Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Reinterpretation of Big Bang Concept.


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 02:15 PM

No, I am not saying the big bang theory is wrong. :)

I am going to explain how logically and relativistically speaking, the mental theoretical concept of a bang or explosion is an impossible interpratation of the event.

Whether this makes a difference in how one forms calculations I am not yet aware.

If we embrace the laws of physics and assume the 'though experiment' of a big banb, we must embrace an existing reference frame.

If we assume to exist in our current space-time perspective and view from the outside inwards on the system, we are not going to get the most accurate model of the event.

We must assume to exist inside all existence itself. We must assume our reference frame inside the begginning of all reference frames.

Did it begin with energy? Then we must assume the reference frame of energy.

Thus, the next stage of this process is to reflect on our now known space-time of particles and waves of mass and matter, and go to the next predicted stage.

My naive assumption is that we transverse into a sort of two frames of energy. One that assumes rest, and another that assumes velocity, or vice versa. A sort of plasma cloud of two charges, or electric and magnetic logics.

Eventually we continue to reduce and reduce our state of energetics. And as such we find ourselves with fundamental like particles.

In our perspective things are burning out. As things reduce in energy, that is state of existence, tempeature, form, etc... things begin to grow in complexity. That is things begin to birth as the flame of origin burns out.

We experience NO bang, infact we experience a state of death, which infact creates some form of birth.

Untill we reach the point of which particles are floating all over the place in dense clouds.

Each time energy decreases, a complexity is brought into existence.

As such the loss of energy produces the seperation of material, a formation of gravitational effect.

So in effect time as not only been brough into existence, it slows down as the process evolves.

That is you must assume a reference frame and by consistency with general relativity, anything you observe around you as this new universe evolves, must be observed to slow down in time as each component compacts itself, burns down in state and becomes more complex and solid like.

I think we have been tackling the big bang theory inside out so to speak.

#2 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 02:29 PM

This kind of argument is mostly philosophical in nature since it tries to compare (assumed) human experience with the unknown processes that caused our universe into existence.

As for the "bang", it's most certainly a misnomer. It was a derogatory term coined by Fred Hoyle when he got upset by the new theory that challenged his steady state theory. I think the concept of a "bang" is useful in popularization attempts - but I don't think there are any scientific theories claiming that the Big Bang was, in fact, a "bang".

#3 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 22 June 2007 - 02:35 PM

I see.

None the less we must have the correct approach when attempting form a theoretical interpratation of such an event.

For one to build the correct theory and logics, one must start from the right place.

I assume this (no bang perspective) is known in the professional scientific communitty. But, it was something that occured to me that greatly satisfied my previous interpratations to realities foundations.