superclusters] repel itself? Forget how you word it. How do you explain that assertion Wayne? :|

 

[MeteorWayne]

We don't know the answer to that yet; that's why the effect is temporarily called "dark energy".

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Let's look at at this for a moment, shall we? The Universe is expanding by most of the accepted cosmological models. Yes? Yes.
However, in the 'intimate space' vicinity, bodies will be attracted to one another and will in fact collide because of mutual gravitational attraction. For example, although the greater Universe is expanding and everything is flying away in every direction from everything else on the macro level, on the intimate level we know that the Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the Milky Way Galaxy in approximately 2.5 Billion years or so.

This is due to the size of the Universe itself, and to the initial asymmetry and later 'clumpiness' of the distribution of matter in the Cosmos as it expanded. There is an explained reason in physics for all this, but I don't have time to discuss it right now. But I don't think it's because of 'mutual space repulsion'.

I have to go now. I'm late. Do your homework Wayne, we'll discuss this later.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I'm talking about the recently found increase in the rate of expansion of the Universe. If gravity was the only force operating, the expansion would be slowing as it apparently did for the first 8 billion years. It appears that since then, the expansion is speeding up; whatever is causing that is referred to as dark energy.

Do your homework, and look up the term.

 

[spacehugo]

regarding that we dont know enough about dark matter, dark energy and the creation of these to tell or explain their origin, it may be that black holes is the source, and thereby we can in a simple way say that "when black holes have been eaten each other to the last two B.H. and one of these two become the very last B.H. there is not more mass to feed it, and given the time needed it will, according to hawking radiation evaporate, and the smaller the B.H., the hotter it get until finaly it will dissapear in a small explotion containing only a few particles and when that happens it releases all the potensial energy which it has kept apart all this time and to us that might look like the big bang. Maybe.

 

[SpeedFreek]

There may well be a black hole era, but we don't think it would produce another big bang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_ ... g_universe

 

[spacehugo]

If and I will say IF, if the total amount of the three "medium", dark matter,dark energy and gravity together will balance the equation( of retracting vs expansion)when perfect and equal distributed in an given volume,(f.eks. in a atom, making the needed distance between electrons(which would travel in a linear direction if not kept in orbit by "dark mass gravity" and kept from falling in to the core by dark energy outward force) no physical mass would or could be formed, but since gravity is collecting and thereby accumulates pull makes it disrupt the balance due to the fact that the further from objekt the weaker the pull of gravity will be.but when gravity grows big enough, it will pass (go beyond)the physical laws which makes it possible to be created, and capable of separate these mediums. everything cycles and always seeking equillibrium, but due to the fact that dark mass have a certain gravity pull and dark energy the opposite force, but slightly more power and thereby increasing the accelleration of the expanding universe, might be a result of the accumulation of gravity in B.H. and the disruption in balance formed by the decreasing pull of gravity as distance increase. both the "the big crunch"and "the big rip" theory will eventually make an end of the B.H. releasing all the potensial energy accumulated when separating the forces mentioned at start of this writing. also keep in mind that there is not sufficient amount of energy in the hole universe to accelerate even the smallest physical particle to the speed of light and that its mass will increase to an impossible amount.

 

[MeteorWayne]

sorry spacehugo, you are completely off base. I'd suggest you learn some physics, your ideas make no sense. sorry.