Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Big Bang, Erroneous?


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#35 PhysBang

PhysBang

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 02 January 2008 - 08:28 PM

[quote name='Mike C']Since I give no credibility to the BBT, I would obviously do the same to its supporting data. [/quote]
I see. So your answer is: you don't like the theory, so you aren't going to learn anything about it, or the currently available data, and you're going to continue to find things that you find confusing and try to confuse other people with these examples.

Is this right?
[quote]I think Freidman may have gotten his idea from the 'slicing' of a 'cone' where it would represent the various orbital possibilities such as the 'open, closed and flat' orbits as applied to the universe..[/quote]
This is doubtful, given the mathematics involved.
[quote]Einsteins GR was calculated to be applied to a static universe where his .
universe would collapse. So in a SSU, GR is not needed because it would be a flat universe that is not expanding or contracting and without curvature, would not collape.[/quote]
Hunh?
[quote]Also, the BBT says there was no explosion and the expansion is uniform, So there would be no variation in the redshifts except for its 'additive' effect relative to distance.[/quote]
The Big Bang theory says that the universe is general to a great deal of approximation, but not entirely.



Mike C[/QUOTE]

#36 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 03 January 2008 - 05:06 PM

Hi PhysBang,

Maybe you can enlighten us about the relative discrepancies between the BB model and the Black Hole model.

(1) The big bang point is not a part of a contiguous mathematical model that encompases what happens before and what happens after. It is an infinitely dense point of matter where maths breaks down, everything else in the universe is ignored, regardless of the fact that such an infinite area with no mass is the ideal medium for photon travel, let alone exotic pro and anti particles appearing on its borders.

(2) The theoretical black hole singularity points have our universe surrounding them along with all the mass contained in the universe.

How do you reconcile these relative discrepancies of the same phenomena in the same physical universe?

#37 PhysBang

PhysBang

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 03 January 2008 - 10:54 PM

Hi PhysBang,

Maybe you can enlighten us about the relative discrepancies between the BB model and the Black Hole model.

I'm guessing you mean the singularities in the Big Bang models and the singularities that are supposed to be in black holes.

(1) The big bang point is not a part of a contiguous mathematical model that encompases what happens before and what happens after. It is an infinitely dense point of matter where maths breaks down, everything else in the universe is ignored, regardless of the fact that such an infinite area with no mass is the ideal medium for photon travel, let alone exotic pro and anti particles appearing on its borders.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

There is a singularity at the "beginning" of almost all Big Bang models. However, most Big Bang theorists don't believe in the singularity. That is, they know that the energies near this singularity are so high that it makes accurate descriptions of this period difficult if not impossible. The real Big Bang theory is a theory about the history of the universe, but not a complete history.

But the singularity of the Big Bang theory is a singularity with everything. There is no outside space without mass. All space takes part in the singularity and the era immedieately after the singularity.

(2) The theoretical black hole singularity points have our universe surrounding them along with all the mass contained in the universe.

The black holes themselves don't have all the mass of the universe within them. I don't understand black hole theory very well, but according to the claims of the theory, black holes do not have more mass than they formed with and that they gain over time.

In a black hole, there is an increase in density within the universe. The singularity of the Big Bang is a singularity of the entire universe. It may have no beginning as we know it.

How do you reconcile these relative discrepancies of the same phenomena in the same physical universe?

Singularities are not descriptions of phenomena. They are, by definitions, places in the mathematical framework of a theory where description of physical phenomena is impossible.

#38 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 04 January 2008 - 05:22 PM

Hi PhysBang,

There is a singularity at the "beginning" of almost all Big Bang models. However, most Big Bang theorists don't believe in the singularity. That is, they know that the energies near this singularity are so high that it makes accurate descriptions of this period difficult if not impossible.


So most Big Bang theorists don't believe in the singularity because at the singularity point infinite density and zero volume causes maths to fall apart i.e. infinity becomes equivalent to zero 1/0 = 1/infinity.

That's a pretty huge leap of faith for the believers of singularities.

#39 Mike C

Mike C

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:09 AM

Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.

Do you know that the CMBR has a redshift of 1000?
How do you explain that?

Mike C


I just recently discovered that the CMBR's redshift is really not a RS but more appropriately defined as a 'temperature' shift.

The reason for this is that light is a 'one dimensional' source of energy, while the CMBR RS is a 3 dimensional expansion to conform to the BB expansion of space.
So the 2nd statement above can be ignored.
Thank you.

Mike C

#40 Majeston

Majeston

    Suspended for rule violations, pending review

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts

Posted 25 June 2008 - 08:30 PM

What a surprise to find this area :)

Would anyone care to tackle some of the Urantia material on this topic? It seems this might be the place to discuss it.

I am not a scientist by trade, but am very familiar with the material in the book and quite familiar with what has been published by "Urantians" with degrees in Physics; Astronomy and Mathematics which is what I can bring to the table. I recently posted The Big Bang Never Happened and got some very nasty feedback.


The Urantia papers state the following :

12:4.14 Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions.

12:4.15 But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space in the realms next to the domains of the seven superuniverses, seem to be revolving in a direction opposite to that of the grand universe. That is, these myriads of nebulae and their accompanying suns and spheres are at the present time revolving clockwise about the central creation. The seven superuniverses revolve about Paradise in a counterclockwise direction. It appears that the second outer universe of galaxies, like the seven superuniverses, revolves counterclockwise about Paradise. And the astronomic observers of Uversa think they detect evidence of revolutionary movements in a third outer belt of far-distant space which are beginning to exhibit directional tendencies of a clockwise nature.


>>>>>>>


15:3.3 Observation of the so-called Milky Way discloses the comparative increase in Orvonton stellar density when the heavens are viewed in one direction, while on either side the density diminishes; the number of stars and other spheres decreases away from the chief plane of our material superuniverse. When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.

15:3.4 Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers. The other two are difficult of separate recognition because you are obliged to view these phenomena from the inside. If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors of the seventh galaxy.

15:3.5 The rotational center of your minor sector is situated far away in the enormous and dense star cloud of Sagittarius, around which your local universe and its associated creations all move, and from opposite sides of the vast Sagittarius subgalactic system you may observe two great streams of star clouds emerging in stupendous stellar coils.

15:3.6 The nucleus of the physical system to which your sun and its associated planets belong is the center of the onetime Andronover nebula. This former spiral nebula was slightly distorted by the gravity disruptions associated with the events which were attendant upon the birth of your solar system, and which were occasioned by the near approach of a large neighboring nebula. This near collision changed Andronover into a somewhat globular aggregation but did not wholly destroy the two-way procession of the suns and their associated physical groups. Your solar system now occupies a fairly central position in one of the arms of this distorted spiral, situated about halfway from the center out towards the edge of the star stream.

15:3.7 The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa, and some of the confusion of Urantian star observers arises out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the following multiple revolutionary movements:

1. The revolution of Urantia around its sun.
2. The circuit of your solar system about the nucleus of the former Andronover nebula.
3. The rotation of the Andronover stellar family and the associated clusters about the composite rotation-gravity center of the star cloud of Nebadon.
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.
7. The movement of Orvonton and six associated superuniverses around Paradise and Havona, the counterclockwise processional of the superuniverse space level.

15:3.8 These multiple motions are of several orders: The space paths of your planet and your solar system are genetic, inherent in origin. The absolute counterclockwise motion of Orvonton is also genetic, inherent in the architectural plans of the master universe. But the intervening motions are of composite origin, being derived in part from the constitutive segmentation of matter-energy into the superuniverses and in part produced by the intelligent and purposeful action of the Paradise force organizers.

15:3.9 The local universes are in closer proximity as they approach Havona; the circuits are greater in number, and there is increased superimposition, layer upon layer. But farther out from the eternal center there are fewer and fewer systems, layers, circuits, and universes.


............

To begin with:......
#

*

# The Big Bang Never Happened

* by Michael Wisenbaker (Illustrated) here for discussion

The Urantia Book

#41 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 25 June 2008 - 09:41 PM

What a surprise to find this area :)

Would anyone care to tackle some of the Urantia material on this topic? It seems this might be the place to discuss it.

I am not a scientist by trade, but am very familiar with the material in the book and quite familiar with what has been published by "Urantians" with degrees in Physics; Astronomy and Mathematics which is what I can bring to the table. I recently posted The Big Bang Never Happened and got some very nasty feedback.


The Urantia papers state the following :

12:4.14 Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions.

12:4.15 But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space in the realms next to the domains of the seven superuniverses, seem to be revolving in a direction opposite to that of the grand universe. That is, these myriads of nebulae and their accompanying suns and spheres are at the present time revolving clockwise about the central creation. The seven superuniverses revolve about Paradise in a counterclockwise direction. It appears that the second outer universe of galaxies, like the seven superuniverses, revolves counterclockwise about Paradise. And the astronomic observers of Uversa think they detect evidence of revolutionary movements in a third outer belt of far-distant space which are beginning to exhibit directional tendencies of a clockwise nature.


>>>>>>>


15:3.3 Observation of the so-called Milky Way discloses the comparative increase in Orvonton stellar density when the heavens are viewed in one direction, while on either side the density diminishes; the number of stars and other spheres decreases away from the chief plane of our material superuniverse. When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.

15:3.4 Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers. The other two are difficult of separate recognition because you are obliged to view these phenomena from the inside. If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors of the seventh galaxy.

15:3.5 The rotational center of your minor sector is situated far away in the enormous and dense star cloud of Sagittarius, around which your local universe and its associated creations all move, and from opposite sides of the vast Sagittarius subgalactic system you may observe two great streams of star clouds emerging in stupendous stellar coils.

15:3.6 The nucleus of the physical system to which your sun and its associated planets belong is the center of the onetime Andronover nebula. This former spiral nebula was slightly distorted by the gravity disruptions associated with the events which were attendant upon the birth of your solar system, and which were occasioned by the near approach of a large neighboring nebula. This near collision changed Andronover into a somewhat globular aggregation but did not wholly destroy the two-way procession of the suns and their associated physical groups. Your solar system now occupies a fairly central position in one of the arms of this distorted spiral, situated about halfway from the center out towards the edge of the star stream.

15:3.7 The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa, and some of the confusion of Urantian star observers arises out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the following multiple revolutionary movements:

1. The revolution of Urantia around its sun.
2. The circuit of your solar system about the nucleus of the former Andronover nebula.
3. The rotation of the Andronover stellar family and the associated clusters about the composite rotation-gravity center of the star cloud of Nebadon.
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.
7. The movement of Orvonton and six associated superuniverses around Paradise and Havona, the counterclockwise processional of the superuniverse space level.

15:3.8 These multiple motions are of several orders: The space paths of your planet and your solar system are genetic, inherent in origin. The absolute counterclockwise motion of Orvonton is also genetic, inherent in the architectural plans of the master universe. But the intervening motions are of composite origin, being derived in part from the constitutive segmentation of matter-energy into the superuniverses and in part produced by the intelligent and purposeful action of the Paradise force organizers.

15:3.9 The local universes are in closer proximity as they approach Havona; the circuits are greater in number, and there is increased superimposition, layer upon layer. But farther out from the eternal center there are fewer and fewer systems, layers, circuits, and universes.


............

To begin with:......
#

*

# The Big Bang Never Happened

* by Michael Wisenbaker (Illustrated) here for discussion

The Urantia Book


Are you going to give any evidence for your Urantia books claims other than quotes from the Urantia book?

#42 FRIPRO

FRIPRO

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 13 July 2008 - 08:00 PM

The Big (local) Bang was real and did happen about 13-15 billion years ago. However it did not create the Universe.

I just saw another big bang from NASA' Spitser telescope. They happen all the time in the Universe.

The Universe is forever. Having never been created or never will it be destroyed. It just changes form.

The Thermodynamic laws on Earth can not be used to explain the Universe. Earth is but a grain of sand on the Pacific coast's beaches in size, compared to the Universe.

In fact the latest deep space photos by NASA of the red shift (is less than what it was espected to be) indicates the Universe is rotating not expanding.

#43 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 14 July 2008 - 08:58 AM

The Big (local) Bang was real and did happen about 13-15 billion years ago. However it did not create the Universe.

I just saw another big bang from NASA' Spitser telescope. They happen all the time in the Universe.

The Universe is forever. Having never been created or never will it be destroyed. It just changes form.

The Thermodynamic laws on Earth can not be used to explain the Universe. Earth is but a grain of sand on the Pacific coast's beaches in size, compared to the Universe.

In fact the latest deep space photos by NASA of the red shift (is less than what it was espected to be) indicates the Universe is rotating not expanding.


All five of these claims need support. Can you please provide links or otherwise back up your claims?

#44 FRIPRO

FRIPRO

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 18 July 2008 - 11:16 PM

I agree to respond with your reasonable request;however it will take time, and believe me the Hypophysis is reasonable. I will respond--do not take this as a cop-out.

I am sure my response will bring on more coments, via the forum.

I would like to hear other coments herein prior to my next posting.

#45 Pluto

Pluto

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Posted 19 July 2008 - 04:46 AM

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Frippro said

The Big (local) Bang was real and did happen about 13-15 billion years ago. However it did not create the Universe.


You need to explain this further, what you mean by Big Bang local.

#46 FRIPRO

FRIPRO

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 19 July 2008 - 02:29 PM

Both ancient Indian and Greek philosophy correctly realized that something is never created from nothing, ex nihilo, thus something has eternally existed.

Current thinking says a new finding implies that the Universe is about 180 billion light-years wide, and 15.5 billion light-years old.

If the Universe is only 15.8 billion light-years old, how can the Universe be 180 Billion light-years across?

This exposes the error in the Universe age, and gives more proof that the Universe is ageless and the Big Bang is real and local.

QUESTION: If the Universe were rotating then the statement of time after the Big Bang can not be used to measure or guess at the size of the Universe.

In fact the so call Big Bang is a local cosmic noise from a local star explosion and it did not create the universe.

Why would one question expansion of the Universe against its gyroscopic rotation.

Because the Hubble telescope has photographed deep space photos of a glalatic formation of families of galaxies. Viewing these formation in stero photos one can even see the clusters as they form even larger galatic clusters that inter connect to each other, in a vortex arrangement.

Look and see for your selves and even imagine a curvature of (space) the Universe.Universe's steropic One million seconds exposure Photo

#47 C1ay

C1ay

    ¿42?

  • Administrators
  • 6488 posts

Posted 19 July 2008 - 02:33 PM

This exposes the error in the Universe age, and gives more proof that the Universe is ageless and the Big Bang is real and local.


It may be evidence that the Big Bang is local, if in fact there was a Big Bang, but the size of the Universe, as we see it, is not evidence that there was in fact a Big Bang.

#48 modest

modest

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4959 posts

Posted 19 July 2008 - 05:08 PM

Both ancient Indian and Greek philosophy correctly realized that something is never created from nothing, ex nihilo, thus something has eternally existed.

Current thinking says a new finding implies that the Universe is about 180 billion light-years wide, and 15.5 billion light-years old.

If the Universe is only 15.8 billion light-years old, how can the Universe be 180 Billion light-years across?

This exposes the error in the Universe age, and gives more proof that the Universe is ageless and the Big Bang is real and local.


The size of 180 billion lightyears and the age of 15.8 billion years were incorrectly reported in some non-science sources and repeated through the internet. To get 15.8 they added 15% to the correct age of 13.7. To get 180 they added 15% to 156 billion light years. 156 was also widely reported yet also incorrect. It was gotten by doubling 78 which is again incorrect and has something to do with a study of the CMB showing that the universe is necessarily larger than 78 billion light years otherwise we'd see CMB repetition. All that aside, the correct numbers are:

Size of the observable universe(diameter): 92 billion lightyears
Age of observable universe: 13.7 billion years

What I believe is bothering you is how the top number could be larger than the bottom number. In fact, no light that we see arriving here on earth has traveled for longer than 13.7 billion years. Light travel time is then probably how you should think of distance in order to avoid your size objection.

If we see something that has a light travel time of 13 billion years that doesn't make it 13 billion light years away. The light has taken 13 billion years to get here and in that time the universe expanded. By the time we observe that thing it has surely gotten further away. So, there is a "comoving distance" which is the larger 92 billion lightyears from horizon to horizon.

So, the furthest thing (galaxy) we see has a comoving distance of 46 billion lightyears and a light travel time of about 13 billion years. The two numbers are different because the universe is expanding.

This link is a must if you have further questions or interest on the topic:

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

#49 FRIPRO

FRIPRO

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 150 posts

Posted 27 July 2008 - 03:58 PM

The size of 180 billion lightyears and the age of 15.8 billion years were incorrectly reported in some non-science sources and repeated through the internet. To get 15.8 they added 15% to the correct age of 13.7. To get 180 they added 15% to 156 billion light years. 156 was also widely reported yet also incorrect. It was gotten by doubling 78 which is again incorrect and has something to do with a study of the CMB showing that the universe is necessarily larger than 78 billion light years otherwise we'd see CMB repetition. All that aside, the correct numbers are:

Size of the observable universe(diameter): 92 billion lightyears
Age of observable universe: 13.7 billion years

What I believe is bothering you is how the top number could be larger than the bottom number. In fact, no light that we see arriving here on earth has traveled for longer than 13.7 billion years. Light travel time is then probably how you should think of distance in order to avoid your size objection.

If we see something that has a light travel time of 13 billion years that doesn't make it 13 billion light years away. The light has taken 13 billion years to get here and in that time the universe expanded. By the time we observe that thing it has surely gotten further away. So, there is a "comoving distance" which is the larger 92 billion lightyears from horizon to horizon.

So, the furthest thing (galaxy) we see has a comoving distance of 46 billion lightyears and a light travel time of about 13 billion years. The two numbers are different because the universe is expanding.

This link is a must if you have further questions or interest on the topic:

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest


Modest: Wikipedia is not always correct many Hypothesis have been creaping into its postings. Some times it is difficult to know what is and what is not an accepted Hypothesisn by major thinkers.

I still listen to most of what you say, however it is difficult to measure distant galaxies beyond our Earths and space sensors--telescopes.

Our imaginations (Hypothesis) are all we have to hope for any truth beyond the Earths sensors. Then is becomes who is and who is not right?

#50 Pluto

Pluto

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:17 AM

G'day from the land of ozzz

The Big Bang in theory started everywhere at the same time about 13.7Gyrs, so even if the universe is 90 billion or more light years across it does not effect the theory.

The problem that comes up is when we see 100 billion galaxies at 13.2 light years into deep field. The question is how did these huge structures form in such a short period of time 700 million years.


This is a prediction:
The other question that is going to pop up is when we see 13.7 deep field images of existing galaxies similar to the galaxies close to us. But! thats to come soon.

#51 matterdoc

matterdoc

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 01:30 PM

It is physics’ inability to discover a phenomenon that keep galaxies apart despite gravitational attraction between them that prompted illogical theories like Cosmological constant, BigBang, Expansion of universe, etc. It will be better to search for a logical (alternative) theory that keeps galaxies at stable distance from each other than to complain about illogical theories.