Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[csmyth3025]

G'day Chris

Mate you got it wrong.

My position is not important.

It's to be awear of the information that is out there.

I think that I'm wasting my time.

People feel more comfortable feeling what they know is right.

So be it.

Harry,

The purpose of a discussion board is to discuss things about which we have an opinion or a question. If you feel your role is to serve as a perpetual search engine - cranking out endless links based on subject matter - then perhaps you are, indeed, wasting your time (and ours).

Chris

 

[UFmbutler]

Harry, posting vaguely related but not really related links and then insulting the intelligence of everyone who responds to them is not doing much to disguise your lack of understanding. Stop covering your ears and screaming while people try to explain themselves and answer their questions. You have done nothing to establish your intelligence/experience in the field. Are you published? Are you a professor at a University? Do you have any professional qualifications at all? No? Then I do not have to take your assertions at face value. You have to explain your position otherwise you contribute absolutely NOTHING to the conversation.

You can call the mainstream stupid and uneducated all you want. It's not going to help. Get over yourself and open your opinions, which it is clear that you have some, to criticism and analysis. Otherwise, do us all a favor and stop wasting your time, and more importantly, our time.

 

[SpeedFreek]

G'day speedfreek

You need to research the workings of compact matter and the formation of jets. Also the transient processes of normal matter to various degenerate phases and the ejection of this matter via jets and the formation of normal matter. This is well documented. Your responses basically tells me that you do not know.

I was replying to the two papers you posted, neither of which are about the workings of compact matter and the formation of jets! Gimme a break here!

So, show me a theory of cosmology that relies on the workings of compact matter and the formation of jets.

My field of interest is cosmology, i.e. theories that describe the evolution of the universe, i.e. the subject of this thread. So, what kind of universe are we living in, according to the workings of compact matter and the formation of jets?

You are posting these same papers in various forums all over the internet, and getting similar responses in all of them - a remarkable coincidence, eh?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Indeed harry;

"You are posting these same papers in various forums all over the internet, and getting similar responses in all of them - a remarkable coincidence, eh?"

And the community, and the managers of the site are getting pretty bloody tired of it. You have been gently warned about this and asked to provide the point you are trying to make before posting links. You have ignored this advice.

You have been asked direct questions about the point you are trying to make, which you have repeatedly ignored.

You are rapidly approaching the point where snactions, and restrictions on your posts will be demanded and enforced.

Ignore this advice at your own peril.

Meteor Wayne

 

[csmyth3025]

On the subject of cosmology - i.e. the evolution of the universe - how do we determine that constants such as the speed of light and the fine structure constant have actually been constant over the last 13.7 billion years? I'm guessing that there are observations which indicate that this is so. I'm also guessing that a cosmological model which assumes that this is so (without credible supporting evidence or, at least, a credible logical argument that this must be so) might rightly be called into question.

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

The fine structure constant would only have to vary by a few percent for the nature of fundamental interactions to change considerably. With a difference of a few percent, for instance, stellar fusion would not produce carbon, so there would be no carbon based life. With a higher deviation, stellar fusion would be impossible.

We have experimental evidence that the fine structure constant has not changed significantly. There was a study of the Oklo natural fission reactor, a concentration uranium deposits in Africa that was undergoing self-sustaining nuclear fission around 2 billion years ago. Measurements taken there indicate that the fine structure constant can only have deviated by around 4.5 parts in 10^8 over the last 2 billion years!

 

[csmyth3025]

Thanks

Chris

 

[hvargas]

According to the assumptions of what some called the " redshift ", a timeline has been established to identified the Origins of the Universe. This method by no mean is a testament to support the BBT. What the redshift does is to provide measurements which determines the distances of far out galaxies in relation to our position and our galaxy. The redshift has also been used to explained the expansion of the Universe in conjunction with Hubble's Law called " Hubble's Constant ", this constant is defined as the recession velocity of a galaxy to be equal to its distance multiplied by the quantity of Hubble's Constant. Other factors to take into consideration are the Doppler Effect, Gravitational Lensing and the Blueshift. Back to the redshift, which is represented by the letter Z also gives a history of the Universe. We can speculate on Origins and BB but the Universe need not had started from a BB nor any other accumulations of whatever, instead it could had been a gradual proccessed of the interactions of different types and kinds of energy and matter. This is still occuring in the formation of new galaxies and in the terminations of older galaxies. There is no expansion as far as Space itself is concerned, everything is in constant motion whether moving away from each other or moving towards each other is no indication that the Universe is expanding as well. The impression may look as if there is an expansion of Space or the effects of time dilation but to jump to conclusion is to blind oneself of other posibilties that may indicate the contrary.

 

[ramparts]

That was a pretty confusing post. So the crux of your "argument" (when you claim an alternate to the Big Bang) is here:

instead it could had been a gradual proccessed of the interactions of different types and kinds of energy and matter. This is still occuring in the formation of new galaxies and in the terminations of older galaxies.

Which is unclear both because of the butchering of English grammar, and because the concepts make no sense. And you claim to overthrow a few decades of scientific research. Right...

 

[csmyth3025]

by hvargas » Sun Sep 13, 2009 12:43 pm

The impression may look as if there is an expansion of Space or the effects of time dilation but to jump to conclusion is to blind oneself of other posibilties that may indicate the contrary.

I take it that you're arguing in favor of a steady-state model of the Universe. Also, that just because everything we measure at far distances is moving away from us, that observation doesn't mean that space itself is expanding. Does this pretty much sum up your point?

Chris

 

[hvargas]

So, if science saids whatever about the Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang, and all is based on decades of scientifit research - that I'm to accept it as facts. In science there are many things that are still being debated and many other that are still just theories. I had read many books based on this subject and they all give multiple possibilities on these matters. These are books that review the reserchers findings in comparison to others who are researching the same subjects. At this moment I'm reading OUR COSMIC HABITAT by Martin Rees. My sense of logic takes me very far, sometimes further than most humans. One does not need to have a mathematical degree to understand the principles behing cosmological or astronomical findings and or to envision the working of the cosmo. I take nothing for granted and just like mathematics something is true or false not in between. Science has developed theory as a way to get the true fact, on the way many contests the theory while others attest to it. The best part is having someone who refuse the theory and searches beyond the science which is what I do, and of course profoundly read all pertinent datas and books that can enghlight me. I read these forums to see just how much others atre knowing about it or if they are just going along with the findings of others. For example, I had not read any convincing arguments or facts about " SPACE " and how it came about. SPACE is the beginning for everything and nothing can first exist without SPACE, that is to say, Space must exist prior to whatever. The BBT states that it all happen simulteneously, the questtion then will be how and from where did this quantum particle or matter came from. An accumulation of an energy source appearing out of nowhere and causing the creation of everything as we see it today. This is not a matter of I thing it happen this way or that and or that, hey we uncover a cosmic rediation background, well lets see how it fits into the puzzle. The first question is still left unanswer " HOW DID SPACE CAME ABOUT ? ". Some people think that you have to be old to be wise or that you must suffer, this is not true, nor do you have to be a scientist to know more than a scientist. Many decades ago someone said to me " I own it and you know more than me ", this was a compliment cause I don't know more than him. You will never imagine who that someone is.

 

[csmyth3025]

So, if science saids whatever about the Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang, and all is based on decades of scientifit research - that I'm to accept it as facts. In science there are many things that are still being debated and many other that still just theories. I had read many books based on this subject and they all give multiple possibilities on this matters. This are books that review the reachers findings in comparison to others who are researching the same subjects. At this moment I'm reading OUR COSMIC HABITAT by Martin Rees. Must leave now got to go to work ------

There are no scientific thought police who dictate what you must accept as fact. If, however, you wish to make your own informed judgement about the veracity of the the observations and the resulting proposed cosmological theories based on those observations, you will need a robust knowledge of the history of these observations and of the various players who have contributed incrementally to the development of the theories designed to explain those observations.

Additionally, you will need a firm background in mathematics since any credible cosmological theory is rigorously tied to mathematical equations and manipulations which establish the self-consistency of the theory.

If you have these qualifications - or are willing to invest the considerable amount of effort to acquire the extensive knowledge base described above, then you can rightfully object to those aspects of current theory that you feel is wrong. This, of course, places on you the responsibility to cite the specific errors or inconsistencies you've uncovered.

If your claim is that there are many alternate theories that have been proposed, you're right. Whether those alternate theories can stand the test of observation and mathematical self-consistency is an entirely different question. Your choice is to accept the judgement of prominent researchers and theorist who have spent years studying these observations and proposed alternate theories, or educate yourself to the level that you can evaluate them yourself.

Chris

 

[SpeedFreek]

At this moment I'm reading OUR COSMIC HABITAT by Martin Rees.

A very good book, by all accounts. It will be interesting to hear your conclusions once you have finished it.

 

[warpfactor]

If there was a big bang it would create an inflationary period but why should it be the beginning ?
If as I believe there are many universes, any collison between universes would create such inflation and there may be many such collisions.
There may not be a start or end just a change in dimension.

 

[csmyth3025]

If there was a big bang it would create an inflationary period but why should it be the beginning ?
If as I believe there are many universes, any collison between universes would create such inflation and there may be many such collisions.
There may not be a start or end just a change in dimension.

I don't think the big bang theory - what is now called the Lambda-CDM concordance model - purports to explain the "beginning". It only deals with what happened immediately after the beginning up until the present day.

Chris

 

[warpfactor]

Is there a popular explanation to the beginning of everything if such a beginning took place ?
I am only an interested amateur but is it possible fluctuating waves
from a flimsy enveloping membrane could create enough heat to start the ball rolling ?
What could have created the enveloping membrane ?

 

[SpeedFreek]

Hi warpfactor!

Based on your questions, you might find these videos interesting:

The Elegant Universe

 

[hvargas]

To both Warpfactor and CSMYTH3025. The Cosmos is where all the unknown will never be found, the most that anyboby including science can observed and study are the things within it reach. What this means is that there many SYSTEMS and ours is just one of them, not the yougest and not the oldest. There is one thing that all systems have in common no matter how remote it may be from us, and that is that they all occupied the same " SPACE ". The problem is that Space is endless with no beginning and no end, we must imagine what this means in terms of distance and a number that will be too big to comprehend. Looking for the birth of our system is not the same as asking the first question, which is " how did Space polluted itself ". You must imagine when there was nothing in existence, no matters and no particles -- at such a time ( and time did not existed ) there was only EMPTY SPACE. This is the most difficult quetion to answer but the answer will define how life evolved for all SYSTEMS no matter how remote they may be. Is not a question of some Bang, Bang or many Big Bangs this events are not the first events but events that came long after. Everyone will argue but it will not matter cause it will never be conclusived.

 

[warpfactor]

To speedfreek & hvargas
Thanks for replying here's to future discussions.

 

[lewislink2]

To both Warpfactor and CSMYTH3025. The Cosmos is where all the unknown will never be found, the most that anyboby including science can observed and study are the things within it reach. What this means is that there many SYSTEMS and ours is just one of them, not the yougest and not the oldest. There is one thing that all systems have in common no matter how remote it may be from us, and that is that they all occupied the same " SPACE ". The problem is that Space is endless with no beginning and no end, we must imagine what this means in terms of distance and a number that will be too big to comprehend. Looking for the birth of our system is not the same as asking the first question, which is " how did Space polluted itself ". You must imagine when there was nothing in existence, no matters and no particles -- at such a time ( and time did not existed ) there was only EMPTY SPACE. This is the most difficult quetion to answer but the answer will define how life evolved for all SYSTEMS no matter how remote they may be. Is not a question of some Bang, Bang or many Big Bangs this events are not the first events but events that came long after. Everyone will argue but it will not matter cause it will never be conclusived.

It's called the "bounce" theory. Science is looking into the idea that the universe expands and contracts, creating bounces where all matter in the universe is squeezed back into a small point and re-expands...like a "bang'...completely renewing itself. And it is theorized this has been happening infinitely. Taking gravity into account, I can see this rationally. Ifg all of the matter in the universe were to coalesce back in on itself, it would go way beyond the most massive black hole imagined and would have such mass that it might squeeze itself inside out creating an inverse "bang".

 

[csmyth3025]

To both Warpfactor and CSMYTH3025. The Cosmos is where all the unknown will never be found, the most that anyboby including science can observed and study are the things within it reach. What this means is that there many SYSTEMS and ours is just one of them, not the yougest and not the oldest. There is one thing that all systems have in common no matter how remote it may be from us, and that is that they all occupied the same " SPACE ". The problem is that Space is endless with no beginning and no end, we must imagine what this means in terms of distance and a number that will be too big to comprehend. Looking for the birth of our system is not the same as asking the first question, which is " how did Space polluted itself ". You must imagine when there was nothing in existence, no matters and no particles -- at such a time ( and time did not existed ) there was only EMPTY SPACE...

There are several conjectures - collectively called Mach Principles. They can be found in the Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_principle

One of those conjectures as presented by Hermann Bondi and Joseph Samuel is as follows:

Mach7: If you take away all matter, there is no more space.

This is an interesting concept, and one that's not only food for thought but also fodder for endless debate.

The obvious question is that if you take away all matter, how do you determine if Space exists?

Chris

 

[hvargas]

The obvious question is not what will determine the existing of Space when all Matter is taken away but what is there when there is " NO SPACE ".

 

[lewislink2]

Unless or until a more plausible explanation for the Universe comes out, I'm cool with a Big Bang. Observational data points towards a Universe that is NOT cyclical due to an accelerating expansion.

While one might say that the Universe could still be cyclical on a larger time scale, there's the pesky issue of particle decay. Based on current data, we're fairly certain what will happen during the next 100 billion years.

I'm not a physicist, so I can't properly articulate my thoughts, and since I'm not a Physicist, I may not even be right. All I know is that for the Universe to be "closed" (and thereby cyclical), there has to be a "Great Attractor" of some sort that has sufficient mass to reverse the accelerating expansion of the Universe, and bring all matter back to a point of focus prior to that matter decaying.

IMO, that's a pretty tall order.

My theory of the cyclical universe is a rebound effect. I'm imagining ...erm...a trampoline...for lack of a better example...that, when force is applied to one side....the top side, through something bouncing on it, will rebound the other direction before coming to rest in the middle plane. Given the current theory of singularities, I can see this rebound effect happening logically, based on gravity. The more massive something is, the smaller it will become because gravity is squishing it more and more compact.

The rebound effect takes into account all of the matter in the universe...normal matter, dark matter (if it actually exists)...and as the universe begins to collapse, matter will come together, eventually clumping ever tighter together and these clumps will grow ever more massive with ever increasing gravity and density. And as the matter coalesces back together, gravity will increase so much as matter is being squeezed tighter and tighter, that the speed of the collapse of the universe will geometrically increase and cause it to go beyond a small single point into an expansion in the opposite direction...an equal and opposite rebound of turning itself inside out, creating a mirror image of the previous universe since there would be nothing...that we are currently aware of beyond the universe...to slow its momentum. It would expand in the opposite direction as much as the previous direction... eternal rebounding.

 

[csmyth3025]

The idea of a cyclical universe was seriously considered as a possibility until around 1998. Until that time there was a question about whether there was enough mass in the universe to slow down cosmic expansion, eventually bring it to a halt, and subsquently cause cosmic contraction resulting in a "big crunch". Scientists spent many years trying to determine the rate at which cosmiic expansion was slowing down in order to answer this question. The following quote describes what happened in 1998:

"As cosmologists continued to work with the notion of an expanding cosmos, they concluded that over the 12- to 15-billion-year life of the universe, the expansion would slow slightly, thanks to the pull of gravity that every galaxy exerts on every other. But spotting such a change requires probing deep into the past by looking at stars glittering billions of light-years away--too far away for Cepheids to be seen.

So for the past 20 years, astronomers have turned to a new kind of standard candle: the brightest kind of supernova, which happens nearly the same way each time. But these bright, massive explosions are rare--only two or three erupt in a typical spiral galaxy per millennium. To find enough of them, astronomers make electronic images of large swaths of sky in a single night, capturing tens of thousands of distant galaxies, and then image the same areas a few weeks later. Once the images are overlaid and subtracted on a computer, any new supernovae leap out and can be observed until they fade away.

The two teams, both of which have members in Europe, Latin America, Australia, and the United States, collected their supernova data with increasing efficiency over the last few years, expecting to find out by how much gravity was slowing cosmic expansion. Early this year, both teams announced that their expectations had been turned upside down: The relative dimness of the supernovae showed that they are 10% to 15% farther out than expected even in a universe with little matter, indicating that the expansion has accelerated over billions of years. At year's end, with dozens of supernovae analyzed, published, or in press, those conclusions stand."

I found this information here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 5397/2156a

In the absence of new observations contadicting the above it looks like the universe will continue to expand forever.

Chris

 

[lewislink2]

The idea of a cyclical universe was seriously considered as a possibility until around 1998. Until that time there was a question about whether there was enough mass in the universe to slow down cosmic expansion, eventually bring it to a halt, and subsquently cause cosmic contraction resulting in a "big crunch". Scientists spent many years trying to determine the rate at which cosmiic expansion was slowing down in order to answer this question. The following quote describes what happened in 1998:

"As cosmologists continued to work with the notion of an expanding cosmos, they concluded that over the 12- to 15-billion-year life of the universe, the expansion would slow slightly, thanks to the pull of gravity that every galaxy exerts on every other. But spotting such a change requires probing deep into the past by looking at stars glittering billions of light-years away--too far away for Cepheids to be seen.

So for the past 20 years, astronomers have turned to a new kind of standard candle: the brightest kind of supernova, which happens nearly the same way each time. But these bright, massive explosions are rare--only two or three erupt in a typical spiral galaxy per millennium. To find enough of them, astronomers make electronic images of large swaths of sky in a single night, capturing tens of thousands of distant galaxies, and then image the same areas a few weeks later. Once the images are overlaid and subtracted on a computer, any new supernovae leap out and can be observed until they fade away.

The two teams, both of which have members in Europe, Latin America, Australia, and the United States, collected their supernova data with increasing efficiency over the last few years, expecting to find out by how much gravity was slowing cosmic expansion. Early this year, both teams announced that their expectations had been turned upside down: The relative dimness of the supernovae showed that they are 10% to 15% farther out than expected even in a universe with little matter, indicating that the expansion has accelerated over billions of years. At year's end, with dozens of supernovae analyzed, published, or in press, those conclusions stand."

I found this information here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 5397/2156a

In the absence of new observations contadicting the above it looks like the universe will continue to expand forever.

Chris

Interesting. Not that I understand the logic behind it, though. One thing I am aware of is what is theorized will happen if the universe expands forever. All matter in the universe, down to sub-atomic particles, will be pulled apart. That means eternal death for the universe.