Thread: Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

Hello All

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide.

Without me influencing?

What do you think?

Was there a Big Bang?

Was there a M- theory ?

Was there a String Theory?

Was there a steady state theory?

Was there a wave theory?

Was there a Plasma Theory?

Was there a Recycle theory?

Was there a GOD theory?

Did I miss any out?

If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them

Or is there a combination theory?

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

____________________
Comercial link removed

Sorry for earlier posts. I have been locked up in my computer room for years trying to create a universe from nothing. I don’t post on line much and don’t know the rules.

We do not know how the universe started and can only make guesses. The big bang is little more than an idea based on single interpretations of a few effects. It does however have a number of very serious problems with it which suggests it is probably wrong.

There are a fair number of theories, side lined by the "all the eggs in one basket" big bang idea.

I am more inclined to believe we got something from nothing, literally from nothing. Nothing is nought but also +1 and -1 and +trillion and -trillion, so has infinite potential. Particles come and go but somehow at least one stayed and everything came about from increasing attempts to neutralise that with more pluses and minuses so not so much a big bang as a wildfire of particles, radiation, etc spreading out and eventually forming the simplest atoms. But I have no evidence. It's just an idea.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

I am more inclined to believe we got something from nothing, literally from nothing. Nothing is nought but also +1 and -1 and +trillion and -trillion, so has infinite potential. Particles come and go but somehow at least one stayed and everything came about from increasing attempts to neutralise that with more pluses and minuses so not so much a big bang as a wildfire of particles, radiation, etc spreading out and eventually forming the simplest atoms. But I have no evidence. It's just an idea.

But this is exactly, what the Big Bang hypothesis is based on. The idea is that it all began with something like a quantum fluctuation.

I have just read The Golilocks Enigma by Paul Davies and enjoyed it immensly. No more than I expected since I have read many articles by Paul in New Scientist. However, his discussion of each and all propositions of 'the begining' are missing my theory. In the days when 'Steady State' theory with Fred Hoyle championed, was up against 'Big Bang' theory campioned by new boy Stephen Hawking, I was a Hoyle supporter, because the Big Bang raised absurd imponderables. So here is my theory, not covered by answered by anyone yet.

The big bang was a local event resulting from the limit of massiveness being readed in a super super super sized black hole, which had gobbled up all the surrounding matter and energy. This monster exploded and had all the observed effects described in the standard model. All other observations remain true we cannot see the centre of the explosion because it is no longer there, almost everything we can see is moving away from the center of the explosion,except close galaxies like Andromeda which is moving towards us, don't think Hubble mentioned this, because of gravity and will be the begining of the accumulation of the next big bang in our region of the universe. The rest of the universe is out of sight but not out of being, the bow wave caused by the big bang expansion is seeing to that and the increasing speed of expansion or acceleration, is probably due to the attraction of matter being compressed by our expansion attracting us outwards now.

If anyone can sink my theory I would like to hear from them or if I have any converts from the current popular proposition I would also like to hear from them.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

But this is exactly, what the Big Bang hypothesis is based on. The idea is that it all began with something like a quantum fluctuation.

So, no longer branes bashing together elsewhere, or a multiverse?

A quantum fluctuation would be more likely to end up with an endless cloud of "ordinary matter" rather than a super-dense ball of "condensed matter", which would stay in such a state and tend to swallow anything else near it.

JACK GREAVES. Black holes as far as we know are stable because nothing can travel faster than light to escape them. The biggest so far is 18 billion solar masses, so pretty large.

In a 3D "explosion", everything would move away from a central point (which we could trace back to) and the universe would just end up as a shell of material moving away from a centre. Expansion as in space moving apart rather than an explosive force pushing everything apart would need to be in four physical dimensions, with the 3D universe a skin on a 4D hypersphere.

Having said this, someone a while back said gravity might disappear above 10^92 tons per cubic meter. If such happened, then a sphere of super-dense material could expand but as soon as it's density drops below that figure, gravity kicks in again, and the ball would start shrinking again, so endless expansions and contractions for a very tiny ball of matter.

We are all guilty of presuming what we know or believe is correct, yes Einstein's relativity says light speed is the maximum, for the photon, ie no mass, but none of us know what the limit is for a black hole, we know the Chandra limit for stars, and super nova, who will say that no such limit exists for Black Holes, the explosion or expansion will be less than the speed of light but any mass involved has to be considerably slower if current knowledge is correct. the expansion of space rather than explosion is a convenient answer to fit the theory, it does not mean it is correct since no other supporting facts are available, and it is an absurd proposition whatever the math produces.

It is the modern day 'what is beyond the horizon' dilema, because we cannot see does not mean it does not exist, we need to accept that the current theory is not correct, and think again.

I'm happier thinking the Universe had no beginning, and everything we see is just a consequence of natural laws that have always been in place (but are somewhat weird.)

Originally Posted by JACK GREAVES

, and it is an absurd proposition whatever the math produces..

I pay little attention to those who fall into the fallacy of the Argument from Incredulity. You offer nothing to support your contention except the fact that you don't like the alternative. I don't like asparagus, but it won't go away.

Originally Posted by JACK GREAVES

... the explosion or expansion will be less than the speed of light but any mass involved has to be considerably slower if current knowledge is correct ...

No. The expansion of space is not restricted to any speed. Space is basically only a metric, a scale that we use to measure distances. In this picture, the matter that is dragged with it during expansion has no proper motion relative to space - its kinetic energy is not increased - so the velocity limit does not apply here. (There are proper motions of stars and galaxies, but they are not related to the expansion.) The paradox you create can be quite easily refuted, if you take a closer look at how the movement of matter due to expansion works. Velocities only make sense, if you compare the state of motion to a reference point. With expansion, everything moves. So, if you compare two points in space that are relatively close, the net velocity between them is rather small. It increases with distance between these points. As a result, you observe that the velocity seems to increase the farther away you look. This is the cause for the cosmological redshift we observe. Now, if you postulate a limit to the measured velocities caused by expansion, you also implicitly define an absolute reference of rest for the universe. Otherwise, it would not be understandable, how distant objects should know, when to stop accelerating, because the speed limit would be reached at different regions in the universe depending on where you observe it from. Besides, if you postulate a speed limit, you would either observe a point in the far distance, where redshifts do not increase anymore, or the relation between velocity and distance changes gradually until it reaches an asymptotical limit that corresponds to a radial velocity below the speed of light. Neither of these consequences is observed.

I'm probably wrong here, but isn't the big bang theory solely about the early evolution of the universe rather then it's origin.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

I'm probably wrong here, but isn't the big bang theory solely about the early evolution of the universe rather then it's origin.

I suppose it depends on how you define origin. Since Big Bang theory goes back to a small fraction of a second after the universe began, and since it draws conclusions as to the state of the universe at that time, it becomes a matter of definition as to whether or not it is about the origin of the universe.

Originally Posted by ajaybali

Hello All

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide.

Without me influencing?

What do you think?

Was there a Big Bang?

Was there a M- theory ?

Was there a String Theory?

Was there a steady state theory?

Was there a wave theory?

Was there a Plasma Theory?

Was there a Recycle theory?

Was there a GOD theory?

Did I miss any out?

If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them

Or is there a combination theory?

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

To All:
I just got back on this site after being absent for about six months.
I still have that hacker refusing to ACTIVATE my OS. This can only be done by a Bill Gates hacker. My computer is monitored 24/7 hours every day continuosly.

To answer your question, I believe in the Laws of Physics that are the Conservation Laws.
I interpret the Law of Conservation of MATTER as in my own words say:
You cannot create or destroy matter. you can only transform it to its different phases.
So as far as our Universe is concerned, it Always existed.
No beginning or end.
This means No expansion or Contraction of Space. Space is flat and Omega equals 'One'.
You should know about the 3 forms of space. They are Flat, Open and Cloesed.

Cosmo__________
Commercial link removed

Welcome back, Cosmo/New Science/MikeD, had almost written you off as deceased....

If your getting involved in 'Football Betting' and selling posters, either your the most active 93-4 year old, I've known or lying about your age. I'll be looking forward to seeing you in the 'Political Foum' and your current comments on Mr. Obama's policies....

Originally Posted by jackson33

Welcome back, Cosmo/New Science/MikeD, had almost written you off as deceased....

If your getting involved in 'Football Betting' and selling posters, either your the most active 93-4 year old, I've known or lying about your age. I'll be looking forward to seeing you in the 'Political Foum' and your current comments on Mr. Obama's policies....

Thanks for the hint. I have removed the links in their posts.

Dishmaster
(Moderator)

Originally Posted by jackson33

Welcome back, Cosmo/New Science/MikeD, had almost written you off as deceased....

If your getting involved in 'Football Betting' and selling posters, either your the most active 93-4 year old, I've known or lying about your age. I'll be looking forward to seeing you in the 'Political Foum' and your current comments on Mr. Obama's policies....

Yes, I am the original Mike C. I am 92 now.

As you noticed, my compiter was hacked that kept me off the internet.
Now my computer has been shut down comletely. Gates must have read my complaint about him here on this forum

I go to my library now.

Cosmo