Notices

View Poll Results: Is this model of our universe compelling and does it beat out whatever might be in 2nd place?

Voters
1. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, No or your on the right track but keep working on it

    1 100.00%
  • Would you consider adding to this model?

    0 0%
  • Would you like to collaberate on this subject?

    0 0%
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe

  1. #1 Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    A New Look At The Big Bang Creation Theory Of Our Universe

    Nothing upsets me more than watching the Science, History & Discovery channels put out their series about the Universe. They tell the story of our Universe and its creation about 14 billion years ago, that started with a big bang from a “Singularity” that was smaller in size than an atom and then expanded into all the galaxies and stars that we call our Universe. Before the big bang there was nothing, time and space did not exist. If they put that bunk into its proper perspective, I would not mind so much. After all we do need a working model in which to explain how things work and to move forward developing and refining our view of reality. But the big bang theory is badly dated and in need of a big makeover and I resent seeing that old out of date bunk being presented as though it was a proven fact of science.

    I am not a scientist of any kind, I do not have any advanced degrees, but I am interested in knowing how things really work and I do go out of my way to keep up with the latest observations and discoveries made with our newest instrumentation which is becoming ever more powerful at an ever increasingly fast pace. So in the last 50 years we have learned more about the universe, than in all the preceding history that humans have been pondering their place in reality.

    What I want to do with this document is show how a new model of our universe can be built that will provide alternate answers to many of the big questions we have. Like dark matter and energy and black hole life cycles and the roll they play in our universe. The current standard model of our universe just is not working. The proposed guesses and long list of competing theories is like watching a group of kids trying to pound square pegs into round holes. If you look at the standard model and ask yourself where is the common sense and can any of it be placed in context with nature? I am talking about the big picture here and the answer is NO. There is no “in context with nature” and common sense is nowhere to be found. When you have a theory that says everything came from nothing and you try to foster that off as scientific fact, you will not get an argument from the church and that is always been a safe position to take as it keeps those creationist fanatics off your back. But like the Flat Earth Society and Earth is the center of the universe believers, the universe from nothing will have to be left behind.

    What I am going to do now, is tell a new story of our universe. One that will make sense and will be in context with nature and provide answers to satisfy the most current observations of our universe. I am not promising to get everything 100% right, but I do want to offer a better platform to work from if you are a scientist with a need, and if you are not a scientist and just want to feel better about your reality, the picture I will paint in your mind will do the trick.

    I will be introducing many new terms needed to build and illustrate the proper picture in your mind. Before I get started with my story I would like to list and define those terms.

    In Context With Nature – While this term may not be new, when applied to the standard model of our universe, it is conspicuous by its absence. Example in point, All reality did not exist until it was created out of nothing about 14 billion years ago. What we call the big bang. I believe asking the question, “is this in context with nature?” should be a basic theme in all answers and theories that are put forth in building the picture of our universe.

    Illumination Event – An event that happened about 14 billion years ago, and is the reason why we have stars in our visible universe.

    Visible Universe – Implies that our universe is a great deal larger than what we can see. The expression “tip of the iceberg” comes to mind, however even that may not be in the real ballpark.

    Real Universe – Includes the visible universe and everything else.

    Dark Matter – A new definition, currently defined as exotic and unknown new type of matter that is dark and very hard to detect that makes up about 90% of all mass in our universe. For my story this will be changed to ordinary matter. Dark yes, but still very ordinary.

    Dark Energy – Just a new accounting for all the new gravity that will be added to the mix, or a way to measure the dark ordinary matter needed to create the observations we are seeing.

    Mass Cloud - This is a celestial structure that is thousands or perhaps millions of times larger than our visible universe. This cloud is made up of particles as any cloud is, however these particles have a great deal of mass, hence the name mass cloud. The nature and make up of these particles will become very apparent when we get into the life cycle and true nature of black holes.

    Black Hole Critical Mass – The point at which a black hole recycles all of its mass and becomes known as an illumination event.

    Black Hole Matter – I am not sure that black hole matter can be characterized as normal by any stretch of anybodies imagination, but it is known and for the purpose of this document will be grouped with normal matter.

    Black Hole Shelf Life – Some ridiculously large number of years that is so beyond any scale that is meaningful to us, that any figures I use in this document are only illustrations to convey my ideas.

    Black Hole Life Cycle – Given the shear number of new black holes created in our visible universe during its illuminated cycle, most of them will end in mergers. But that does not mean those life cycles will be short by our standards as most of those mergers will take place long after our visible universe has gone and been dark for a very long time.

    Black Hole Nursery – Just a point of view as to the true nature of what our visible universe really is.

    Galactic Bud Off - How new galaxies come into being. A growing black hole of sufficient size gets dislodged from the parent galaxy during a collision or near miss by another galaxy and naturally it takes a great deal of orbiting mass with it.

    Okay, lets talk about black holes. There has been much talk about how they are created and that all galaxies have a super massive black hole at their cores. Also it is common knowledge that all black holes have gravity so strong that even light cannot escape when it has crossed the event horizon. The event horizon is that specific distance from a black hole that has been characterized as the point of no return for anything as slow as light.

    The scientists seem to be ignoring something very important now that black holes are an established fact. Everything in nature even celestial nature has a beginning and an ending. The term for that, is called “Life Cycle”. Stars, planets, galaxies and our visible universe all have a life cycle. The life cycle of an average star is 15 to 20 billion years and I have heard estimates that our visible universe has a life cycle of about 250 to 400 billion years, when all available star fuel (Hydrogen) has been depleted.

    Now the question I want to explore is what happens to all those black holes? I believe this question changes everything about how we perceive how our real universe looks and works.

    Lets start examining the life cycle of a black hole. When a black hole is created what are the possible ways it can come to an end. I have thought about this for some time now and only two ways come to mind. The first way is it gets merged with another black hole. When two become one, at least one has come to an end. The second possible way requires the black hole to have an upper limit on how massive it can become before it reaches critical mass and goes pop. Black hole critical mass, lets assume that is a fact and examine what that might mean. First is there any way to estimate what that critical mass upper limit might be? Yes there is. Take all available star fuel in the visible universe and calculate its mass and that would be it. Am I implying that our visible universe is the result of a black hole critical mass big bang recycling event? Obviously I am and hence forth this event will be referred to as an illumination event because when it happens we get star formation.

    Lets pause this train of thought and examine what happens to a black hole between its creation and its ending. What is the one big glaring question here? “Time”, “Shelf Life”, “Off Any Known Scale”, Every galaxy creates millions maybe hundreds of millions of new black holes in its illuminated life cycle and most of them will still be around when the galaxy goes dark at the end of its illumination cycle. So what does a dark galaxy look like? Mass wise, pretty much the same as it did when it was illuminated and now it resembles a common particle in the mass cloud. A supper massive black hole with a great deal of mass in orbit around it and it is now dark mass but still ordinary matter as we know it. Getting back to the subject of black hole shelf life, we have billions of illuminated galaxies going dark after 250 to 400 billion years and many hundreds of millions of new black holes per galaxy and most of them will not have even merged once yet. Makes you wonder how long it takes for a black hole to grow big enough to bud off with its own great deal of orbiting mass. I am sure that when galaxies collide or have near misses they create opportunities for growing black holes to leave home and strike out on their own as a new galaxy. I could make some guesses, but for the sake of illustrating the point I will throw out a couple of hundred trillion years as a reasonable time for a baby black hole to grow into a young adult.

    Okay, having said what I have, I expect you are starting to get the bigger picture of the reality of our universe. Black holes go about their business mostly in the dark and by the time one reaches black hole old age it has most likely experienced many illumination events with very much longer periods of darkness in between. Finely the black hole reaches critical mass and recycles its mass. At the time this event takes place, it has to recycle all the mass in a relatively short time as far as celestial time goes, I would say within a few million years. Why, well because observations tell us that star formation took place in all the illuminated galaxies at about the same time. When you think about it, sense light cannot escape the gravity well of a black hole, it makes sense that any expansion of the mass would have to be faster than light or the expansion would not ever take place. As the expansion moves out and passes the dark galaxies, each galaxy in range will trap a great deal of star fuel (Hydrogen) and this will do a couple of things right off. First the mass of trapped hydrogen will be considerable and the faster than light big bang wind will impart a great deal of outward momentum to the dark galaxies, which serves to jump start the expansion of the visible universe. The second thing that happens is star formation. I cannot imagine any better star nurseries than a full blown dark galaxy with a fresh charge of star fuel.

    At this point lets recap what we have. A visible universe which contains billions of galaxies and is only a small section of the overall mass cloud that it finds itself a part of. The structure of the visible universe, the clusters, super clusters and voids were already in place before the illumination event took place and it is reasonable to assume that this structure continues on past the visible boundaries of our visible universe. Lets also do an accounting of the so called missing dark matter and energy at this point. Sense we started with ready made dark galaxies and added a little hydrogen, what we can see is but a tip of an iceberg and the rest is dark ordinary matter, black holes, burned out stars and heavy element gas and dust created by all those burned out stars. Next our visible universe is totally surrounded in all directions by dark galaxies in basically the same density and structure as our visible universe. It is easy to see how this would add enough gravity to the mix to account for all the so called exotic unknown dark energy required to satisfy the current observations. How would all this surrounding gravity affect that initial jump start we got with the illumination recycling event. A great deal of extra gravity in the direction of the already outwardly expanding galaxies will only serve to add a small amount of continuous acceleration for many billions of years at least until the visible galaxies penetrated far enough into the surrounding dark galaxies to start picking up gravitational drag which will serve to slow the expansion. I would term this as ordinary dynamic interaction inside the mass cloud. I can only imagine that this dynamic interaction stimulates an increase in galactic collisions, mergers, near misses and new galactic bud offs.

    Now lets look at how well this model meets the “In Context With Nature” question. First, we still have a big bang of sorts, but it did not create new mass out of nothing, it only recycled existing mass, and time and space did not miraculously come into existence with this illumination event. Time and space has existed for time scales that we humans have no way to express even if we could develop a frame of reference that was meaningful to us. The life cycle of a single black hole that has reached critical mass could be many thousands of trillion years. The beginning and ending of our visible universe is only a celestial blink of the eye in the life cycle of a black hole. What I have just described is definitely a natural system of beginnings, endings and recycling at celestial scales of time and space.

    How did I make the connection that allowed me to come up with this model of the universe. It was when super massive black holes were discovered at the cores of all the galaxies. Something just was not adding up, new black holes were only in the range of a few solar masses and yet every galaxy has a super massive black hole core ranging in size of a few million solar masses to over a billion solar masses. That kind of evidence just does not congeal out of big bang soup and I am very tired of hearing that it did on my favorite TV science channels. In any event, I decided I wanted to know more about the life cycle of a black hole and started searching for all the information I could get on black holes. I could not even find a single recorded thought anywhere on the Internet, that anybody has given any thought about the life cycle of a black hole and what it might mean to the overall scheme of the universe. The black hole is an excepted fact of nature, but to think about its true nature and the incredible shelf life it has, just cannot possibly be in the current standard model of the universe. It is a very large square peg trying to fit into a very small round hole. If the universe is natural and I believe it is, then it has to be able to account for and accommodate the life cycle of a black hole. The current standard model cannot be made to do it. Its not natural by any stretch of imagination and just does not work well for many of the current observations. Example: Dark matter and energy just cannot be accounted for in the standard model and consequently scientists are grasping at straws trying to find and identify new exotic forms of mass and energy. I would not go as far as saying it is a complete waist of time, but come on. When you have an unnatural wrong model to work with, what can you expect?

    One thing this new model does real well, is that it keeps an aspect of the big bang. The main reason we have a big bang theory to begin with, the perceived expansion of the visible universe and it answers the other big questions in a way that makes sense without trying to discover a new type of invisible exotic matter or postulate a new unknown major league energy to make it work. Scientists know that gravity is what makes the universe work the way it does. So why not look for a solution within that known framework? It is amazing how well the pieces fall into place when you have the right model to work with. So why did I have to come up with this model? Why not a scientist or a team of scientists or anyone else in the world community that is studying and trying to make sense out of the universe?

    It is not an easy connection to make. The idea that black holes are the reason we exist at all, is a shocking concept. Its not going to be easy for the scientific community to see and except that our visible universe is mainly just a black hole nursery. Think about it, if the real universe as we know it, is all about black holes, then they have to be coming from somewhere.

    If every visible galaxy produces close to a hundred million new black holes in its illuminated cycle and the same for who knows how many previous illuminated cycles, and we have many billions of illuminated galaxies. Well that is a lot of black holes in the pipeline and they all have a life cycle and everything else is just incidental to that life cycle. What do I mean by that? Well if there were not any black holes, galaxies as we know them could not exist and with out galaxies we would never have star formation and without star formation, life as we know it never enters the picture. Everything is connected and depends on the life cycle of black holes.

    The infinite real universe is all about ever increasingly large structures, first we had the world, then we had the solar system, then we had the galaxy, then the visible universe and now the black holes that dominate the real universe. With every discovery of a larger structure comes an exponential increase in time and distance scales we have to deal with. I would hate to say that the black holes are not themselves part of an even larger structure, but there is a limit to my ability to perceive what it might be. After all I cannot imagine anything that might have a life cycle that even comes close to that of a black hole. But one thing I am sure of is that black hole physics will be a continuing hot bed of debate for a long time to come.

    About now your probably thinking “What the hell!” there is absolutely no possible way any of this can be true? Maybe and maybe not, but you cannot deny it is a very elegant approach in which all the pieces seem to fit together very well and they meet the “In context with nature” required theme in an amazing way. The fact is that no matter how many times you reread this document or think about what I have said about our new reality, the simplicity of it makes sense that will not be easy to deny. Okay maybe you are a hard nose conservative that still likes the current standard model “Big Bang Theory” of our universe. In that case, I am the one that is amazed as I did not think there were any of those left. At least I have not met anyone who thought so in a very long time.

    The point I am trying to make is when you put the current big bang theory up against my black hole reality, what are you going to choose as the most promising approach to the actual reality we really live in? With the current theory depending on who you are listening to, we will continue to expand until all matter goes cold and decays into nothing from which we started from nothing, or we will go through a big crunch as the force of gravity pulls everything back to its starting point. I could go on and on with each theory getting even more far out and unbelievable, and not one of all these theories even comes close to being in context with nature or makes any kind of sense at all. So if you want to be dubious about my approach, please consider what you have to compare it to.

    Now that I have established my approach as the reality of choice. What other interesting possibilities does this present. I am going to start a list and if anybody else wishes to add to it, by all means send me your additions.

    1.What would a collision between an illuminated galaxy and a dark galaxy look like? It may be a bit early in the life cycle of our visible universe to expect an actual example of this, but sooner or later it will happen.
    2.What if another illumination event happened close enough to our visible universe to have a area of overlap? All I can say is hopefully the Milky Way will not be one of the galaxies getting a new infusion of star fuel. Also, two areas of the mass cloud expanding into each other sounds like another place better avoided if possible.
    3.What happens to any life that has developed when our visible universe nears the end of its life cycle and the darkness is creeping in rapidly. I would say that it will depend on how intelligent and capable that life is? We humans have a way to go, before that question becomes anything more than a mute point. We humans have only been able to personally set foot on our local moon, let alone travel to other stars or other galaxies. What will it take to detect and then be able to travel to another visible universe that could be so far away that its light will not reach us during the entire life cycle of our own visible universe. Perhaps we should just find a way to live in the dark. After all the norm in the real universe is mostly dark. Just a thought.
    4.Does knowing what the dark matter and energy are help us in any way? I would have to say that it does. At the very least knowing the truth is always better than not. Also when trying to detect something that cannot be seen, knowing where and how to focus your efforts is a big help and avoids a lot of wasted time, talent and money.
    5.How will this new knowledge of reality affect the human race as a whole? We have a past history of how these types of reality changes affected the human race. Realization that the world was not flat. Realization that the world was not the center of the universe. Both of these world changing ideas were socially painful, but did produce an over all positive effect in helping the human race grow and mature. I know I personally feel better every time I know for a fact that I am not quite as ignorant as I was before. The person that said ignorance was bliss, probably did not live long enough to realize that was not a good thought or he blissfully died never knowing what was killing him.
    6.Given that the illumination event took place inside of the mass cloud it should be possible pin point where that event took place and establish the center of our visible universe. So far we have not talked much about voids. But if I were searching for the middle of our visible universe, I'd be looking for the largest void around and so far that appears to be one that is about one billion light years across. After all it seems reasonable that any illumination event with its faster than light expansion is going to leave behind a very large void, does it not? Once we can establish the center of our visible universe, we can then determine our place in that visible universe relative to the center and if we can do that the number of very useful calculations we can make are only limited by imagination. Also I do know that there will be those that will say that the expansion is not happening like I just described. They will say that the entire volume of space that is our universe is expanding like a bubble that is getting larger. However, if you have all the structures of our visible universe moving outward from a center point, all the voids and spaces between the clusters and super clusters will indeed be getting larger as observations show they are. I would suggest that those that still want to argue this point are still looking at the universe from the point of view of making it fit into the standard model.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Lance,
    this is one of the more intriguing anti Big Bang cosmologies I have read. There were some points that weren't very clear.
    1. If the injection of new material came from the 'explosion' of a supermassive black hole, how did this material reach all the dark black holes at the same time?
    2. Is our little bit of visible universe expanding or not? If it is, why is it?

    You may feel you have covered these points in your presentation, but they are not clear to me.

    On the subject of clarity and style let me make these two observations:
    a) You need an abstract. Few people will read through this without one. It is good manners and good sense to have one.
    b) Your opening paragraph is foolish in the extreme -
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    By background I mean some knowledge of the current standard model and some of the major problems that make it obsolete with very little about it worth saving.
    This immediately alienates anyone who subscribes to the standard model, yet these are the very people you are wish to listenn to your idea.

    You then continue with similar remarks scattered throughout the text that simultaneously attempt to persuade by ridicule and to promote yourself as something of a genius. Again, a really foolish approach that is liable to mark you as yet another of the ABC (Anti Big Bang Contingent), which is a pity, since this is one of the more elegant alternatives I've read.

    Finally, when are you going to show us the math?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Good points 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I will do some editing, thank you for your quick comments. My crude attempt at throwing in some humor probably should have been avoided.

    Part of the reason I posted on this board is I have had no collaboration at all to this point and as you just pointed out there are some problems that need some clarification. Feedback and ideas from interested and knowledgeable people will be most appreciated. I have no problem with anyone that might want to add their name as a contributer in helping to develop this model or letting someone else with more knowledge on how to go about putting a development project together. To tell you the truth it wouldn't bother me very much if someone else liked this model enough to run with it. Someone with more energy and resources than I have. My main idea was just to get the model out where others could get the idea and add it to their thinking and it is worth thinking about. To me any truth about the universe we find ourselves in that will advance our thinking about the subject is well worth while and I am a proponent of open source whether it be a computer program or idea that might change the world.

    I am not an astrophysicist or mathematician or anything else that gets paid to do this. I am just an interested person that doesn't much like what's available and the connection I made has many ideas that do work very well. Take the missing mass and energy problems in the current model, my proposed model is flexible in that it will accommodate damn near whatever is needed to balance the books and also serve as a tool to determine much about the invisible surrounding mass.

    About the near simultaneous star formation in all galaxies. I am not sure I have a good answer for that, but I can't really know what might happen if and when a black hole might go critical, but in the original Big Bang theory it has been suggested that the expansion exceeded the speed of light. I am not opposed to borrowing ideas that already have some acceptance and incorporate and adapt them into the new model. Also about the expansion issue it seems our little bit of the universe is expanding and this may actually help with the near simultaneous star formation in that if we go back 13 to 14 billion years ago all those galaxies would have been much closer to space zero (similar to ground zero). So combine that with faster than light expansion of recycled mass and we are closer to an answer. If you can advance your point of view to visualize all the galaxies as particles in a cloud (maybe the term Mass Cloud could be used here) and you have an explosion what happens to all the particles around space zero? I would bet they will expand out until friction and pressure slowed them. Would not the gravity of the surrounding mass serve a similar function once illuminated galaxies started penetrating into the surrounding dark mass? The idea of a merger between illuminated and dark galaxies now becomes a very intriguing subject. Also before penetration takes place the surrounding gravity might be used to solve the acceleration issue of the expansion problem.

    I don't do math at this level and was very much hopping for a show of hands from eager volunteers. I did mention waiting on bean counters and number crunchers did I not. I am kind of old and not inclined to go back to school and I didn't think that was a very good reason not to share a possible very good idea. If I am wrong about that please let me know, I do have a relatively thick skin and a little criticism will more often than not be appreciated for the time you took to make it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Sfere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    The Woodlands Texas
    Posts
    254
    Wow! I am completely intrigued! I can only imagine you will meet much ridicule. The provocational power of your theory alone should keep the mathematical geniuses busy I am sure. I think we all need some neoterical thinking in the Astrophysics world, I am not saying we don't already have other modern thinkers it is just always nice to have new ones. I for one look forward to reviewing your post again as it was a lot to take in.
    YOUR ONLY CULTURE IS BACTERIA!

    I died a mineral, and became a plant. I died a plant and rose an animal. I died an animal and I was man. Why should I fear? When was I less by dying ~ RUMI

    Ego stands in the way of love. When it is removed we can flow like a river. ~AMMA~


    LIVE AS IF YOU ARE TO DIE TOMORROW. LEARN AS IF YOU ARE TO LIVE FOREVER...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Awesome post, my view of the universe involved more of a incorporation of big bang theory and the thing u said about black holes

    I have not read as much as u have on the topic but with the knowledge I had I think I came close

    I guess I tried to imagine the big crunch theory big bang theory in my own way

    I thought eventually resistance(gravity for instance) whatever it is will slow down and reverse the expansion, eventually creating a universe black hole ie something similar to the black hole u mentioned but I guess I was trying too hard to align it with the big bang theory and said that eventually if the entire universe became a black hole, then even the light at the edge of the universe (again correct me if I am wrong) has a mass and is affected by gravity this light would eventually slow down (I try to imagine a beam of light being told to stop and head to the nearest black hole which is now a super black hole) once all mass is returned to the central point, (including the photons of light) we would be back at critical mass, where the big bang could restart up again to recreate the universe

    Ur theory here completes my thoughts on the matter so thanks for the excellent explanation, way better than anything Iv read on a topic like this before

    I agree with everything u have mentioned here and its not easy to poke a hole in it nice clearly simple and logically way to show how our universe might truelly operate
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Done a bit of reading on this idea 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    So I have some questions and comments

    The biggest problem I can find is the current view and theory that there appears to be a certain upper limit on the size of Black Holes.

    The explanation basically says that:

    "A recent study led by Yale Astronomy Professor Priya Natarajan and ESO post-doctoral fellow Ezequiel Treister (currently a Chandra fellow at the Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii) has shown that while black holes in the Universe can grow to extremely large masses (monster black holes that they term as Ultra-massive black holes) of about a billion or more times as massive as the sun, ultimately they stunt their own growth. Their work, backed up with observational evidence and theoretical arguments estimates a maximum for the mass of a black hole that can grow in the center of galaxies to be about 10 billion times the mass of the sun."

    link for above:

    http://www.sc.eso.org/~etreiste/UMBHs/more_info.html

    also the biggest mention of a black hole I could find is 50 billion suns(solar masses).

    "Knowing this growth rate allowed them to work out the modern-day size of the biggest known black holes that existed in the early universe. Back then, they are estimated to have had the mass of about a billion suns. According to Natarajan and Treister, a few black holes of this size may have bloated to "ultramassive" size by now, with between 5 and 50 billion times the sun's mass, at the most. Even a black hole at the lower end of this range would be gargantuan - more than 3 times as wide as our solar system."

    there was also a comment made on the billion term:

    "Replying to my own quote, isn't a British billion 1,000,000,000,000 - a thousand times larger than a US billion - or has this been standardised now?"

    a good counter to the above is found in the comments on the article.

    "radiation from in-falling matter blasts the neighbouring area free of other material" might well put the brakes on the growth of a black hole, but it would nto put a top limit on its size. There would be nothing to prevent further (albeit slower) growth from material that finds its way into the vicinity after radiation levels subside, and that pattern could repeat ad infinitum unless some other factor is suggested."

    link for above:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14653

    Would like to get your views on this matter and theory, I have to say though it seems to me at least that its still easier to find flaws in their logic as apposed to your logic.

    The best counter to the Max black hole size I can see is, that the current theories appear to say at this point in time, and ur view says if the time wasn't an issue.

    Still doing a little bit of reading on the max age of black holes I really cant find much, and if anyone can point me in the correct direction it would be appreciated.

    As for ur overall view of ur theory I(this is only with my knowledge just trying to engage in the topic) see 3 important questions that need to be answered: (and on a side note the best way to convince people irrespective of knowledge that they possess is to simply answer the questions they propose

    1. how big can black holes get(what is the mass that they become unstable)?
    2. How long can they last on a timescale not only looking backwards in time but also forward
    3. If they can get to the sizes u propose here what would make them unstable even at that point why cant they just keep on growing to theoretical infinity and why? (ur view at least from what I understand of it seems to simply say yeah their lifespans are long but then in a nice sort of way it would be cool if they just collapsed at some point, not fully elaborating on how this would happen)

    this is also a worth read on the topic of black hole lifespans and sizes

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.2813v2.pdf

    I know I havent used the best references that I could use, please forgive me. Im a full time student and academics come first
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Yes I read that article.

    "A recent study led by Yale Astronomy Professor Priya Natarajan and ESO post-doctoral fellow Ezequiel Treister (currently a Chandra fellow at the Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii) has shown that while black holes in the Universe can grow to extremely large masses (monster black holes that they term as Ultra-massive black holes) of about a billion or more times as massive as the sun, ultimately they stunt their own growth. Their work, backed up with observational evidence and theoretical arguments estimates a maximum for the mass of a black hole that can grow in the center of galaxies to be about 10 billion times the mass of the sun."

    I believe it might be okay as far as it goes. However, it simply did not address the issue of black hole mergers. There is no way to convince me that any two black holes of any size will repel each other if they meet up.

    My theory of black hole growth is mainly based on mergers. I do not see this article as contradicting my theory. But I do see it as very limited in its scope and stating that black holes can only grow to a max size of 10 billion solar masses without considering mergers is just plain stupid.

    This kind of an article also proves another point I like to make about how observational evidence gets interpreted. In the scientific world everyone is looking for anything that will support their position and ideas and I am no different. However, when it comes to publishing this guy has a university and a scientific team behind his point of view, wrong as it may be. Another point example, if you watch the science channels on their Universe series, you just have to know it is completely wrong to present interpretations as proven scientific fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Second Responce 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Your second point seems to be about some statement concerning the early universe. I have to ask what did you not get about the visible universe and the real universe addressed in my document? Yes, the visible universe we see had a beginning about 13.5 billion years ago. But the real universe is very much bigger and older and if I had to guess about the size and age, infinity would be as good as any other guess. Where am I going with this. Well I have a lot more to work with than someone that only believes the universe is finite in size and age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Reason a Black Hole might Destabilize 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Always.Asking

    Please see my new post - Gravity Questions and Concepts – I believe as a black hole grows in mass that the greater it will warp space-time. The fact that space-time can be warped at all posses the question as to how much it can warp and what will happen when it approaches its limit. Then I have to ask myself what could possibly destabilize a black hole and cause it to recycle all its mass. I have no idea what the limit is for warping space-time but the stress and power needed to rip a black hole apart is not an easy concept to grasp. But it sure beats the alternative of space-time being ripped apart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Reason a Black Hole might Destabilize 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Please see my new post - Gravity Questions and Concepts
    I have moved your other two posts to the Physics sub-forum, because they are not specifically touching astronomical topics.

    Dishmaster
    (Moderator)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Reason a Black Hole might Destabilize 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Yes I read that article.

    "A recent study led by Yale Astronomy Professor Priya Natarajan and ESO post-doctoral fellow Ezequiel Treister (currently a Chandra fellow at the Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii) has shown that while black holes in the Universe can grow to extremely large masses (monster black holes that they term as Ultra-massive black holes) of about a billion or more times as massive as the sun, ultimately they stunt their own growth. Their work, backed up with observational evidence and theoretical arguments estimates a maximum for the mass of a black hole that can grow in the center of galaxies to be about 10 billion times the mass of the sun."

    I believe it might be okay as far as it goes. However, it simply did not address the issue of black hole mergers. There is no way to convince me that any two black holes of any size will repel each other if they meet up.

    My theory of black hole growth is mainly based on mergers. I do not see this article as contradicting my theory. But I do see it as very limited in its scope and stating that black holes can only grow to a max size of 10 billion solar masses without considering mergers is just plain stupid.

    This kind of an article also proves another point I like to make about how observational evidence gets interpreted. In the scientific world everyone is looking for anything that will support their position and ideas and I am no different. However, when it comes to publishing this guy has a university and a scientific team behind his point of view, wrong as it may be. Another point example, if you watch the science channels on their Universe series, you just have to know it is completely wrong to present interpretations as proven scientific fact.
    I completely agree with u I believe 10 billion solar masses is still very small relative to what we are observing in our current universe, If u just look at the observations and follow on with the idea that black holes are at the centre of galaxies that contain up to 1 trillion stars, and then we go further to say well this galaxy is actually just 1 in a larger cluster of galaxies if eventually gravity pulled these megastructures together we could easily start to get to very large figures for super massive black holes much larger than is currently observed

    I do agree that our universe is much bigger than we think it is all that mass that we cant see could very well be black holes floating around messing with what is expected to be viewed.

    Basically that cluster (check the photo on the link) certainly looks like its all going to eventually end in a single place (the centre of the main galaxy) so yeah black holes can easily exceed the current size that we expect

    Thats 100 times bigger than the 10 billion solar mass estimate without any mergers and just if that one galaxy collapses into a black hole, let alone the whole cluster of galaxies

    http://amandabauer.blogspot.com/2009...-universe.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Always.Asking

    Please see my new post - Gravity Questions and Concepts – I believe as a black hole grows in mass that the greater it will warp space-time. The fact that space-time can be warped at all posses the question as to how much it can warp and what will happen when it approaches its limit. Then I have to ask myself what could possibly destabilize a black hole and cause it to recycle all its mass. I have no idea what the limit is for warping space-time but the stress and power needed to rip a black hole apart is not an easy concept to grasp. But it sure beats the alternative of space-time being ripped apart.
    I just dont know enough to really comment on this but maybe the energy and force in a super black hole is enough to rip space time, but I am in no position to comment on this

    I can say as far as I am aware all are current maths fails when we look at black holes and the big bang, this failure I believe is referred to as the process of ripping space time I dont actually believe that its possible to do it

    Again ur explanation in my opinion still pulls more weight than the space time being ripped

    Although I believe that if u stretch space time enough (with gravity) it rips and I think a black hole or something equivalently large and dense is required to rip space time

    As for my view of the universe:

    I believe in the multi-verse view that there are currently an almost unlimited number of "universes" by that I mean if we define our universe as 1 universe, then outside our current view(the edge of our universe) there is not nothing there is space and I think there is other universes going through different phases of growth.

    "It is time, not space, which limits our view. Beyond a certain distance, light hasn't had time to reach us yet. "

    http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreduc..._Universe.html

    that tells me if there was another universe (using the definition that everything that came out of our big bang is our universe) and if there were other big bangs elsewhere in space and the light from them hadnt reached us yet we wouldnt know they existed and they could be considered other universes.

    Just my view on the real size of the universe, sorry its so long I think to give u an idea on the distances that I am talking about if u blew up our sun to the size of our universe, and alpha centauri to the size of our universe, and blew up the distance between the 2 stars as well equally u would probably be at the distance between these universes

    I am really enjoying the discussion, Thanks for the mental stimulation
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Reason a Black Hole might Destabilize 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I can say as far as I am aware all are current maths fails when we look at black holes and the big bang, this failure I believe is referred to as the process of ripping space time I dont actually believe that its possible to do it

    Again ur explanation in my opinion still pulls more weight than the space time being ripped

    Although I believe that if u stretch space time enough (with gravity) it rips and I think a black hole or something equivalently large and dense is required to rip space time

    As for my view of the universe:

    I believe in the multi-verse view that there are currently an almost unlimited number of "universes" by that I mean if we define our universe as 1 universe, then outside our current view(the edge of our universe) there is not nothing there is space and I think there is other universes going through different phases of growth.

    "It is time, not space, which limits our view. Beyond a certain distance, light hasn't had time to reach us yet. "

    http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreduc..._Universe.html

    that tells me if there was another universe (using the definition that everything that came out of our big bang is our universe) and if there were other big bangs elsewhere in space and the light from them hadnt reached us yet we wouldnt know they existed and they could be considered other universes.

    Just my view on the real size of the universe, sorry its so long I think to give u an idea on the distances that I am talking about if u blew up our sun to the size of our universe, and alpha centauri to the size of our universe, and blew up the distance between the 2 stars as well equally u would probably be at the distance between these universes
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aside from my personal beliefs about the universe, I do think the current scientific community needs a good dose of new thinking and I am glad not to be alone in that feeling. When your life an career depend on obtaining grant money, you do what you have to do. When the grant money pool starts to dry up a bit I can imagine a very stressful environment for any scientist in need. In any event I do not have those restraints and I can develop my ideas as I see fit.

    Looks like my questions about time and gravity got moved to the physics category. I was wishing to get my feet wet in this group first before upsetting the apple cart in another group. But I believe the answers to those questions are fundamental and will change the way we view reality. So I had to ask and I have no problem with receiving good ideas from anyone that can supply them. As far as ripping space-time I am not sure it can be done either, but if the following scenario were to happen I might be worried. Two black holes, both just on the verge of reaching critical mass merging. If it is possible that space-time could be ripped that might do it.

    When you talk about multi-verse, that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people and some of them can be pretty far out even for me. Do not get me wrong here as I do enjoy far out. In my view of the universe it is all about black holes. They are the primary reason why we even have an existence and a universe we can call home. That being the case, the black holes have to be coming from somewhere. In the simplest terms our visible universe is a black hole nursery, one of many I suspect and each black hole nursery is someones visible universe and home. Just as stars need hydrogen clouds to be born in, black holes need stars to be born. When a black hole is born it enters the pipeline of a black hole life cycle along with billions of other new born black holes, and like baby fish in a pond not many will ever reach a size to support a galaxy of stars. For those that still do not get the picture I will categorically state that every galaxy in our visible universe is a black hole that has been in existence very much longer than our visible universe has. The galaxy size black holes all have a great deal of mass in orbit around them with or without stars and when they do have stars, the stars are only a small percentage of the total mass in orbit around the black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Seeing The Invisible. First Dark Galaxy Discovered? 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I found this article and it does support my view of the universe.

    Seeing The Invisible. First Dark Galaxy Discovered?

    ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2005) — A British-led team of astronomers using The University of Manchester's Lovell Telescope in Cheshire have discovered an object that appears to be an invisible galaxy made almost entirely of dark matter -- the first ever detected.

    A dark galaxy is an area in the universe containing a large amount of mass that rotates like a galaxy, but contains no stars. Without any stars to give light, it could only be found using radio telescopes.

    Following its initial detection at the Jodrell Bank Observatory, the sighting was confirmed with the Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico. The unknown material that is thought to hold these galaxies together is known as `dark matter', but scientists still know very little about what that is.

    The international team from the UK, France, Italy and Australia has been searching for dark galaxies using not visible light, but radio waves. In the Virgo cluster of galaxies, about 50 million light years away, they found a mass of hydrogen atoms a hundred million times the mass of the Sun.

    Dr Robert Minchin from Cardiff University is one of the UK astronomers who discovered the mysterious galaxy, named VIRGOHI21, and explains: 'From the speed it is spinning, we realised that VIRGOHI21 was a thousand times more massive than could be accounted for by the observed hydrogen atoms alone. If it were an ordinary galaxy, then it should be quite bright and would be visible with a good amateur telescope. But, even using the large Isaac Newton Optical Telescope in La Palma, no trace of stars was seen ' it must thus contain matter that we cannot see ' so called dark matter.

    Professor Andrew Lyne, Director of the Jodrell Bank Observatory, commented: 'We are delighted that the efforts by engineers at the Observatory and Cardiff University in building the Multi-Beam receiver system used for these observations had proved so fruitful. This exciting discovery shows that radio telescopes still have a very major role in helping to understand the Universe in which we live."
    Further details, supporting images and contact details can be found at: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/darkgalaxy/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Here is another article that supports my view of the universe.

    Precocious Supermassive Black Holes Challenge Theories

    ScienceDaily (Nov. 23, 2004) — NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has obtained definitive evidence that a distant quasar formed less than a billion years after the big bang contains a fully-grown supermassive black hole generating energy at the rate of twenty trillion suns. The existence of such massive black holes at this early epoch of the Universe challenges theories of the formation of galaxies and supermassive black holes.

    Astronomers Daniel Schwartz and Shanil Virani of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, MA observed the quasar, known as SDSSp J1306, which is 12.7 billion light-years away. Since the Universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years old, we see the quasar as it was a billion years after the big bang. They found that the distribution of X-rays with energy, or X-ray spectrum, is indistinguishable from that of nearby, older quasars. Likewise, the relative brightness at optical and X-ray wavelengths of SDSSp J1306 was similar to that of the nearby group of quasars. Optical observations suggest that the mass of the black hole is about a billion solar masses.

    Evidence of another early-epoch supermassive black hole was published previously by a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology and the United Kingdom using the XMM-Newton X-ray satellite. They observed the quasar SDSSp J1030 at a distance of 12.8 billion light-years and found essentially the same result for the X-ray spectrum as the Smithsonian scientists found for SDSSp J1306. Chandra's precise location and spectrum for SDSSp J1306 with nearly the same properties eliminate any lingering uncertainty that precocious supermassive black holes exist.

    “These two results seem to indicate that the way supermassive black holes produce X-rays has remained essentially the same from a very early date in the Universe,” said Schwartz. “This implies that the central black hole engine in a massive galaxy was formed very soon after the big bang.”

    There is general agreement among astronomers that X-radiation from the vicinity of supermassive black holes is produced as gas is pulled toward a black hole, and heated to temperatures ranging from millions to billions of degrees. Most of the infalling gas is concentrated in a rapidly rotating disk, the inner part of which has a hot atmosphere or corona where temperatures can climb to billions of degrees.
    Although the precise geometry and details of the X-ray production are not known, observations of numerous quasars, or supermassive black holes, have shown that many of them have very similar X-ray spectra, especially at high X-ray energies. This suggests that the basic geometry and mechanism are the same for these objects.

    The remarkable similarity of the X-ray spectra of the young supermassive black holes to those of much older ones means that the supermassive black holes and their accretion disks, were already in place less than a billion years after the big bang. One possibility is that millions of 100 solar-mass black holes formed from the collapse of massive stars in the young galaxy, and subsequently built up a billion solar-mass black hole in the center of the galaxy through mergers and accretion of gas.

    To answer the question of how and when supermassive black holes were formed, astronomers plan to use the very deep Chandra exposures and other surveys to identify and study quasars at even earlier ages.

    The paper by Schwartz and Virani on SDSSp J1306 was published in the November 1, 2004, issue of The Astrophysical Journal. The paper by Duncan Farrah and colleagues on SDSS J1030 was published in the August 10, 2004, issue of The Astrophysical Journal.

    Chandra observed J1306 with its Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer instrument for approximately 33 hours in November 2003. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., manages the Chandra program for NASA's Office of Space Science, Washington. Northrop Grumman of Redondo Beach, Calif., formerly TRW, Inc., was the prime development contractor for the observatory. The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory controls science and flight operations from the Chandra X-ray Center in Cambridge, Mass.

    Additional information and images are available at:

    http://chandra.harvard.edu
    and
    http://chandra.nasa.gov

    Adapted from materials provided by NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center.
    It never fails amaze me how educated scientists in such numbers can come up with such wrong conclusions. This is a very good example of Standard Model Big Bang Theory tunnel vision or forcing their conclusions to fall within the accepted theory.

    The obvious answer is those black holes existed before any big bang took place. When they received a new infusion of star fuel they became very active quasars. Let me say this once again, it is not possible for a billion solar mass black hole to have congealed out of big bang soup.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    "Dark Flow" Discovered at Edge of the Universe: Hundreds of Millions of Stars Racing Towards a Cosmic Hotspot

    "Dark Flow" sounds like a new SciFi Channel series. It's not! Back in the Middle Ages, maps showed terrifying images of sea dragons at the boundaries of the known world. Today, scientists have observed strange new motion at the very limits of the known universe - kind of where you'd expect to find new things, but they still didn't expect this.* A huge swath of galactic clusters seem to be heading to a cosmic hotspot and nobody knows why.

    The unexplained motion has hundreds of millions of stars dashing towards a certain part of the sky at over eight hundred kilometers per second.* Not much speed in cosmic terms, but the preferred direction certainly is: most cosmological models have things moving in all directions equally at the extreme edges of the universe.* Something that could make things aim for a specific spot on such a massive scale hasn't been imagined before.* The scientists are keeping to the proven astrophysical strategy of calling anything they don't understand "dark", terming the odd motion a "dark flow".

    A black hole can't explain the observations - objects would accelerate into the hole, while the NASA scientists see constant motion over a vast expanse of a billion light-years.* You have no idea how big that is.* This is giant on a scale where it's not just that we can't see what's doing it; it's that the entire makeup of the universe as we understand it can't be right if this is happening.

    Which is fantastic!* Such discoveries force a whole new set of ideas onto the table which, even if they turn out to be wrong, are the greatest ways to advance science and our understanding of everything. One explanation that's already been offered is that our universe underwent a period of hyper-inflation early in its existence, and everything we think of as the vast and infinite universe is actually a small corner under the sofa of the real expanse of reality.* Which would be an amazing, if humbling, discovery.

    Posted by Luke McKinney.
    Recommended:


    The "Great Wall" Of Space: Galactic Superclusters a Billion Light Years Away Extend for 5% of Observable Universe
    Source:
    Cosmic Dark Flow
    Posted at 01:00 AM in Astronomy | Permalink
    My view of the universe does allow black holes to be very much larger than anything observed in the visible universe. For example a black hole with the mass of about one fourth our visible universe could have billions of galaxies in orbit around it, the same as a normal galaxy has stars in orbit. If such a black hole does exist just beyond the limit we can observe and has however many illuminated galaxies in our visible universe in orbit around it, they would appear to move just as the observation describes.

    Once again I would like to point out the obvious. Gravity is what causes all movement of mass in the universe. So when when a great deal of mass is observed to be moving there must be a gravity source that supports it and if that fact does not fit into the standard big bang model of our universe it does not bother me a bit, because it fits just fine in my view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Once again I would like to point out the obvious. Gravity is what causes all movement of mass in the universe.
    No, sorry. Electromagnetism has been known to move objects with mass, hence some movement of massive objects is NOT a result of gravity. Also, since mass is the source of gravity, your comment seems somewhat myopic/misinformed.

    Also, could you please turn the volume down and avoid the headache inducing ginormo-text?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Lance,

    this is one of the more intriguing anti Big Bang cosmologies I have read. There were some points that weren't very clear.
    1. If the injection of new material came from the 'explosion' of a supermassive black hole, how did this material reach all the dark black holes at the same time?
    2. Is our little bit of visible universe expanding or not? If it is, why is it?

    You may feel you have covered these points in your presentation, but they are not clear to me.
    John

    I am glad you enjoyed my view of the universe. I do appreciate your criticisms. Sorry about my slow response, but I have been having computer problems and I am still getting the hang of this forum. I am a real newbee.

    First my posting is still a very rough draft and I am working on a much improved version of it. Also, I hate to say it, if anything I say rubs someone the wrong way. To bad, if the model I have been building cannot stand on its own based on facts and observed observations then it does not deserve any respect. The way I feel about the current accepted big bang model is that it is total bunk and should be put out pasture or some museum where it belongs. It does not work. Why else would so many major observations be so unexplainable? Everything that can not be explained in the standard model can be explained in my model easily without making crap up or leaving it as a dark unknown.

    To answer your first question:

    My answer to this has evolved a bit sense my posting and it may be a bit lengthy so bear with me.

    Black holes as they grow in mass also grow the mass in orbit around them. At some point they reach a size and the proper name we call them is a galaxy. I do not distinguish or worry about whether a galaxy has stars or is dark without stars. It is simply a black hole at a stage in a very long life cycle. As observed large galaxies start picking up smaller satellite galaxies. Our own milky way galaxy has many such orbiting satellite galaxies and observations show that the larger the black hole the more satellite galaxies they have. They also start changing shape from spiral to fuzz ball. The largest galaxies are all ball shaped. In our visible universe the largest black holes, more than a billion solar masses are all ball shaped and have many thousands of satellite galaxies. Now you probably see where I am going with this line of thought. Try and imagine a black hole big enough to reach critical mass ( all the hydrogen gas in the visible universe ). I do not know how big that might be, but I am sure a scientist with a super computer could come up with a reasonable guestiment. In any event I think every galaxy in our visible universe was in orbit around it in a ball shaped super galaxy of galaxies. It probably measured anywhere from one hundred million to a billion light years across. Now if you can visualize a big bang from a very different point of view. The expansion would not have to be a faster than light. Even at a billion light years across the expansion would only have to cover 500 million light years in every direction to illuminate every galaxy in our visible universe with recycled mass (star fuel/Hydrogen). Need I say that 500 million years is well within the celestial ball park of all stars coming online at about the same time.

    As to your second question, need I say more, it seems obvious to me. But I will try to build a picture that will make it crystal clear. Imagine the biggest baddest grenade you can. A black hole powered super grenade. A super galaxy of galaxies in a ball shape expanding outward as the central core black hole destabilizes and a shockwave of energy and recycled mass move outward. This provides the start up energy for the expansion of our current visible universe and the very much larger dark real universe that surrounds the newly expanding visible universe has enough mass to provide the energy to accelerate the expansion as observations show is the case. I would suggest to everyone who thinks space-time itself is expanding, you are 100 % wrong.

    Consider this, my interpretation of the expansion fits into my model of the universe like a fitted glove. The space-time is expanding model does not even fit into the standard model of the universe and says nothing about what might be powering the acceleration of the expansion. Just to postulate some new major source of some unknown dark energy is a real cop out.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Once again I would like to point out the obvious. Gravity is what causes all movement of mass in the universe.
    No, sorry. Electromagnetism has been known to move objects with mass, hence some movement of massive objects is NOT a result of gravity. Also, since mass is the source of gravity, your comment seems somewhat myopic/misinformed.

    Also, could you please turn the volume down and avoid the headache inducing ginormo-text?

    Inow

    I think you missed the point, I did say all mass but I thought it was obvious I was talking about celestial bodies out in our universe. Sorry my mistake.

    As to the headache inducing ginormo-text , on my PC that size text prevents me from having the headache. So if I have to make a choice, well you see where thats going dont you?

    I think nit picking criticisms are a waste time, not very constructive and at best an unnecessary distraction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    131
    Just thought I would post this link here:

    Pre Big Bang events, do seem to fit a bit better with the view that a super massive black hole created the fuel for our visible universe

    and our universe has been here alot longer than we actually think:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869
    Just here to Learn =)

    Not Thinking is a sign of laziness, everyone has to make a choice at some point in their lives, either they reach a degree of non thinking where being stupid is just easier or they start thinking and enjoy the life they have now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    A New Look At The Big Bang Creation Theory Of Our Universe

    Nothing upsets me more than watching the Science, History & Discovery channels put out their series about the Universe. They tell the story of our Universe and its creation about 14 billion years ago, that started with a big bang from a “Singularity” that was smaller in size than an atom and then expanded into all the galaxies and stars that we call our Universe. Before the big bang there was nothing, time and space did not exist. If they put that bunk into its proper perspective, I would not mind so much. After all we do need a working model in which to explain how things work and to move forward developing and refining our view of reality. But the big bang theory is badly dated and in need of a big makeover and I resent seeing that old out of date bunk being presented as though it was a proven fact of science.
    You have the story all wrong.

    Our best understanding of gravitation is general relativity (GR). Gravity dominates the evolution of the universe.

    If you take the observed fact that the universe is expanding, plus the fact that we see at least some amount of matter in the universe you can do some calculations using GR. Hawking and Penrose did just that in the 1970's. That calculation shows that the universe was in an extremely compact form (radius of curvature at most several centimeters) in the past. It in fact predicts a singular condition. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE BEGAN AS A SINGULARITY.

    Singularities in cosmology are a subtle thing. The universe is the spacetime manifold of GR. A singularity is not a part of that manifold.

    More importantly, GR is a classical theory that does not include the quantum effects that govern elementary particle physics. The very early universe, in a very compact and hot state, would have been governed by quantum effects in addition to the effects of extreme gravitational fields. So, to adequately understand the first fraction of a second a theory is needed that can explain quantum effects simultaneously with extreme gravitational effects.

    We have no theory that can handle extreme gravitational effects and quantum effects simultaneously. Research to develop such a theory is underway, and has been for some time, but we don't have one yet and it appears that it will be quite a while before we do,

    In the meantime the best available model for the origin of the universe is GR, There is no doubt that a Big Bang the answer, in the sense that the universe was once very tiny. But our theories are not good enough to handle the first fraction of a second (say earlier than 10^-33 sec). The singularity is a signal that GR breaks down. It is not the origin of the universe. But starting from t=10^-33 seconds (rather than t=0) we know that the universe started from something exceedingly small (and a few centimeters is exceedingly small compared to billions of light years). And that is the Big Bang. It is a valid explanation if understood properly and if the limitations are also understood.

    Forget about the singularity. It is not important.

    A better theory will have to wait until we have a unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics. Mayne that will be one of the string theories or the successor M theory. Maybe not. Nobody knows. But whatever it will be, we don't have it yet. (Nobody can yet even really define what M theory or string theory really are.)

    You are certainly right that reporting of science in the popular press is over-hyped, over-stated and sensationalized. Even some respected scientists can be guilty. Hawking's latest book, The Grand Design is a good example, though A Brief History of Time is pretty good. Susskind is guilty in spades, The Discovery channel is certainly guilty.





    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    I am not a scientist of any kind, I do not have any advanced degrees, .
    I am. I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    DrRocket, I do appreciate all the work that the great scientists have done to get us to our current point of understanding. I am also sure your understanding of the current theories is deeper than mine. Despite that don't you wonder about all that appears to be wrong with it?

    I do. I just don't believe our visible universe came to be, outside of nature. That fact is just not compatible with the current BB theory. Then there are all those things being discovered that don't seem to make any sense within context of the current BB theory, like dark energy, dark matter, supermassive black holes, the dark flow, the accelerating expansion. I'm sure I could add a few more things to the list, but you get the point.

    Next I am sure you are aware that if the starting premiss is even a little bit wrong all the beautiful math that follows in support of it won't make it right.

    Having said that, I will say that I could very well be wrong also. I did put forth many new ideas and concepts some of which might prove useful. Also, I did go out of the way to make sure everybody would understand that this theory of mine was outside the currently accepted theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Having said that, I will say that I could very well be wrong also. I did put forth many new ideas and concepts some of which might prove useful. Also, I did go out of the way to make sure everybody would understand that this theory of mine was outside the currently accepted theories.
    That, combined with the contradiction of your model by what is observed and by well-supported models based on sound physical principles is why this crap belongs in Pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Having said that, I will say that I could very well be wrong also. I did put forth many new ideas and concepts some of which might prove useful. Also, I did go out of the way to make sure everybody would understand that this theory of mine was outside the currently accepted theories.
    That, combined with the contradiction of your model by what is observed and by well-supported models based on sound physical principles is why this crap belongs in Pseudoscience.
    That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, and like I said I am somewhat content to wait for more information and see what develops. In the mean time can we agree to disagree and leave it at that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, and like I said I am somewhat content to wait for more information and see what develops. In the mean time can we agree to disagree and leave it at that?
    Not while you are contaminating a legitimate science forum, to the detriment of potential young lurkers, with pseudoscientific nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Lance Wenban, I am afraid you are labouring under the delusion that your idea has any meaning or merit at all to anyone that knows a bit about cosmology and physics. You think up a whole framework from your couch that contradicts a great deal of research by a great many scientists over a long time, even admitting you don't have any advanced understanding of that which you are trying to overthrow. I am sorry to say, but that is an extraordinary exhibition of arrogance.

    I also don't know why this has not been removed yet.

    I do. I just don't believe our visible universe came to be, outside of nature.
    This strikes me as probably the biggest reason you have taken it upon yourself to invent your own reality. See, our concept of common sense does not necessarily have to be congruent to how nature works. Our general common sense as humans developed in response to how we experienced life during our evolution and is more finely moulded by our individual experiences when we grow up to fit them. Consequently we don't even always agree among ourselves as to what constitutes "common sense". If you have taken even a casual glance at the revelations that quantum theory has brought, you should have seen that in the end our common sense means very little.

    Have you heard of Hawking radiation? It is the process by which black holes evaporate and eventually cease to exist. It is very well accepted. While large black holes evaporate at a rate that is very far removed from the amount of matter it gains, at some point the flow of matter will end and even they will evaporate. It will take a very, very long time, but it will happen (if something else doesn't happen we don't know about).

    Also, a new analysis of WMAP data by Penrose et al suggests (according to Penrose) that the big bang might not have been the first of its kind after all. They discovered circular patterns (areas of smaller thermal variation) that does not fit well within the current models and rather fit within Penrose's own theory, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Here is the link to a Wiki article with a brief description: LINK. Take a look at the linked articles and original paper describing his theory at the bottom.

    Supermassive black holes in the centres of galaxies is exactly what we would expect if a large ball of matter condensed and started to succumb to gravity. I don't see the mystery you are seeing.

    Your poll is loaded. It should have a fourth choice writing off your idea as naive day dreaming.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •