Universe and beyond

[lindagarrette]

If you're not familiar with the many problems with BB, then perhaps you are not paying full attention either.

I am familiar with the issues 1% of scientists claim, but they do not hold up against the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that support the BB theory.

[Harry Costas]

If you think that the Big Bang is the only theory.

 

Than you have sold youself tooooooo cheaply.

 

Right now I would advice you to look at more info,,,,more images,,and more thinking outside the loop.

 

I will come back later

 

off to dinner

[simay77]

We cannot say for sure that we will never now, but at this moment in time with our knowledge of the universe and our own limited brain capacity who can say? To answer this and many other questions relating to the universe we will have to wait until we evolve far beyond the point we are at now.

 

My own theory is that we are one of many universes and as ours grows and gains mass others are diminishing, the mass being transferred to/from each universe through black holes.

[Harry Costas]

Can someone tell me what evidence is for the Big Bang that holds water.

see link

 

http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm

 

Its just amazing how people hold onto a theory that has no foundations.

 

It will take a few more years on the red shift study and the study on the expansion of the universe to make some conclusions.

[arkain101]

People almost take some theories to heart and seriously get a little defensive when someone suggests flaw, lol.

 

There are so many things that honestly should in most textbooks, say things like.

"Up to this day, according to evidence from numerous experiments, this such and such a law is the most likely accurate explanation"

 

for example, the speed of light being a constant. There are more ways that one to explain how this could come about and one that does not involve time as a affective function.

 

One should usually test for results only, and not as much for testing a theory. If your testing for a theory it may be possible to overlook possibilites. but of course this is just my humble opinion.

[Harry Costas]

hello Arkain

 

Your right

 

Some people do get emotional over their theories even though they did not originate the theory.

 

BUt!!!!!!!!! I'm always right,,,,,,,,smile,,,,,,,and every one is wrong.

 

Or

 

I'm wrong and every one is right.

[frostbitte]

Such an interesting topic!

 

I wish my brain could fathom more dimensions. :cup:

I sure as hell can feel Gravity as the 4th D!

 

I always wondered when we die, if our spirits or souls return to these unexplored/unknown dimensions.....

 

It wouldn't surprise me if there were 12 dimensions.

What could they possibly be??

 

I certainly agree with you there. I know we have enough trouble trying to visualize 4 dimensions. Just ask my wife while trying to parallel park. Har har har...I'll burn for that one. :)

I always thought that our current existence was an extension or manifestation of something deeper. What that is hurts my head to think about it. I have a feeling that when we do die and come to realize a lot of things, we'll be like "Of course! Why didn't I think of that before??"

 

12 dimensions. Nope I can't even picture a shape in 12 dimensions, let alone a hypercube or something. Ungh! Where's my Advil?

 

 

Frostbitte

[InfiniteNow]

12 dimensions. Nope I can't even picture a shape in 12 dimensions, let alone a hypercube or something. Ungh!

Here ya go:

 

[frostbitte]

Here ya go:

 

 

Oh God, my eyes! My eyes! My head hurts...

 

I can see that as a false 3D image or a 2D image on the screen. But try and visualize that while existing in 12 dimensions...Sure it's easy to picture a cube...no problem but that monstrosity.

 

I feel dizzy.

 

 

Frostbitte

[InfiniteNow]

Here ya go:[/qUOTE]

Oh God, my eyes! My eyes! My head hurts...

 

I can see that as a false 3D image or a 2D image on the screen. But try and visualize that while existing in 12 dimensions...Sure it's easy to picture a cube...no problem but that monstrosity.

 

I feel dizzy.

Question for you... What exactly does a post like this add to the discussion?

[kmarinas86]

Question for you... What exactly does a post like this add to the discussion?

 

Now what does a post like this add to the discussion? B)

[kmarinas86]

If the universe is expanding/stretching, what is it expanding/stretching into? Is it nothingness? Or rather is it is 'nothingness' only in the sense that we cannot give it a word or a definition?

 

An abstractly concieved nothingness that has no experimental justification whatsoever.

 

Where did all the mass-energy in the universe came from? Is it from nothing?

 

Do you believe in free energy claims? Are you a Cold Fusionist? Just kidding B) .

 

Since we define the universe as being everything( EX: energy-mass,all the temporal and spatial concepts), then it makes little sense imagine something 'outside' the universe, or 'before' the big bang. Yet, the question still remain, and nothing got resolved.

 

In the early 20th century galaxies were briefly referred to as island universes, but now they are simply considered to be part of the real universe. Before that, some people imagined that collection of stars called the Milky Way was the entire universe. But between some of the stars at the edge of the Milky Way we could see that there are galaxies (originally called spiral nebulae). Between some of the distant galaxies, who knows what we may find there if we look close enough.

[InfiniteNow]

Now what does a post like this add to the discussion? :doh:

If my intent is fulfilled, coherence.

[shubhankar]

If you ask me about universe's expantion.

I tell you it is expanding and it will expand to it's altimate point and then it will start shrinking like every thing in this world.

Because every thing in this world behave like waves and like a wave univers will increase to it's optimum point and after that it will srink to a point size and again repeat this cycle to infinity.

It's all my view !:)

[frostbitte]

Question for you... What exactly does a post like this add to the discussion?

 

Nothing really. It was a waste of time and keystrokes, just like your response above.

 

Can one really waste time? Hmmmm....:D

 

 

Frostbitte.

[InfiniteNow]

Nothing really. It was a waste of time and keystrokes, just like your response above.

Which response would that be?

[Aireal]

The Big Bang theory is far from the only theory that offers an explaination for the origin of the universe. Personally I feel that it is the least likely one to be correct. Please excuse the mention of God on a science forum, but the big bang theory is so full of holes, it does more to prove the existance of God than any other, as it almost needs God for it to work. Let me play with the big bang theory for a moment.

 

The Big Bang Theory is a widely held belief about the origin of the universe because nearly all of the evidence points to it. Most people are familiar with the basics of it. Let me quote Secrets of Nature, The Birth of the Universe here. " Imagine all matter as one single mass, all light concentrated into one source...The universe as we understand it was born from a single initial point, began expanding, and slowly took shape." This point is refered to as a singlarity, and the region around it as a black hole. The theory is good, however the problems are in the details.

 

The Big Bang was started by the mother and father of all black holes, as it contained all of the mass and engery in the universe. Gee, it almost sounds like the defination of God I was taught as a child, omni-potent and omni present. Meaning unlimited power, and existing beyond time and space. All the engery in the universe was in this point, and as the universe did not exist yet, neither did time or space. In the begining was God. Note the theory does not state where this super massive singlarity came from.

 

Then for some unknown reason, the impossable happened and this singlarity exploded. Completly disreguarding the laws of science. For as everyone knows, nothing can escape the pull of a black hole, and this was the greatest black hole of all time and space. Gee, sounds like God said, Let there be light, and it was so. Right now that is as good an answer as you can get, cause science can not explain this point.

 

But now we come to the parts science can explain, sort of. As the universe expanded, quarks, protons, neutrinos, and electrons were formed during the first 3 minutes, later as temperatures fell the first atoms formed. no problem right? Wrong. If the expanding universe had continued unabatted, no matter could have formed, and the universe would be empty of all matter. Something had to hold back the expanding ball of energy, to allow the energy density to reach the point where matter would form. the timing and duration of this restraint on the expanding universe is critical. Yet it was accomplised with perfect timing to allow matter to form in the right proportions, to have the universe we know today. Science can not explain how the expanding universe was held in check breifly, only that it had to happen. Gee, sounds like God put the squeeze on creation, just for us.

 

The next problem with the creation of matter is this. When matter is formed in this manner, it will consist of equal parts matter and anti-matter. We have proved this much in the lab. By rights, this squeeze that created matter should have made equal parts of matter and anti-matter, which would have wiped each other out, still leaving a universe devoid of matter and life. As we can plainly see, this is not what happened. Gee, again it seems that we must seek the answer to this in religion rather than science. Maybe God put all that anti-matter into the first normal size blackholes, cool move. The flaws go on and on.

 

Even leading scientists are starting to have their doubts about this theory. Let me qoute Stephen Hawking from A Brief History of Time. Hawking argues that quantum mechanics shows us that the classical picture of a "well-defined spacetime arises as a limiting case of the quantum perspective."(23) Time is less fundamental than space and, as a consequence, spacetime cannot have a singular, initial boundary. There is no singularity, no initial boundary at all; the universe has no beginning! Even though unbounded, the universe is finite. Here is how Hawking sets forth his view:

(Quote)

“The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. One could say:

 

'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.(24)

 

Hawking thinks that the inflationary model of the universe cannot explain the present state of the universe. He is troubled by two questions which he does not think the traditional theory of the Big Bang can answer: 1) why is the universe so homogenous and isotropic on a large scale, whereas there are "local irregularities" such as galaxies and stars; 2) why is the universe so close to the dividing line between collapsing again and expanding indefinitely?(25) The appeal to an initial singularity is, for Hawking, an admission of defeat: "If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?"(26) To admit a singularity is to deny a universal predictability to physics, and, hence ultimately, to reject the competency of science to understand the universe. He claims that the "no-boundary proposal can explain all the structure of the universe, including little inhomogeneities like ourselves."(27)

 

And from John Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex in England. In The Origins of the Universe (1994), Barrow observes that the no-boundary condition of Hawking's quantum cosmology has become increasingly attractive because it "avoids the necessity for . . . a cataclysmic beginning." Barrow thinks that the traditional Big Bang picture, with its initial singularity of infinite density "is, strictly speaking, . . . creation out of absolutely nothing."(31)

 

The list goes on, the big bang is losing support, both amoung scientists and the common man.

 

I may delve into the flaws of the other mainstream theories at another time, and offer a new theory which supports the unbounded universe view mentioned by Stephen Hawking. However this post is much too long as it is, and my hands need a break from typing.