Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By tk421

Thread: Universe Cycle Model Vs Big Bang

  1. #1 Universe Cycle Model Vs Big Bang 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    Universe Cycle Model of Anorld G. Gulko is another alternative to the Big Bang theory. According to his theory each galaxy undergoes separately a cyclic process of birth, growth, aging, death, and rebirth within an infinite universe. Quasars are stages of galactic evolution prior to formation of a normal galaxy.

    http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_980.pdf

    On page 8 of his paper he writes:

    In summary, the Big Bang theory does not provide enough time for a
    weak gravitational force (or any other weak force) to empty the enormous voids
    which exist between the superclusters, to organize those clusters and
    superclusters, or to cause the galaxies to string out around the voids. In contrast,
    when the weak force of gravity is to function over endless time, one universe
    after another as in the Universe Cycle theory, there is plenty of time for all of
    this to take place.
    In the Universe Cycle theory this universe exists as just another in an
    endless series of universes, and since gravity is an attractive force one can
    expect it would slowly draw the galaxies together. While some progressive
    concentration of the galaxies over a plurality of universes seems to be
    unavoidable, only limited cluster concentration could occur during the life of a
    single universe. Nonetheless, the galaxies are very far apart, and while some
    collisions have taken place, the distribution of the galaxies in the universe we
    see is characterized by three prime factors. First, even within the clusters the
    galaxies are still far apart. Second, the galaxies tend to string out to concentrate
    around the voids and extend from one cluster to the next. In an extreme instance
    this stringing effect is revealed in the immense flat and linear concentration of
    galaxies referred to as a wall. Third, some remote voids are larger than those
    near us and some remote clusters are larger than those near us. This mass
    distribution is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory.
    Has anyone heard anything else about this theory? Or is it just pseudoscience?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Has anyone heard anything else about this theory? Or is it just pseudoscience?
    Most definitely and not solely because he does not properly support his assertions about the time needed mathematically. The next factor is ignoring observations that support the Lambda CDM model simply by dismissing them.

    Now, wondering if mainstream theory is all there is is totally fine and it should be encouraged to be skeptical of mainstream theory- to encourage testing, observation and supporting a more accurate model.

    What I find most interesting is that you spend a great deal of time looking up and reading about alternative hypothesis, from BB to genetics to Evolution and yet, you often seem to not have a full grasp of what mainstream theory actually says on any of those topics.

    What this reveals is not that you want the most accurate model, but are searching for a model that will align with your own worldview.
    It's called, "Confirmation Bias" and you would do well to learn what actual theory says first- then be able to answer your own questions about the "alternatives."

    There are many great ideas out there that deserve attention. What you're doing detracts from that. The more people go about questioning our models by using a confirmation bias, the more difficult it is to take questioning seriously.


    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Has anyone heard anything else about this theory? Or is it just pseudoscience?
    I have never heard of it (but there are an infinite number of random speculations one could make up). But based on the website you found it on (and your apparent role as Chief Psychoceramicist) I will vote for Psuedoscience.

    Quote Originally Posted by crank
    In summary, the Big Bang theory does not provide enough time ...
    He fails to provide any evidential or theoretical support for this so it is, at best, unsupported speculation or, more likely, an argument from incredulity/ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by crank
    relativity equations are interpreted to reach this conclusion because they provide an imaginary answer when one assumes negative time.
    Where did that come from?

    Quote Originally Posted by crank
    Second, the gamma-ray bursts, which this writer concludes are primordial explosions, are taking place at a time and in a space which existed when each explosion took place - so those bursts do not create either space or time.
    Apart from being nonsense, this is an example of the logical fallacy of "begging the question".

    Quote Originally Posted by crank
    [the big bang "explosion"] is generally thought to have released an enormous amount of energy from a very small source because the more energy we pack into a single entity, the smaller it is
    I suppose if you just make up random shit, you can support any idea you want.

    His description of the big bang model on pages 3 to 4 is can only be described as "not even wrong". I find it hard to take someone seriously, when they are that ignorant of the theory they are criticising (and, apparently, totally ignorant of the supporting evidence).

    His attempt to undermine the cosmological principle based on the large scale homogeneity of the universe is just bizarre and perverse.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,827
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    Or is it just pseudoscience?
    Slight clues:
    1) no qualifications - none.
    2) it's "published" on a site whose remit is declared to be "to provide an opportunity for public presentation of scientific theories without prior and arbitrary assessment, criticism or rejection by the recipient". (Oh, and the editors appear to also qualification-free).
    3) if you check the guy's other writings you'd have seen such gems as "Bohr’s clever mathematics has destroyed the capacity of modern physics to think clearly about the fundamentals of our nature, and this is why physics has made little progress in the effort to understand" and "the writer's vortex theory is used to provide a different explanation of pulsars and their jets".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    This guy has a PhD in astronomy and he says the big bang is flawed and the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang Theory - A Flawed Concept and The Expansion of the Universe Debunked so there are scientists out there who are well qualified who are skeptical of the Big Bang who deserve to be heard.

    I suppose if you just make up random shit, you can support any idea you want.
    You have made it clear you believe the Big Bang is immune from criticism and any alternative model is crackpot. You said you have read some criticism of the Big Bang in peer reviews, then where are these papers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    122
    What I find most interesting is that you spend a great deal of time looking up and reading about alternative hypothesis, from BB to genetics to Evolution and yet, you often seem to not have a full grasp of what mainstream theory actually says on any of those topics.
    It is not possible to understand the "mainstream" models, because they are filled with nonsense terms and goal posts are moved to fit the theories. There is no evidence for the Big Bang or Neo-Darwinism, they are dogmas supported for economical/social/political/religious reasons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    there are scientists out there who are well qualified who are skeptical of the Big Bang who deserve to be heard.
    This is very true and they absolutely should be heard- heard to provide evidence, math and observation, as well.
    Otherwise, they do not 'deserve to be heard' anymore than the soothsayer shouting of impending wrathful doom. He has the right to say it- doesn't mean he deserves to be heard.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    You have made it clear you believe the Big Bang is immune from criticism and any alternative model is crackpot. You said you have read some criticism of the Big Bang in peer reviews, then where are these papers?
    He's done nothing of the kind. He has pointed out the flaws in the alternatives you posted- he never stated at any time that he believes BBT to be perfect, immune or otherwise and in fact, in other threads, has openly criticized portions of it in the past, while also supporting the evidence.
    I have, as well.
    This is a Straw Man and probably one of the most cookie cutter ones you could have pulled from your box of tricks.
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    It is not possible to understand the "mainstream" models, because they are filled with nonsense terms and goal posts are moved to fit the theories. There is no evidence for the Big Bang or Neo-Darwinism, they are dogmas supported for economical/social/political/religious reasons.
    It's laughable that claim there is no evidence for Big Bang theory.
    That one line alone debunks your entire slew of claims.

    And Darwinism is dogma to support political/religious Motives? You're fun.
    All you're doing here is mimicking how others have responded to the "Alternatives" you post, hoping that if you sound the same, others will assume you're a skeptical educated knowledgeable person.
    Sadly for you, the effort failed when you admitted you do not understand the theories in question (Although the demonstrations of it were telling all on their own).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,827
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    This guy has a PhD in astronomy
    A PhD is no guarantee of protection against becoming a crank.

    It is not possible to understand the "mainstream" models
    Wow! I wonder if the vast majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    You have made it clear you believe the Big Bang is immune from criticism and any alternative model is crackpot.
    Absolutely not. I am quite happy (in fact, excited) about scientists producing scientific arguments against big bang cosmology, general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. There is a good reason that there are not many of these and that none are currently accepted as mainstream. It has nothing to do with dogma and everything to do with evidence.

    The big bang model is constantly being refined, updated and changed as new evidence becomes available. And really, it isn't a single theory but a class of theories, anyway.

    You said you have read some criticism of the Big Bang in peer reviews, then where are these papers?
    I'm afraid I haven't kept a record of any of them. There was one with a title like "A bangless cosmology" by someone with a Chinese name. One was about universes being formed as the result of a black hole forming in another universe. Another was questioning the need for an inflationary period (by one of the main developers of the inflationary hypothesis, Steinhardt maybe?). And many others.

    Few if any directly contradict the basic ideas of the big bang because the evidence is so overwhelming. It would require an extraordinary (and very exciting) change in our understanding of ... well, everything. There would be Nobel prizes all over the place.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    There is no evidence for the Big Bang or Neo-Darwinism, they are dogmas supported for economical/social/political/religious reasons.
    Wow. Just wow. Talk about total ignorance. I didn't know negative knowledge was possible.

    goal posts are moved to fit the theories
    You mean theories are changed to fit the evidence? Gasp. That's science for you. None of that dogma that crackpots are stuck in.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by nsbm ranger View Post
    It is not possible to understand the "mainstream" models, because they are filled with nonsense terms and goal posts are moved to fit the theories. There is no evidence for the Big Bang or Neo-Darwinism, they are dogmas supported for economical/social/political/religious reasons.
    What a load of bull. You know, this post says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about "mainstream" models.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    nsbm ranger,
    The ones I referred to admit in the conclusions that :
    -A new kind of math would be needed to explain some of their results
    -The calculations produced more than one Hamiltonian for systems
    -Their figures do not align with COBE and WMAP data, however they published the paper as the exercise was worthwhile (translation: Thesis)
    -Many deal with Brane or String and cannot provide evidence - they are published as hypotheses.
    This one for example: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2219 (1990): New class of inhomogeneous cosmological perfect-fluid solutions without big-bang singularity
    You may have to buy it or see if you can find a copy for free- but it points out possible mathematical constructs that can make a singularity free Universe, however it admits it's not supported by observation and the exercise was purely mathematical.
    It also admits that certain assumptions needed to be made for variables in order to make the math work.
    And this is where it gets interesting... Because these are published, some people, like your mentioned phd, will cherry pick certain tidbits from papers like these in order to present the illusion of having peer reviewed support for their assertions.

    This is the difference between starting out with a confirmation bias while ignoring the whole picture and researching and thinking critically.
    Again, if you spent more time researching and learning and less time glancing at articles and declaring, "Ah Ha!" - then you would understand far more and have less questions.

    You do, however, deserve some credit for finally stating your position clearly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    This one for example: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2219 (1990): New class of inhomogeneous cosmological perfect-fluid solutions without big-bang singularity
    You may have to buy it or see if you can find a copy for free- but it points out possible mathematical constructs that can make a singularity free Universe, however it admits it's not supported by observation and the exercise was purely mathematical.
    It also admits that certain assumptions needed to be made for variables in order to make the math work.
    Yes, I have seen abstracts of lots of papers like that (the math is over my head). But theoreticians love to play around with alternative models and see what falls out. Often it is interesting but doesn't describe our universe. One day it may be something that is actually useful!
    Neverfly likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I didn't know negative knowledge was possible.
    I laughed pretty hard at this.

    Negative Value Intellect; when the sum of all the false ideas you accept over values the sum of all the true ideas you accept.

    Someone should write up a test which measures a person's NVI just so we know what to expect.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,827
    Heh, on a different forum I accused someone of being the exact opposite of a polymath - totally ignorant in all disciplines.
    NVI tests would have failed on that guy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    NM, I'm getting mean.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,864
    A tiresome habit of nsbm is to post a link to some crap, engage in a couple of exchanges, then depart when the going gets rough for him. He then starts yet another crap post, and repeats the noise. At some point the mods may just decide to put his posts directly into the trash if he keeps this up.
    Last edited by tk421; January 18th, 2013 at 11:50 PM.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Makeover For The Big Bang Standard Model Of Our Universe
    By arKane in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: November 28th, 2010, 05:05 PM
  2. What is admittedly big bang model
    By ThaiBoy in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 30th, 2010, 12:35 PM
  3. the big bang cycle
    By rmz450 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 24th, 2008, 04:45 AM
  4. The Universe and the Big Bang
    By hvv in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 07:54 AM
  5. The Gravity Model vs. Big Bang Theory
    By W.Davidson in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 10th, 2006, 12:39 PM
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
  •