Thread: My theory of how our universe came to existence.

At the beggining i want to say sorry for my poor english. Ok, so big bang became from the state which contained time, energy, matter etc. Current theory says that there was no time before the big bang. I disagree. When child is getting life in his mothers body, from his perspective there was no time either before he was born. If he would get instantly separated and would never see other people then he would think "is this all got made when i was born?". But time started for THIS SINGLE CHILD, his mother and mother of other child were existing earlier. So can there exist many parralel universes? It could work pretty much like expansion of human being by borning new people which will born new people etc. So, there are black holes. They cummulate energy, matter, light into a state. There is theory that nothing can be transported through black hole. Yes it cant be until white hole will get open in other universe. Look , its all cummulating at the bottom of the hole, then in one moment black hole closes and white hole opens transporting state into a new universe. Now you can say people never saw white hole. Ofc they never saw and they will not see it in out universe anymore cause in my opinion, white hole was in our universe one time when state was transported to our dimension. Now, what contains empty dimension in which state wasnt transported yet? what type of matter does it have? Is it a key to our existence? Im waiting for answers, im 16, so its only a theory.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say ... but you might find this interesting: Every Black Hole Contains a New Universe | Inside Science

Im trying to say that all the ppl who think there was no time before our universe got made are actually wrong. Cause there is one time and many universes in my opinion.

Originally Posted by oxygel

Im trying to say that all the ppl who think there was no time before our universe got made are actually wrong. Cause there is one time and many universes in my opinion.

It is an interesting thought, but remember that it is an opinion, not a theory. To make it a theory you need to have the following:

Evidence to support your theory.
A mathematical description of your theory.
Predictions that would allow you to test your theory.

Perhaps, one day.

Thank you. I'm 16 and i need to learn these mathematical things etc. It's my life goal so ill do my best.

Originally Posted by oxygel

Thank you. I'm 16 and i need to learn these mathematical things etc. It's my life goal so ill do my best.

Welcome to the Forum, oxygel, and welcome to science!

It's great that you are questioning the "received wisdom" of experts. As you do, be sure to ask things like "What experiment could prove them wrong?" It's not enough simply to feel that the old theory is wrong. There has to be a way to show it. And as you attempt to formulate your own alternatives, don't just stop at coming up with an idea. Pretend you're another skeptical you and ask "How might I be wrong? What experiment could I run to find out?"

A good scientific theory makes testable predictions. If there are no testable predictions, then it's not a scientific theory. As John Galt said, it is then perhaps an opinion or assertion, but it's not a theory.

The requirements for a new theory can be rather daunting, for the new theory not only must do something correctly that the old theory doesn't, it must also do all the same correct things that the old theory does. It's like trying to lay carpet. It's relatively easy to make one corner fit, but it's a lot harder to make all corners fit. A good replacement theory has to make more corners than the old theory fit. It's not good enough just to make one corner seemingly fit better.

Keep studying, and as you do, questions will inevitably arise. Try to find out the answers yourself first. If you get stuck, or just want to check your work, post back. There are lots of folks here who are eager to help.

Just keep on researching and the future will tell. You have a great potential just build on it.

isn't that like saying the egg came first?

Originally Posted by oxygel

Im trying to say that all the ppl who think there was no time before our universe got made are actually wrong. Cause there is one time and many universes in my opinion.

Ok, think about the following : from wherever you are right now, start to walk ( geographically ) north. The further your walk, the closer you get to the north pole. When you are at the north pole, can you get any further north ? No, of course not, because when you stand at the pole itself, no matter which direction you turn, you will always face south.

Same in space-time. Starting now, go back in time towards the Big Bang. The universe gets younger and younger. There comes a point which behaves just like the north pole, a pole in space-time, at which all directions can only point into the future. You cannot go "backwards" from there, just as you cannot go north from the north pole. It simply makes no sense.

You do, however, have a point - there ought to be some initial conditions which gave rise to the Big Bang event, and it will be up to us to theorize just what those conditions were

But you are at the start saying that our universe = earth, and if our universe = country? Then you could go further in north direction. Time could be a border of each universe. And if we could move in time we would also move to another dimensions imo.

Originally Posted by oxygel

But you are at the start saying that our universe = earth, and if our universe = country? Then you could go further in north direction. Time could be a border of each universe. And if we could move in time we would also move to another dimensions imo.

No, that would be destroying the analogy. Remember that the Big Bang gives rise to a geometric pole in space-time by definition; emphasise on space-time. You cannot extend space-time beyond the Big Bang, anymore than you can extend "North" beyond the north pole. Saying that universe=country is saying that the Big Bang might have happened at any time in the last 15 billion years, which is of course not the case.

Naturally there is always the possibility that our universe is in fact embedded in a higher dimensional manifold, just like our earth's surface is embedded in space; but even if that is the case, you still could not extend "our" space-time any further than the Big Bang event. If you were to leave the earth's surface from the north pole, you are in fact going into an entirely new direction, and not further north. Likewise, if you were to leave the universe at the Big Bang, you aren't going "before" the Big Bang, but into a new spatial or temporal direction that is not related to "our" universe. "Before" the Big Bang is a meaningless term.

I want to say that we shouldnt look for how our universe got made, but how all started , all the chain reaction. And time could be already separated from any dimension or universe and be on its own, all countries got the same directions that u can go to. It could be a tunnel in which you can go and just choose the "doors" in which you wanna go. If there is a corridor and a lot of rooms then corridor isnt a part of any room. Time could be an axis.

thats what scientists already do. for example, iron or heavier elements weren't there at first. they formed/appeared after fusions of other/lighter elements. and about that corridor, it's assumed that traveling through a wormhole could lead to a different time or dimension.

Originally Posted by oxygel

I want to say that we shouldnt look for how our universe got made, but how all started , all the chain reaction. And time could be already separated from any dimension or universe and be on its own, all countries got the same directions that u can go to. It could be a tunnel in which you can go and just choose the "doors" in which you wanna go. If there is a corridor and a lot of rooms then corridor isnt a part of any room. Time could be an axis.

This is not in accordance to our current understanding. The consensus is that space and time cannot be separated from one another, they are part of the same entity, space-time. The study of the geometry and evolution ( and to some extent topology ) of this manifold is called geometrodynamics, and, in physics, is quantified in General Relativity. Thus far, the predictions this model makes are all in accordance to experiment and observation.

Originally Posted by oxygel

At the beggining i want to say sorry for my poor english. Ok, so big bang became from the state which contained time, energy, matter etc. Current theory says that there was no time before the big bang. I disagree. When child is getting life in his mothers body, from his perspective there was no time either before he was born. If he would get instantly separated and would never see other people then he would think "is this all got made when i was born?". But time started for THIS SINGLE CHILD, his mother and mother of other child were existing earlier. So can there exist many parralel universes? It could work pretty much like expansion of human being by borning new people which will born new people etc. So, there are black holes. They cummulate energy, matter, light into a state. There is theory that nothing can be transported through black hole. Yes it cant be until white hole will get open in other universe. Look , its all cummulating at the bottom of the hole, then in one moment black hole closes and white hole opens transporting state into a new universe. Now you can say people never saw white hole. Ofc they never saw and they will not see it in out universe anymore cause in my opinion, white hole was in our universe one time when state was transported to our dimension. Now, what contains empty dimension in which state wasnt transported yet? what type of matter does it have? Is it a key to our existence? Im waiting for answers, im 16, so its only a theory.

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

It's a rather simple axiom, intrinsically self-evident since any who might dissent must first confess a belief in things that don't exist (they now have
medications for this). At first one might consider the premise to be obvious and inconsequential, but its deeper significance categorically refutes both the mythology of Genesis and the mathology of Big Bang.

If being is necessary in order for change to occur then cause and effect is derived from, thus subordinate to, the more basic phenomenon of being. Existence is the source of cause and effect not the result of it, and no phenomenon can be the product of its own subordinate derivative.

It doesn't take an Einstein or Hawking to recognize the obvious, all it takes is an unbiased perspective; thinking not outside the box nor inside the box, but discarding the box entirely. This isn't rocket science; it requires no esoteric equations, no orbiting telescopes or expensive particle accelerators; you don't need a degree in math, physics or cosmology, or even a high school education to understand it. It's simple basic common sense - something contempory scholars seem to shun when it threatens the funding of expensive research to determine the "size and age" of an infinite and eternal Universe. In the ivory tower of academia, multiverses, extra dimensions and cosmic expansion into entropy death are where the real money is (with some strings attached). Beautiful equations can describe fantasy as easily as fact, but without the capacity to parse differentials with any degree of integrity, no lowly layman would dare debate the sanity of such sophistocated branes.

42 The answer to everything.

Yup, south Texas.

If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell. - P. Sheridan.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Crank word salad

Ah, yes. Your logical counter-argument has forever changed my perspective. I marvel at the astuteness with which you refuted each and every point.
Thank you for bringing me back into the fold of conventional wisdom, but heed that wisdom and sail ye not too far out into the Universe lest thou fallest from the edge.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Yup, south Texas.

If I owned Texas and Hell, I would rent Texas and live in Hell. - P. Sheridan.

I own both. Make me an offer.

Originally Posted by oxygel

There is theory that nothing can be transported through black hole. Yes it cant be until white hole will get open in other universe. Look , its all cummulating at the bottom of the hole, then in one moment black hole closes and white hole opens transporting state into a new universe. Now you can say people never saw white hole.

If I could look back towards a black hole event horizon as I fall in what would I see? A white hole? Take a look at this. Pretty!!

Originally Posted by THoR

AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

Ice is the result of a phase transition; yet it is nothing like water, since it has completely different properties. Likewise space-time may well be an emergent property of a more fundamental state which is in itself not spatio-temporal in nature, but endowed with a finite number of degrees of freedom ( example : spin-foam networks in Loop Quantum Gravity ). The BB event may thus be understood as a phase transition within a quantum liquid of pre-geometric simplexes, where space-time "freezes out" as an emergent phenomenon ( this is called geometrogenesis ). Just my two cents' worth.

In any case, the Lambda-CDM model does not make the claim that the BB "came from nothing"; it makes no claims whatsoever as to the dynamics of the event itself, since that is outside its domain of applicability. All it does is model the universe's subsequent evolution. Your attempt to discredit the theory because it violates your philosophic principles is thus entirely meaningless. We don't have a dynamic model of the BB event itself yet - but we do have a number of possibilities, such as the one mentioned above for example.

Originally Posted by THoR

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

Whether true or not, your axiom doesn't seem to be relevant to ... well, anything. And it certainly doesn't address the question you ask. Unless your answer to "why does something exist" is simply "because it exists". <yawn>

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by THoR

Why does something exist rather than nothing?

AXIOM: Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon, it must exist.

Whether true or not, your axiom doesn't seem to be relevant to ... well, anything. And it certainly doesn't address the question you ask. Unless your answer to "why does something exist" is simply "because it exists". <yawn>

Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality. Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.

Originally Posted by THoR

Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality. Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.

I have no idea what you are trying to explain here.

Although my knowledge of modern physics and cosmology is sadly limited, it does not seem plausible that the majority of the cosmologists parrot a 'secular genesis version of Big Bang', because Michio Kaku's research is focused on string theory, nor have I ever heard of the expression "secular genesis version". Furthermore, I fail to see how a theory, supported by observational and mathematical evidences put together by the collective efforts of many (respected) scientists, is mired in Genesis mentality (as if the Big Bang theory resembles the "Goddidit!" story).

Originally Posted by THoR

Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality.

There is absolutely nothing in common between cosmology and creationism/genesis/religion. One is based on evidence and mathematics, and the other is a load of old stories. What parallels are you drawing here?

Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.

Who is Mishou Kaku? Is he a cosmologist? What does he say? Do I care? (Not much.)

The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Crank word salad

Obviously you did not appreciate the dense use of puns.

Originally Posted by THoR

Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality.

No. That statement reveals that you are so ignorant about cosmology that you should refrain from making assertions about it until you get some education. Genesis is a set of fairy tales about creation, and is conspicuously free of evidential support. Modern cosmology -- in the form of the "Big Bang" theory -- is about evolution, not creation. And it's a theory, with lots of evidential support from multiple, independent lines. So, unless "mired in" means "totally unrelated and scientifically superior to", your statement is ridiculous.

Marcus...

Perhaps you mean Markus. With a k. If not, then who the hell is this Marcus that you refer to?

...points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang

Ah, I guess you did mean Marcus, for our Markus said no such thing. Mishou is Michio's evil twin, and has not published anything about a "secular genesis version of Big Bang (sic)."

- but they are sadly in the minority.
The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.

You writings are very much reminiscent of the sort of earnest, drearily pseudoprofound claptrap that freshmen turn in for philosophy midterms. Before you make any more grand pronouncements about the sorry state of cosmology, you need to find out what cosmologists are actually saying. You have only read a select subset of popsci articles and wiki entries, it seems.

Yawn indeed.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by THoR

Contemporary cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality. Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.
The phenomenon of existence is based upon a principle, not a process. It is not temporal in nature.

I have no idea what you are trying to explain here.

Although my knowledge of modern physics and cosmology is sadly limited, it does not seem plausible that the majority of the cosmologists parrot a 'secular genesis version of Big Bang', because Michio Kaku's research is focused on string theory, nor have I ever heard of the expression "secular genesis version". Furthermore, I fail to see how a theory, well-supported by observational and mathematical evidences put together by the collective efforts of many (respected) scientists, is mired in Genesis mentality (as if the Big Bang theory resembles the "Goddidit!" story).

Pick up a copy of his book: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. It's about $12 on Amazon. He seems to acknowledge the possibility of something before BB, but I have heard him explain many times to the laity on the tube that even space(time), itself, was "created" by the BB.

Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.

Originally Posted by THoR

Pick up a copy of his book: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. It's about $12 on Amazon. He seems to acknowledge the possibility of something before BB, but I have heard him explain many times to the laity on the tube that even space(time), itself, was "created" by the BB.

Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.

And did he use the term "secular genesis version" in his book?

Furthermore, I still do not understand why the claims of Mr. Kaku are an indication that current cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality, nor do I grasp why the majority of the cosmologists would parrot the ideas of a scientist who does not seem to be involved in active research concerning the Big Bang theory.

Originally Posted by THoR

Pick up a copy of his book

No thanks. I have seen him talk for about 5 minutes. That was approximately 5 minutes too much. Why are you listening to / reading people like him? Can't you find any decent science books where you live?

Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.

I have absolutely no idea what that means, if anything.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by THoR

Pick up a copy of his book

No thanks. I have seen him talk for about 5 minutes. That was approximately 5 minutes too much. Why are you listening to / reading people like him? Can't you find any decent science books where you live?

What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?
I find his talk about e.g. the four fundamental forces quite interesting.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by THoR

Pick up a copy of his book: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos. It's about $12 on Amazon. He seems to acknowledge the possibility of something before BB, but I have heard him explain many times to the laity on the tube that even space(time), itself, was "created" by the BB.

Cause and effect (creation) is derived from the phenomenon of existence, not the opposite. Conditions may pop into and out of being, but fortunately existence is not a condition - it engenders the very nature of condition, itself.

And did he use the term "secular genesis version" in his book?

No.

Furthermore, I still do not understand why the claims of Mr. Kaku are an indication that current cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality, nor do I grasp why the majority of the cosmologists would parrot the ideas of a scientist who does not seem to be involved in active research concerning the Big Bang theory.

My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.

IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite unless it expanded at an infinite rate or for an infinite time. If it did NOT begin, those limits come off. The axiom that something must exist in order to change or be changed is prime evidence of a Universe Einstein envisioned, until he was distracted by the Hubble red shift illusion.

What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?

Nothing - until he starts talking out of his hat.

Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences? – Pharyngula

Originally Posted by adelady

What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?

Nothing - until he starts talking out of his hat.

Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences? – Pharyngula

That was painful to watch. Seriously. My respect for Kaku has shrunk a little.

Originally Posted by THoR

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Furthermore, I still do not understand why the claims of Mr. Kaku are an indication that current cosmology is mired in the old Genesis mentality, nor do I grasp why the majority of the cosmologists would parrot the ideas of a scientist who does not seem to be involved in active research concerning the Big Bang theory.

My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.

IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite unless it expanded at an infinite rate or for an infinite time. If it did NOT begin, those limits come off. The axiom that something must exist in order to change or be changed is prime evidence of a Universe Einstein envisioned, until he was distracted by the Hubble red shift illusion.

Would the notion of a hot dense state (as proposed by the Big Bang theory) not imply that the universe is finite?
And what with the measurements of WMAP, which allowed us to calculate the age of the universe and gauge its observable size?

Originally Posted by THoR

My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.

Your "experience" with the science of cosmology appears to be almost non-existent. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to decide if the universe is finite or infinite, or eternal or not. I'm sure there are cosmologists who have a preference for each of the four possibilities and all the myriad variations. But that is pretty much irrelevant as it ain't science.

IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite

Not really. IF it was created, then there is no reason it couldn't have been created infinitely large. As you are speculating about something for which there is zero evidence, you can make up anything.

the Hubble red shift illusion.

In what way is the observational data of the Hubble relationship an "illusion"? Are you claiming that red-shift does not exist? It is some sort of mass hallucination?

Originally Posted by adelady

What is wrong with listening to Michio Kaku?

Nothing - until he starts talking out of his hat.

Which, as far as I can tell, is all he ever does.

Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences? – Pharyngula

http://xkcd.com/793/

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Would the notion of a hot dense state (as proposed by the Big Bang theory) not imply that the universe is finite?

Not necessarily. If the universe were infinite and it "expanded" (became less dense) then it would still be infinite. Imagine the infinite number line marked with the integers like a ruler:
... -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ...

Now double all the numbers (and therefore their spacing):
... -4 . -2 . 0 . 2 . 4 . 6 ...
It is still infinitely long, just half as dense.

And what with the measurements of WMAP, which allowed us to calculate the age of the universe and gauge its observable size?

The observable universe is finite (almost by definition) and of known age (with all the usual caveats). The size and age of the "whole" universe is less clear. Was there a single big bang for the whole universe, multiple big bangs in different regions, just different rates of expansion (and maybe contraction) in different regions ... ? Who knows.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by THoR

My experience with the science of cosmology does not lead me to believe its disciples lean toward an infinite and eternal cosmos.

Your "experience" with the science of cosmology appears to be almost non-existent. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to decide if the universe is finite or infinite, or eternal or not. I'm sure there are cosmologists who have a preference for each of the four possibilities and all the myriad variations. But that is pretty much irrelevant as it ain't science.

My studies on the subject are considerable. My conclusions based on the interpretations that support the current cosmological model are seriously at odds.

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', a simple Doppler analysis of the red shift would indicate galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

This would have been a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but, instead, they've deftly explained away the extra-logical velocity by proposing it's a phenomenon caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate.

The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years. Empirically there are few research facilities of sufficient size and even fewer scientists of sufficient longevity to engage in such a monumental endeavor. There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.

IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite

Not really. IF it was created, then there is no reason it couldn't have been created infinitely large. As you are speculating about something for which there is zero evidence, you can make up anything.

Last time I checked the conventional model, the singularity was infinitesimal (by cosmological standards).

the Hubble red shift illusion.

In what way is the observational data of the Hubble relationship an "illusion"? Are you claiming that red-shift does not exist? It is some sort of mass hallucination?

Op Cit

Originally Posted by THoR

My studies on the subject are considerable. My conclusions based on the interpretations that support the current cosmological model are seriously at odds.

You're embarrassing yourself. Seriously. Step away from the keyboard. Go read some real papers on the subject. Take some classes. Not only on cosmology, but basic logic.

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion.

That's just one of many pieces of evidence of support for BBT. You left off important bits such as the cosmic microwave background, light-element ratios, etc., etc. It's almost as if you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears

Strange, perhaps, but that's what we observe. When one puts that observation together with GR, one has a scientific theory of the evolution of the universe. And when we test that theory's predictions, we get agreement with other observations. So dismissing something merely because it seems strange to you personally impresses me not a bit.

...and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', a simple Doppler analysis of the red shift would indicate galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

Yup. The universe is very interesting! And doesn't give a damn about whether you like it or not!

This would have been a burdensome inconvenience to cosmologists, but, instead, they've deftly explained away the extra-logical velocity by proposing it's a phenomenon caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they wish to substantiate.

That would be amusing if it weren't so profoundly ignorant. You use the word "logic" a lot, but seem not to have a clue about what the word means. In this case, you are simultaneously citing special relativity's prohibition against superluminal velocities, and then attempting to use it to deny general relativity. Since GR fully subsumes SR, you cannot selectively use SR to falsify GR. To attempt to do so would be...illogical. In short, you are clueless. Please take my earlier advice: Stop making assertions about things you clearly know nothing about.

The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised model can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

And purported mathematical incongruities that are falsely constructed by a clueless would-be logician should be ignored, if not ridiculed.

We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years.

Just because you declare it thus? Wow. What a colossal ego. Dunning and Kruger hit the bulls-eye again!

Empirically there are few research facilities of sufficient size and even fewer scientists of sufficient longevity to engage in such a monumental endeavor.

Why do the scientists have to be long-lived? Do you not realize that technology has given us the ability to acquire knowledge over time-spans that far exceed the lifetimes of individual humans? That this technology also allows us to acquire knowledge over vast geographical distances? That the printing press exists? Get your head out of your arse, man.

There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.

Look up "tired light." It's a tired hypothesis. And a failed one. Sure, invisible pink unicorns might exist, too. But until we have evidence, there's no reason to invoke their existence.

Originally Posted by THoR

Marcus points out that not all cosmologists parrot Mishou Kaku's secular genesis version of Big Bang - but they are sadly in the minority.

Actually, I must reiterate again that "Big Bang Theory" specifically refers to what happened after the Big Bang, i.e. it is about the evolution of the universe as opposed to its origin. As such all cosmologists agree on the main features of BBT. The area where there is considerable disagreement and speculation is the question of the dynamics of the BB event itself, i.e. the question as to the origin of that event. The idea of geometrogenesis I was referring to is just one among many such speculations.

IF the universe began (was created) it would HAVE TO be finite unless it expanded at an infinite rate or for an infinite time.

No, that doesn't follow. Remember that the BB event is not an explosion, where everything starts at one central point and then expands outwards. It is better to picture the 4-dimensional universe as static - then pick two arbitrary points in that universe at random. As you go back along the time axis, the distance between these points would become smaller and smaller purely as a result of the geometry of the universe; this is analogous to the distance between the longitudinal lines on earth becoming smaller and smaller as you approach a pole. At the BB, the distance between any two points in the universe is exactly zero; this does not preclude the notion that there are actually infinitely many such points - they just aren't spatio-temporally separated from one another. When you run the clock forwards again, you will find infinitely many points on an infinitely large manifold all receding from one another. In other words - the BB happens everywhere in an infinitely large universe. This is hard to explain in words, but can be made mathematically rigorous; in any case, the idea of an infinite universe is not at all incompatible with BBT.

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion.

Cosmological redshift is just one among a multitude of observational data points; you cannot consider it in isolation. When you put all observational and theoretical evidences into a bigger picture, you will find that the BBT model is the one that best fits all available data, not just redshift.

There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.

Inventing purely speculative mechanisms such as the above that have no basis in either theory or experiment does not, in my mind, present a viable or credible alternative to the BBT model. The fact remains that BBT is currently the best model to explain all observed data while remaining entirely within the framework of established theories such as GR and QFT; that does not, however, mean that BBT is the end of all wisdom, or will not one day be augmented by something else.
If you argue that space does not metrically expand, then you will have to invalidate the entire Theory of Relativity, because metric expansion is an inherent property of the geometry of space-time. I trust you will find that hard to do, while bearing in mind that this theory has been tested and verified to a very high degree.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

In other words - the BB happens everywhere in an infinitely large universe. This is hard to explain in words, but can be made mathematically rigorous; in any case, the idea of an infinite universe is not at all incompatible with BBT.

Does that mean that the CGI representations of the Big Bang (often used in documentaries) do not resemble what actually happened?

Originally Posted by THoR

My studies on the subject are considerable.

You should ask for your money back.

My conclusions based on the interpretations that support the current cosmological model are seriously at odds.

Guess where the problem lies? (Clue: it isn't in the science.)

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being the result of cosmic expansion.

Among many other things.

Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears

That isn't the least bit strange. It is exactly what you would expect from the basic idea that the space between things is increasing at the same rate everywhere. Consider a few points in space:
ABCDEF...

Over time, they move apart, with the space between each increasing by the same amount:
A.B.C.D.E.F...
A..B..C..D..E..F...

Note that the distance between A and B (or B and C, or F and E) has increased by two units in two time steps. So the speed of separation is 1.

But look! The distance between A and C (or B and D, or between F and D) has increased by 4 units in two time steps. So the speed of separation is 2.

Pick any pair and you will see that the speed of separation is proportional to how far apart they are. Nothing strange at all. In fact it would be decidedly odd if this relationship didn't hold. This is one of the observations that rather obviously supports the big bang model over alternatives.

Now there will be points far enough apart that their speed of separation is greater than the speed of light.

Does that matter? No.

Where do you get the idea that "things cannot travel faster than light"? From Einstein's theory of relativity.
Where does the description of the metric expansion of space come from? From Einstein's theory of relativity.

Is it possible that the theory of relativity is so internally inconsistent that it predicts something which it says is not allowed? Of course not. (And this can be proved mathematically.)

We don't have the ability to study how the subtle nuances of nature might affect the properties of light traversing vast distances over billions of years.

Actually, we do. One of the very first attempts to explain the red shift was based on that idea. And falsified by observation.

There may be some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum after eons of time and travel.

Sounds like you want to claim some magic undetectable cause. But that isn't science. And, more importantly, fails to account for all the other evidence.

Last time I checked the conventional model, the singularity was infinitesimal (by cosmological standards).

The singularity isn't a thing, so that is barely relevant. If you subscribe to the (faintly risible) notion that the universe was ex-nihilo then what difference is there between a finite universe being created from noting and an infinite one? They both sound equally impossible.

Basically, if the universe is infinite, then it has always been infinite. If it is finite, then it has always been finite.

Op Cit

In other words, you don't have an alternative explanation beyond, "it could be something else."

That is not helpful and fails to explain any of the other evidence. But thanks for playing. Please try again when you have learned something about the theory.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Does that mean that the CGI representations of the Big Bang (often used in documentaries) do not resemble what actually happened?

Can you link me to a specific example of what you are thinking of, and I will be happy to give my assessment on how accurate I think it is.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Does that mean that the CGI representations of the Big Bang (often used in documentaries) do not resemble what actually happened?

Can you link me to a specific example of what you are thinking of, and I will be happy to give my assessment on how accurate I think it is.

Sure.

A video of Deep Astronomy (starting around 0:30):
What Caused the Big Bang? - YouTube

A video starring Kaku and Krauss (starting around 8:30):
The Big Bang HD 1080p - YouTube

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

A video of Deep Astronomy (starting around 0:30):
What Caused the Big Bang? - YouTube

A video starring Kaku and Krauss (starting around 8:30):
The Big Bang HD 1080p - YouTube

To be honest I am not very impressed with either one of these; they both are far too suggestive of the BB being some form of "explosion", which it most emphatically was not. Furthermore, some of the things that were asserted as fact ( e.g. "the universe originated from nothing !" ) aren't actually facts at all, but merely speculations and hypothesis.

Now, having said that, I have yet to find a popular account of the BB which is scientifically accurate while still being understandable for the lay person; that is a fine and very difficult balancing act. I can in the first instance recommend the following excerpt from a presentation by Dr Bethany Cobb on metric expansion of space :

Our Expanding Universe, Explained - Bethany Cobb - YouTube

You will find no fancy cinema-grade CGI here, but if you carefully follow what she has to say, you will get a simple and straightforward explanation for the concept of metric expansion ( it's only about 5min long ). I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll do some research for an intuitive and accurate animation depicting the BB and expansion of space.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Now, having said that, I have yet to find a popular account of the BB which is scientifically accurate while still being understandable for the lay person; that is a fine and very difficult balancing act. I can in the first instance recommend the following excerpt from a presentation by Dr Bethany Cobb on metric expansion of space :

Our Expanding Universe, Explained - Bethany Cobb - YouTube

You will find no fancy cinema-grade CGI here, but if you carefully follow what she has to say, you will get a simple and straightforward explanation for the concept of metric expansion ( it's only about 5min long ). I don't have much time at the moment, but I'll do some research for an intuitive and accurate animation depicting the BB and expansion of space.

Thank you for the YouTube link. I comprehend what she said, but it demonstrates that I need visual aid to understand (complex) things.
Documentaries often depict the Big Bang as bright, infinitesimal small point that exploded (they sometimes add a "bang" sound) and was then filled with glowing gases.
Wrong visual aid, so it seems.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Documentaries often depict the Big Bang as bright, infinitesimal small point that exploded (they sometimes add a "bang" sound) and was then filled with glowing gases.

Yes, and the issue with this is that it invokes an idea of the BB being an "explosion" of sorts, where a hot, dense seed explodes and expands "outwards" into something else ( which is left unspecified ). That is not what happened though.
I will try and find a good animation/visualisation that better depicts the principle at play - not an easy thing, I must say. Mostly everything I came across thus far depicts an "explosion", even people like Michio Kaku, who should really know better.

stupid thought- have you ever wondered if time is a gas and could be frozen?

Originally Posted by bgi

stupid thought- have you ever wondered if time is a gas and could be frozen?

There are so many flaws in that suggestion that it would be best not to mention it again.

Originally Posted by bgi

stupid thought- have you ever wondered if time is a gas and could be frozen?

No, I have not.

Your statement reminds of a phrase of member RedPanda:

And if we looked at Time as an orange flavoured rabbit, we could say that Time makes a very tasty stew, perhaps.

(cf. http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...xperience.html)

Originally Posted by Strange

The observable universe is finite (almost by definition) and of known age (with all the usual caveats). The size and age of the "whole" universe is less clear. Was there a single big bang for the whole universe, multiple big bangs in different regions, just different rates of expansion (and maybe contraction) in different regions ... ? Who knows.

Do you think that there was a single Big Bang for the Universe? Or do you have other speculations?

OXYGEL I think that's such an interesting theory and very impressive for someone of 16 to be thinking so laterally and so creatively. I hope you don't get put off by some of the people here who are telling you to be more rigorous, because there's plenty of time for that when you get older and are in university - for now your brain is unconstrained and so enjoy your freedom to think and to invent new speculations about things.

Your theory about black holes spewing out universes like babies (great analogy oxygel) and that in other universes opposite black holes there may be white holes is something I've heard before in a TV documentary on BBC FOUR about the possible origins of our universe from scientists who are working on alternative theories to the big bang. So you do have company in your idea and it's not so 'crazy', because theorists imagine all kinds of possible answers before trying to prove them.

I wish you well with your scientific future!