The Realistic Cosmology An Alternative To The Big Bang Theory

[mrg]

This is simply not true, the big bang theory has nothing to say about what came before ....  

 

Indeed:  "What was there, before time?"

 

"Before time, there was no BEFORE."  The idea is incoherent.

 

Cosmologists do like to play with this idea, but the rest of us may well wonder if they can get any traction, or for that matter if the question is anything more than an idle curiosity.

[A-wal]

This is simply not true, the big bang theory has nothing to say about what came before, in the current state of theory it can only go back to plank time just after the expansion. Any assertions about before that are nothing but speculation, lots of speculation about that but no one says anything about ex nihilo except creationists..  

The big bang is creationism. Not ID but definitely creationism. It posits that the whole universe began at a single point with no explanation would how the universe came into existence, in other words how it created itself. Without further explanation it's no less ridiculous than saying that the universe suddenly sprang into being at the size it is now.

 

There is no creation in the steady state model, the universe has always existed and always will.

 

I am not sure what exactly he had in mind when speaking of a "temporally infinite but spatially finite universe" but I can imagine for example a spatially closed universe, in which if you go far enough in one direction you end up back where you started, but which has always existed and will always exist.

This is the universe that actually makes sense. It would be a four-dimensional sphere though, so if you travel far enough in time you also end up back at the same point.

 

There's no possibility of a paradox because you can't get information from beyond the horizon, but objects wouldn't just vanish beyond a certain distance. The further away you look, the greater the amount of curvature you seeing over so the objects would gradually become unobservable.

 

Would the intensity would the light gradually reduce? No, why would it? The amount of light isn't being reduced. As the light's orientation rotates from the perspective of the observer, it would become red-shifted proportional to distance.

[A-wal]

And the really cool thing about it being a hypersphere, other than being finite in time and space but with no centre or edge (nothing real can be infinite, that's just silly). is that if you turn a sphere inside out, you get a sphere again, meaning that if you zoom in or out at any point in the this universe you would also end up exactly where you started, it's a fractal universe.

 

 

(Singing) Brave Sir Robin ran away...

No!

Bravely ran away away...

I didn't!

When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.

I never did!

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.

Oh, you liars!

Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.


He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering off
And chickening out and pissing off home
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

[Buffy]

He is packing it in and packing it up

And sneaking away and buggering off

And chickening out and pissing off home

Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

 

Well glad to hear it! :cheer:

 

I thought if I took a few days off you'd behave yourself better but obviously not.

 

I would love to keep pestering you (in fact I may do so anyway), but unfortunately for you you have managed to annoy enough of our members to earn a ban (for a while, we'll see).

 

Please realize of course that this has nothing to do with the substance--or lack thereof--of your arguments concerning steady-state theory, and everything to do with being a real first class jerk to your fellow humans.

 

Sorry about that.

 

 

If a guy is over 25 percent jerk, he's in trouble. And Henry was 95 percent, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

 

I thought if I took a few days off you'd behave yourself better but obviously not.

 

I would love to keep pestering you (in fact I may do so anyway), but unfortunately for you you have managed to annoy enough of our members to earn a ban (for a while, we'll see).

 

Please realize of course that this has nothing to do with the substance--or lack thereof--of your arguments concerning steady-state theory, and everything to do with being a real first class jerk to your fellow humans.

 

Sorry about that.

 

 

If a guy is over 25 percent jerk, he's in trouble. And Henry was 95 percent, :phones:

Buffy

 

Result.

 

Thanks Buffy. It was indeed becoming very tiresome. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by exchemist

[JMJones0424]

 

Please realize of course that this has nothing to do with the substance--or lack thereof--of your arguments concerning steady-state theory, and everything to do with being a real first class jerk to your fellow humans.

 

Sorry about that.

Why not?  It seems that banning due to the substance, or lack there of, is precisely the reason why A-wal should be banned.  The quality of being a jerk is subjective, but the fact that A-wal has repeatedly made assertions of fact that are unfounded is objective and in violation of the rules of this forum.  Why are you sorry for banning a serial liar?  Why isn't the banning because A-wal is a serial liar rather than that A-wal is what you perceive to be a jerk?

Edited May 25, 2017 by JMJones0424

[OceanBreeze]

Good job, Buffy. While banning a member may seem an extreme measure, sometimes it is the only way to restore order and allow for constructive and useful discussion, free from the non-factual assertions that are A-wal’s mode opératoire.

 

BUT:

[exchemist]

And the really cool thing about it being a hypersphere, other than being finite in time and space but with no centre or edge (nothing real can be infinite, that's just silly). is that if you turn a sphere inside out, you get a sphere again, meaning that if you zoom in or out at any point in the this universe you would also end up exactly where you started, it's a fractal universe.

 

 

(Singing) Brave Sir Robin ran away...

 

No!

 

Bravely ran away away...

 

I didn't!

 

When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.

 

I never did!

 

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.

 

Oh, you liars!

 

Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.

 

 

He is packing it in and packing it up

And sneaking away and buggering off

And chickening out and pissing off home

Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

But it is you that has been banned.....

 

So, in the words of Joss Ackland's S. African character in Lethal Weapon 2: "Whiew's the dickhid naow?" :)

Edited May 25, 2017 by exchemist

[Buffy]

Why not?  It seems that banning due to the substance, or lack there of, is precisely the reason why A-wal should be banned.  The quality of being a jerk is subjective, but the fact that A-wal has repeatedly made assertions of fact that are unfounded is objective and in violation of the rules of this forum.  Why are you sorry for banning a serial liar?  Why isn't the banning because A-wal is a serial liar rather than that A-wal is what you perceive to be a jerk?

 

To clarify, to a great extent the substance presented was a foundational issue, however as a matter of getting banned it was mostly a matter of style.

 

Part of what we've come to be about as a site is to be a place where odd ideas are allowed, although with the usual caveat that, as in life, you may have freedom of speech, but you don't get freedom from derision if your speech is ridiculous. There is some truth to the notion that on most science web sites on the Internet, even questioning whether something like Steady State might be a reasonable idea will get you not only permanently banned, but will result in all your posts being deleted.

 

Our attitude is that this sort of thing results in those folks who don't really understand Steady State try to Google it when the come across it, and nothing comes up except nutcase sites that promote the idea. So we like to be a place where you can talk about disproven theories and learn why they're ridiculous.

 

I'd like to take a moment and thank you all for taking your own time to show why science actually works. :cheer:

 

So as a reminder, we do indeed have a rule that says you can be banned for "Posting repeatedly debunked theories or hoaxes" and we're a bit lax on that for the reason stated above, but what will really get you banned with prejudice are the rules "Annoying our members" and "Trolling or generally being rude without contributing positively."

 

In other words, our primary rule is DBAA.

 

Also, for the self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" out there, "Freedom of Speech" is only a restriction on the Government, not on private citizens on their private property. We happily delete your speech--or worse, leave it up for all to make fun of--if we feel like it.

 

And one more thing: most of the time we don't announce bans. This sort of treatment is reserved for the truly deserving.

 

 

He who says there is no such thing as an honest man, you may be sure is himself a knave, :phones:

Buffy

[exchemist]

To clarify, to a great extent the substance presented was a foundational issue, however as a matter of getting banned it was mostly a matter of style.

 

Part of what we've come to be about as a site is to be a place where odd ideas are allowed, although with the usual caveat that, as in life, you may have freedom of speech, but you don't get freedom from derision if your speech is ridiculous. There is some truth to the notion that on most science web sites on the Internet, even questioning whether something like Steady State might be a reasonable idea will get you not only permanently banned, but will result in all your posts being deleted.

 

Our attitude is that this sort of thing results in those folks who don't really understand Steady State try to Google it when the come across it, and nothing comes up except nutcase sites that promote the idea. So we like to be a place where you can talk about disproven theories and learn why they're ridiculous.

 

I'd like to take a moment and thank you all for taking your own time to show why science actually works. :cheer:

 

So as a reminder, we do indeed have a rule that says you can be banned for "Posting repeatedly debunked theories or hoaxes" and we're a bit lax on that for the reason stated above, but what will really get you banned with prejudice are the rules "Annoying our members" and "Trolling or generally being rude without contributing positively."

 

In other words, our primary rule is DBAA.

 

Also, for the self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" out there, "Freedom of Speech" is only a restriction on the Government, not on private citizens on their private property. We happily delete your speech--or worse, leave it up for all to make fun of--if we feel like it.

 

And one more thing: most of the time we don't announce bans. This sort of treatment is reserved for the truly deserving.

 

 

He who says there is no such thing as an honest man, you may be sure is himself a knave, :phones:

Buffy

Yes I don't have a problem with people advancing eccentric ideas, so long as they do so in good faith and good humour and can accept the inevitable criticism such ideas are bound to attract. But someone who comes to a science forum and insults all the scientists present by saying they are a**holes is not someone who should be invited to stay.

Edited May 25, 2017 by exchemist

[Buffy]

BTW, I like site moderation, but moderators should give a bit of a warning so we know where the bounds are.   Now if people like AWOL don't take hints, then action can be taken in good conscience.  

 

This is done extensively. It's important to note though that real life rarely gives you warnings when you're about to cross the bounds. Consider this place closer to real life than some parts of the Internet, and don't do too much testing of what the bounds are.

 

 

 

There are very few people who are going to look into the mirror and say, 'That person I see is a savage monster;' instead, they make up some construction that justifies what they do, :phones:

Buffy

[xps13579]

non merger evidence of galaxy formation. According to the report from the natural mother web site, making use of NASA wide infrared survey camera (WISE) observation data researchers detected a mysterious x - type structure in the Milky Way Galaxy recently.

 

This is a profound discovery that will help to inspire scientists to study how the Milky way was formed. Mwlissa Ness, research leader, said that in WISE images, they can see a box - like orbit with an internal x structure, which confirms that the internal formation process, namely internal factor, drives the projection structure and the study shows that the Milky way is relatively calm, and there has been no major merger since the formation of the X structure, and if the galaxy interacts with other galaxies, it will destroy the X structure.

 

In other words, this x structure can indicate the purity of the universe, and if the galaxy collides with another galaxy, it will not form such a perfect x structure. At the same time, if the Milky Way orbits the orbit of another galaxy, the X structure is bound to be destroyed. It also suggests that galaxies are not from merging, because such X type structures do not exist in the merged galaxies

 

In fact, the vortex structure of any two spiral galaxy will collide with the destruction, not to mention the X type structure. The elliptical galaxies are likely to get smaller but not bigger after merger, because the central quality is increased, the gravity increase, peripheral to shrink.

 

So how did galaxies actually form? I've made it clear in another post, galaxies form from growing gradually and very small at beginning, perhaps originated from a quantum fluctuation, with the expansion of space and time, galaxies grow and new matter is continuously created in galaxies. The appearance of this new material can be regarded as the conversion of dark energy or the done work by the force of the expansion of space and time, not the absorption of what is in existence

Edited July 6, 2017 by xps13579

[xps13579]

It is important that the gradual increase of galaxies can be deduced from the modified field equation of general relativity, this makes gravitational theory is more systemic and perfect

[xps13579]

That would be the view or a similar view in TGD (a theory by my friend Matti).

thank you, please me where his article is 

[OceanBreeze]

thank you, please me where his article is 

 

 

I’m not sure he can do that. Crackpot links are usually deleted by the mods, and rightfully so.

If you are interested, just Google Matti Pitkänen, 006’s good friend and mentor.

His materials “are made available online because TGD publications are not yet accepted in so-called ‘respected’ physics journals”

LOL

[OceanBreeze]

Oh you silly little boy.

 

Matti has quite the reputation, he was worked on his theory independently and was mentored by only the very best scientists. Your dislike of scientists talking about science no matter where, is insipid. You have nothing on the man and even I can barely follow the complexity of topological geometrodynamics, who Wheeler himself thought was a promising development in Wheelers geometrodynamical theory of spacetime.

 

He has quite the reputation as a Crackpot!

 

By the way, this "These materials are made available online because TGD publications are not yet accepted in so-called ‘respected’ physics journals" is a quote taken directly from his own web site.

[OceanBreeze]

The only reason you are posting on this forum is no other place will host your crackpot nonsense.