Big Bang Hypothesis

[johne]

'Thinking Caps' on Guys:-

Being new to the bbH subject and investigating proof, to satisfy my utter disbelief, in how a microdot (singularity?) with no history, could make the decision

to create all the Mass/Energy/Space of the Universe,all in a few billionths of a second. My research reading, at the shallow end, includes Stephen Hawking's-"A Brief History of Time" and Shahn Majid's"On Space and Time" Cambridge Press 2008 being a representative selection.

A) Hawking (1970) said there was already too much matter in the Universe at that time for his support of bbH. Since then the observable Universe is many orders of magnitude greater

B)A WEB source quoted a respected mathematician in 1905 supported by Einstein that singularities (including black Holes) were not possible.

C)The Hubble telescope's view of the Universe, gives an indicative radius of 70 billion light years for the observable portion from Earth (as a privileged observer). Which to my feeble

arithmetic indicates 14 BIllion years of age is not enough.

D) Hubble's constant, applied for Space Expansion, appears to ignore that a lot of Galaxies are in a corresponding 'Shrinking Space' and in active collision. In Hawking's view only one contrary observation is enough to disqualify a theory. i.e. No Space Expansion??

E) The separation of Galaxies could also be due to galaxies being parners in rotating groups. The further away on the wheel the faster they go. Does any observation match this criteria?

As this would allow portions of different wheels to collide. Many collisions are claimed to have been identified.

F) All Gravity Centres, in operation over decades and costing many $Millions, have failed to 'ring the bell' = No bb gravity waves. My nearest gravity centre has it's Govt. funding removed.

Despite my misgivings, it is noted that this current branch of 'Physics of the Hypothetical' is still in wide use.

I will conclude with a quotation from Majid, with reference to quantum gravity, black holes,bb beginning:-

"...it is not only that we do not know, we do not even have a theory to test, about this deepest layer of physics."

[Eclogite]

'Thinking Caps' on Guys:-

Being new to the bbH subject and investigating proof, to satisfy my utter disbelief, in how a microdot (singularity?) with no history, could make the decision

to create all the Mass/Energy/Space of the Universe,all in a few billionths of a second.

johne, welcome to the forum. You seem to have some misapprehensions about Big Bang theory.

1. The singularity is a reflection of the incompleteness of our theories for the universe. Its most extreme features likely do no reflect any reality.

2. There is no general claim that that the singularity has no history, rather is has no currently discernible history.

3. No decision was required. No conscious (or unconsious) thought need have occured. Events flowed naturally from the laws then in force.

4. Since the 'dot' constituted all the energy of the universe, that was already in place. Matter did not follow for some time and space took 13 billion years plus to expand to its present size.

 

So you seem to be directing your utter disbelief towards a phantom. Moreover, your selected quotes have something of the appearance of cherry picking. Please do not mistake my directness for rudeness, but if you are posting merely to promote an agenda then it is likely to be unproductive for all concerned. If I have misinterpreted your intent, I apologise. What would help is if you would address my reservations about your understanding of BBT as laid out in the four points above.

 

Again, welcome.

[johne]

johne, welcome to the forum. You seem to have some misapprehensions about Big Bang theory.

1. The singularity is a reflection of the incompleteness of our theories for the universe. Its most extreme features likely do no reflect any reality.

2. There is no general claim that that the singularity has no history, rather is has no currently discernible history.

3. No decision was required. No conscious (or unconsious) thought need have occured. Events flowed naturally from the laws then in force.

4. Since the 'dot' constituted all the energy of the universe, that was already in place. Matter did not follow for some time and space took 13 billion years plus to expand to its present size.

 

So you seem to be directing your utter disbelief towards a phantom. Moreover, your selected quotes have something of the appearance of cherry picking. Please do not mistake my directness for rudeness, but if you are posting merely to promote an agenda then it is likely to be unproductive for all concerned. If I have misinterpreted your intent, I apologise. What would help is if you would address my reservations about your understanding of BBT as laid out in the four points above.

 

Again, welcome.

 

Hi Guys

 

Thank you for your reply, the few quotes (cherry picking?) are a tiny amount in comparson to the recognised negatives in the publications. My observation, is the lack of positives to support those who use bbH as a foundation fo their Physics research e.g. Gravity Centres, maybe Hadron, and also as above comment "... It's most extreme features do not likely reflect any reality". Where does one find the Physics of the positives?, or am I wasting my time looking for an understanding that is not available. Upgrading my knowledge base, is my pastime.

Also publications stress these foundations is more hypothesis than theory. Maybe my knowledgebase would be unable to cope, Thanks again.

[modest]

C)The Hubble telescope's view of the Universe, gives an indicative radius of 70 billion light years for the observable portion from Earth (as a privileged observer). Which to my feeble

arithmetic indicates 14 BIllion years of age is not enough.

 

This is a common question. It is answered here:

 

If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects that are now 47 billion light years away?

 

 

 

~modest

[johne]

Thanks Guy's; The references suggested are not much different from the three dozen or so previous publications consulted. I may say your Site was a 'Last', Last-resort in an

effort to make some headway. Perhaps my engineering reformated brain cells are beyond convincing, that is, this new branch of Hypothetical Physics has any future. What is needed

is a 'Systems Format Skeliton' which shows how to attach the various Hypotheses/Theories/Observations,and labelling each accordingly, as everything appears as a hard fact. Us amateurs without formal studies are not always aware of the difference, plus a bit of advice of how future research is being directed.

In the wash-up, this is only an intellectual exercise for those of us interested. Unless for example we can learn how to convert our Sun to a Ceiphed variable to protect Earth from severe climate change-come future destruction. All the best

[johne]

Hi Guys

 

In checking data from 'wiki', the numbers do not add up that gravity in SPACE exists as we normally recognise the Force.

At the point where Earth's orbit places it directly in front of the Sun's path and with a Sun Velocity of 220km/sec or

19million kms/day. This velocity does not assist the sun to reduce the 150M kms radius to 131M Kms radius for that 1 degree of

Earth orbit.

If we consider 3 days (3 degrees of orbit) the Sun/Earth radius should decrease to under 100M kms. This indicates the Sun is

repelling?

Alternatively a diagram using a unit of dimension = Sun Diameter=D i.e. Sun Dia.=1; Radius to earth = 107 D and earth diameter

is 0.03 D. When plotted on A3, with D = 2.5mm, requires a lot of imagination that the stated weak force of gravity would

have an effect?

In consulting other Web Sites:- Statements are made that Einstein's Relativity Theories forbids singularities / black holes also in

conjunction with Schwarzchild's maths which make the same claim? How can we progress? or can these statements be

challenged?

[modest]

Thanks Guy's; The references suggested are not much different from the three dozen or so previous publications consulted.

 

Does the reference not directly answer your question? What, specifically, do you find problematic with the answer?

 

In checking data from 'wiki', the numbers do not add up that gravity in SPACE exists as we normally recognise the Force.

At the point where Earth's orbit places it directly in front of the Sun's path and with a Sun Velocity of 220km/sec or

19million kms/day. This velocity does not assist the sun to reduce the 150M kms radius to 131M Kms radius for that 1 degree of

Earth orbit.

 

The same galactic forces acting on the sun are acting on the moon. Why would you expect the galaxy's gravitational field to affect one and not the other?

 

~modest

[johne]

Does the reference not directly answer your question? What, specifically, do you find problematic with the answer?

 

 

 

The same galactic forces acting on the sun are acting on the moon. Why would you expect the galaxy's gravitational field to affect one and not the other?

 

~modest

[johne]

My observation is a sample for the whole Solar System, in that if gravity is Attractive in Force then it should be assisted

by this attempted distance closure? (and 1/r^2). However Gravity appears repulsive, hence the query?

[HydrogenBond]

When attractive forces act to lower potential, they give off energy, which can cause another system to gain energy to create a repulsive situation. For example, if an excited hydrogen atom lowers energy to the ground state via the EM force, the photons can excite other hydrogen atoms; it will resist the EM force into an excite state. If gravity is a force, it should also have an exothermic output that can place secondary gravity into an excited state.

 

If we started with a static cloud of stella gas to make a star, a pure gravity attraction should create a radial compression. However, what we will observe is energy going into rotation, which changes the rate at which gravity can pull the matter to center in a radial way. This is due to an exothermic output, since the rotation needs energy. The rotation will slow the rate of gravity attraction relative to a pure radial attraction of the matter (with no exothermic output). Once the star forms, the inertia of the rotation continues unless acted on by another force.

 

One would expect that the output from all the most effective/dominate acting gravity, which is being maximized by forming galaxies, stars, blackholes, etc., will give off an output to the universe that will create an effect that appears to slow the rate at which gravity attracts, if there was no output. It is called the expansion which just so happens to be aligned with the biggest bulk units of matter being acted upon in an efficient way by gravity (galaxies).

 

The simplest way to quantify this is via an entropy spectrum. If we go from a large cloud of gas to a smaller compressed cloud, the entropy lowers. This will give off energy proportional to the lowering of the entropy. Gravity lowers entropy with the output in the entropy spectrum.

[modest]

My observation is a sample for the whole Solar System, in that if gravity is Attractive in Force then it should be assisted

by this attempted distance closure? (and 1/r^2). However Gravity appears repulsive, hence the query?

 

That doesn't answer either of my questions, but that may be my fault for saying "moon" in my last post instead of "earth" perhaps confusing my meaning. Responding to your post #6:

 

Gravity is never repulsive. Both the earth and the sun have the same velocity pointing in the direction of galactic rotation. A 'force' is given to both proportional to mass so that they both have the same acceleration from gravitational and centrifugal forces. If this seems problematic to you in so far as a kinematic analysis then there is something you're misunderstanding, because, Newtonian gravity is not problematic until you reach the Newtonian limit and we have to use GR.

 

~modest

[johne]

Hi Guys

Consulting 'Wicki' etc Newton's and Kepler's equations only include Sun/Earth relationship, there are no terms for outside

Galactic gravitational fields i.e. Kepler equation for orbit period.

While it is recognised that we are only dealing with relative motion within the Solar System, as the Earth path through

the Cosmos is anything but a simple 'pear' shaped circle. The original query is that within this orbit; Sun and Earth are

attempting to close the radius at one point (and open at the opposite point) of an orbit. Due to the relative direction

of travel. So what is holding them apart?

[maddog]

Consulting 'Wicki' etc Newton's and Kepler's equations only include Sun/Earth relationship, there are no terms for outside

Galactic gravitational fields i.e. Kepler equation for orbit period.

While it is recognised that we are only dealing with relative motion within the Solar System, as the Earth path through

the Cosmos is anything but a simple 'pear' shaped circle. The original query is that within this orbit; Sun and Earth are

attempting to close the radius at one point (and open at the opposite point) of an orbit. Due to the relative direction

of travel. So what is holding them apart?

Newton's Laws as in the Universal Law of Gravitation is thought (if not tacitly assumed) to be "Universal". So whenever you

are calculating an orbit for an object (be it the Earth around the Sun or a Star around the Galactic Center). It is the same

process & same equation with the same constants.

It is the Centripital force that is directed outward that opposes Gravity and prevents the falling in object.

 

maddog

[johne]

Hi Guys

 

It is assumed the word 'Centripital' should be 'Centrifugal'. A TV presentation by a respected Astronomer/Cosmologist illustrated

the centrifugal effect of a rotating mass swung on a chain being let loose, to illustrate what would happen if Gravity 'let go'.

That test would answer my query and that Sun/Earth are in a Centrifugal relationship. A similar effect could be obtained by

some form of magnetic coupling of the Sun and Earth's magnetic fields. NASA's diagram of these fields show them to extend

only out to a radius of say three diameters. Data from 'Wicki' suggests Magnetic Force is greater than Gravity by a factor greater

than 10^36. It would appear that a bycycle chain (of say electrons) would be required to provide the restraining tension to enable

this Centrigugal action to maintain Earth in location - "Some Hypothesis?? what!"

[C. michael Turner]

My observation is a sample for the whole Solar System, in that if gravity is Attractive in Force then it should be assisted

by this attempted distance closure? (and 1/r^2). However Gravity appears repulsive, hence the query?

Hi there I am Michael Turner and as crazy as it sounds I understand gravity and there is a third option to the nature of Gravity.

Deduce with me the mechanism of "sound" relativity. The sound generated by an airplane traveling overhead is relative to an observer and not the people on the airplane because the airplane is the continuous producer of the sound wave. It is the point of origin, energy transfer and the energy comes off in the form of a wave with a set length, frequency, and speed. The frequency, speed, and length of the wave are constant to the airplane passengers but the speed of the airplane's sound in relation to the change the sound the frequency, speed and length is a variable to the observer. This is sound relativity because this is the underlying principle of relativity. Here is the light bulb going off revelation. Spacetime is relative because each quanta of matter and energy is decaying, giving off a wave of the smallest energy, the gravitational wave.

Suspend your negativity thoughts for a second on the validity of what I just said and listen to how gravity works because I just gave the background of the painting, not the picture of the painting yet.

Understanding how magnetics work as a dipole wave alignment and because it is a dipole the interaction is strong and falls away very fast the further distance from the dipole interaction, simple interaction. Now imagine that those magnetic field's decay into monopole fields. Now imagine that waves from one quanta of matter bump into and align into other waves generated from other quanta of magnetic fields of matter. The wave tension builds as in dipoles and as magnets move close together to decrease wave tension or align waves so to does matter align from monopole wave generation to decrease wave tension when waves align. Spacetime and gravity are wave functions of generated monopole waves from all matter, energy. So gravity is a wave synchronization from all energy, first generated at the big bang to create space itself and then generated from each quanta of matter and energy to create spacetime and gravity. Gravity is a byproduct of the other three forces.

So the gravitational wave is traveling at the speed of light, yet aligning with all other gravitational waves and your confusion lies in thinking a speeding synchronizing wave joining wavefront can be contradictory force of attraction and repulsion rather that a speed of gravitational wave synchronization force.

That is the nature of the framework of the universe, confidently my opinion.

[johne]

Hi Guys

 

This is beyond me, does any one understand and can it be made understandable?

Reference to a hypothetical big bang does not help. A recent essay by Santilli with 722

supporting publications claim no big bang possible, including a detailed mathematical paper

by 'Crothers'.

 

A new query on CMB?

For this to have any credibility, a comparison study of all E.M. Bandwidths

emanating from the Cosmos and the associated Mapping needs to be undertaken. Also proof is

required that there is no possibility of any other Microwave bandwidth source. example say

the E.M. spectrum of our Sun as an average star, representing the few billion stars wandering

around. Microwave production on Earth is common enough.

The CMB origin is currently, non-provable conjecture, despite Nobel Prize.

[36grit]

Well, I see nobody's posted here in a while, so I guess I will. Problem is, everytime I put my thinking cap on it leads me back to the same ole theory just reworded. None the less here's my thoughts on the big bang:

 

Scientist describe the big bang theory as the universe starting out a mere speck of near infinite density. A very poetic statement but not very scientific. Within an infintie scale everyting is realtive. Exactly what are they saying? At some point within an infinite scale, a neutron star is no more dense than bubble wrap. It's all matter of relative perspective.

They describe a universe that started off smaller than the head of a pin, and expanded to it's present size and it is still expanding. Within an infinite scale of size, it is still smaller than the head of a pin. It's all a matter of relative perspective.

Scientist say that outside of the speck, nothing existed. No space, no time, no mass, no distance, just pure and absolute nothing. It would stand to reason that if nothing existed on the other side of the speck then, than nothing exists on the other side of the speck that we are today. If nothing exists on the other side, than one might say that math and statistical probability also cannot exist, because that would be something. Therefore it would be impossible for science to suggest that , "it is a statistical probability that the universe will expand tommorrow".

To say that we are expanding into an infinite or finite nothing, would be to describe nothing as something. According this (insane) train of thought, there can be no such thing as nothing. Nothing is at the very least statistical probability. Is'nt this just a mathamatical means of predicting future events?

According to the reasoning above one must conclude that we are not and did not expand into nothing, but that we are and have always been expanding into the litteral and physical future. Or perhaps grape jelly heavily laden with heavy metal rock and roll, or I don't know. But expanding into the future seems to make sense.

Mathamatically nothing is equal to zero. Anything times zero is always zero. So if we are expanding into nothing then we would be nothing. Those who believe that we are something must search for a better understanding.

If the future can be described as infinite distance, than the sequence of events that led to the point of "unfolding" or "creation", or "the expansion" of mass existed then. Than it probably exists now. The scientific community, and most people, acknowledge that the universe is expanding. Why do they believe that this only pertains to space and distance and not mass? If the universe is expanding, why exclude it's mass content? It's like, a jet that flew over the head of a child who experiences a sonic boom. He is to young to understand that the wave is continuous and relative to the position of the jet. In this same sense, scientists look out and see the universe is expanding. They conclude that at one time it must have all been gathered up into a very small ball that exploded. They've put together mathamatical models that include details down the billionth of a second and ignore the possibility of a continuous wave of creation. nobody knows where the spec came from and nobody knows what caused it to ignite. Offer them a possibility and they'll laugh at you. Relax, your in good company and everybody else in the assylum has a theory just as good as yours. :D