Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide.

 

Without me influencing?

 

What do you think?

 

Was there a Big Bang?

 

Was there a M- theory ?

 

Was there a String Theory?

 

Was there a steady state theory?

 

Was there a wave theory?

 

Was there a Plasma Theory?

 

Was there a Recycle theory?

 

Was there a GOD theory?

 

Did I miss any out?

 

If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them

 

Or is there a combination theory?

 

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

[Tormod]

Was there a Big Bang? Who knows.

 

Was there a theory about ...? Yes.

 

Is your post completely pointless? I may be right yet I may be wrong about that.

[LJP07]

I think it has already been discussed to some extent of what you ask, so maybe you should search for Big Bang and see what comes up.

[Jay-qu]

These are all valid topics of discussion, but perhaps targer them more specifically. To just ask 'what do you think..' is fine to talk about, but most of these things are at the moment un-provable, hence these discussions tend to go round in circles. I would suggest targeting just one of these, and a few of them already have topics hear at hypo.. just do a search.

[Aireal]

W.S.M. or the Wave Structure of Matter

 

I have not heard much about it outside of their own sites and have been trying to get some feedback on it from those outside of its supporters. You can find links to information about it in my paper on this site. http://hypography.com/forums/science-papers/8055-w-s-m-expanded.html

The paper is a basic model of the atom based on it, and may need refinement as I learn more details about the theory.

 

So what catorgory does it fall under? It is a Wave Theory, has elements of String Theory and Quantum Field Theory, does not seem to exclude some other theories or God for that matter, and suggests a steady state universe that evolves over time from a quantum level begining, so no single big bang.

 

A Combination Theory is what I would call it, despite the name.

 

From what I have learned of it so far, it seems to at least have potential, but who knows which, if any of the current theories may be right.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

I understand the above comments.

 

The problem is that, what ever point or theory you want to use others will bring their own ideas.

 

===================================================

 

I read tis link

Big bang: NASA gets to the heart of all matter

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/big-bang-nasa-gets-to-the-heart-of-all-matter/2006/03/17/1142582522240.html

 

SCIENTISTS examining the oldest light in the universe say they have found evidence that matter expanded at an almost inconceivable rate after the big bang, creating conditions that led to the formation of the first stars.

 

*remainder of copyrighted material deleted by Tormod*

 

 

The people that wrote this need to be shot, even using the name NASA.

This is not science. Its yahoo stuff.

 

In order to make the theory work they add comments to make it work.

[Tormod]

The people that wrote this need to be shot, even using the name NASA.

This is not science. Its yahoo stuff.

 

In order to make the theory work they add comments to make it work.

 

You're confusing scientific journals with newspapers. What you have quoted is a journalistic report on scientific results, in a regular newspaper. If you are so opposed to the freedom of press that you want to shoot the journalist, you're in the wrong place, Harry.

 

By the way, that article is copyrighted and therefore I have removed it from your post.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Tomod

 

Sorry!

 

---------------------------------

 

But! what do you think of his comment

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

What do you think of this?

 

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

 

Intersting reading.

 

Given the assumption that the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (The Cosmological Principle) it can be shown that the corresponding distortion of space-time (due to the gravitational effects of this matter) can only have one of three forms, as shown schematically in the picture at left. It can be "positively" curved like the surface of a ball and finite in extent; it can be "negatively" curved like a saddle and infinite in extent; or it can be "flat" and infinite in extent - our "ordinary" conception of space. A key limitation of the picture shown here is that we can only portray the curvature of a 2-dimensional plane of an actual 3-dimensional space! Note that in a closed universe you could start a journey off in one direction and, if allowed enough time, ultimately return to your starting point; in an infinite universe, you would never return.

 

 

Matter plays a central role in cosmology. It turns out that the average density of matter uniquely determines the geometry of the universe (up to the limitations noted above). If the density of matter is less than the so-called critical density, the universe is open and infinite. If the density is greater than the critical density the universe is closed and finite. If the density just equals the critical density, the universe is flat, but still presumably infinite. The value of the critical density is very small: it corresponds to roughly 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, an astonishingly good vacuum by terrestrial standards! One of the key scientific questions in cosmology today is: what is the average density of matter in our universe? While the answer is not yet known for certain, it appears to be tantalizingly close to the critical density.

 

 

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

 

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.

By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.

It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

 

 

One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe

 

That is Radiation, baryonic matter, dark amtter and dark energy.

[Aireal]

Harry Costas

 

Nice link and it is put together well. But like many web sites, its just basic physics. it gives a nice overview without providing much detail.

 

This is common on web sites, and is getting to be a problem. A web search will flood you with responses like this. Most results will be general in content only, the more detail you want, the harder it is to find a site that delves that deep.

 

Yet on other forums when I have used book referances in a post, people complained that I did not have a web link for it.

[revolutionary_suicide652]

origin of the universe ...bang of no big bang

can you please explain all of these theories for me not only am i new but i am young and hungry for the wealth of knowledge from the people on this site.So please share!

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Hello Aerial

 

This link has just started. You haven't seen anything yet.

 

This link and any other link needs input from all and not fence sitters.

 

 

Hello revolutionary_suicide652

 

I do not mind sharing mate. But! self discovery is good.

 

I can give you links to read.

 

At the end of the day make your own conclusion. Darn that means I have to give you all info on both sides of the fence. If Idon't than some one else will.

 

So what first??????

[Aireal]

Revolutionary_suicide652

 

I don't think I could explain all of them, far too many. I currently have a list of over 30 wave theories I am compairing, and thats just one of the types of competing theories listed at the start of the thread. But I can sum it up for you.

 

It mostly boils down to the question of weather the universe is expanding or not. The big bang theory states that the universe started very, very small and grew very very fast. There are a number of versions of the big bang model, ans several that support an expanding universe, but is not a big bang theory. Then you have the theories that predict a non-expanding universe or static universe, of which there are even more versions.

 

What this means is that things are not as clear and as well understood as you are lead to believe in school and by watching T.V. So in the end I must agree with Harry, sharing is good, self discovery is better. After you have read a little on the subject, you will find people more willing to help you understand the details. It is not that people dont want to help, it is just to vast a topic.

 

Harry Costas

 

From my point of view, supporters of the big bang have not done enough to prove the universe is expanding. So in this post I will address the Hubble constant along with my complaint about web sites not giving sufficent details. When Hubble first made his discovery, he got a value that was 4 to 5 times the value we use today. This value was not in ageement with the age of the universe predicted by the big bang model. So later scientists made "adjustments" to it till it came into agreement with their beloved big bang model.

 

I have looked all over trying to find the logic behind these "adjustments" and all the web links I have found do not delve that deep. Indeed only a few of them even mention that adjustments have been made to the Hubble constant, much less how or why. The Hubble constant, as it is used today, is mainly due to the doppler effect. Hubble however disagreed with this interpatation of his work and opposed it till his dying day. He believed, as do I, that the doppler effect was but a part of his discovery, and a number of other factors needed to be looked at. To my knowledge, this still has not been done.

 

We know that gravity has an effect on light, and currently we try to ignore that effect when dealing with the Hubble constant. We do this by takeing measurments in faily open regions of space where the effects of gravity would be less. Notice I said less, but currently its effect is not taken into calculations at all. Also, how do we know there is not a black hole in that vast intervening distance that has a gravitional effect on the measerments we are not aware of.

 

Not only that, but gravity has a large effect on the source of the light (distant glaxies) that we are measuring. We record the red shiffting of the light as the universe spins away from us, but again this effect is taken as being completly due to the doppler shift. Yet the light from the far side of that glaxay must pass through the entire mass of its own glaxay before it even starts its trip to us. That is a lot of mass to be ignored in calculations.

 

The effects of gravity can not be the sourse of adjustments to the Hubble constant as the effects of gravity would cause the value to be higher instead of the lower values made in the adjustments. So when the effects of gravity are added in, the results are against the big bang model being correct.

 

Now if you know of a link that has the math detailing these "adjustments" to the Hubble constant, and their reasons for making them, I would gladly check them out, and it may revise my views somewhat. Until then, the current use of the Hubble constant strikes me as being closer to numerology than science.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Aireal

 

Mate keep on discovering do more research. Your on track.

 

On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276

 

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

 

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters - a comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed CMB temperature decrement

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

 

The Hubble diagram extended to z>>1: the gamma-ray properties of GRBs confirm the Lambda-CDM model

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605430

 

The outermost gravitationally bound orbit around a mass clump in an expanding Universe: implication on rotation curves and dark matter halo sizes

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605611

 

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

 

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

 

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html

 

Aireal keep on discoverying. Do not get too emotional with any theory at this stage. Wait for a few years until deep field images go beyond 14 Gyrs and the model that is still standing with supported evidence.

 

I have more info. Than again you can search the net.

[Aireal]

Harry Costas

 

Thanks for the links, some of them I was familier with already, others were new to me.

 

I am always doing research, and try to keep an open mind. Even when I think something is true, evidence to the contrary will change my opinon.

 

As for not getting to attached to any one theory, I feel it may be a bit late for that. I have just been offered to be an administer for the W.S.M. forum at http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/index.php

[Harry Costas]

Hello Aireal

 

Smile, well that does not mean that you have to agree.

 

But! in my opinion I think they are on the ball.

 

I'm registered with them, but have not used or posted yet.

 

When you want more links just let me know.

[Aireal]

Harry Costas

 

Auctually the ones I have seen you will find on our main web site. http://spaceandmotion.com/

and a large number of other links and info. I would have to ask Geoff, but I believe the main website has over 150 pages, and every page is good sized. Average time spent per page about half an hour if you look at it all, so he has a search feature to help. So I do agree with many of the links you gave.

 

P.S. Geoff Haselhurst is also lives in Australia and a few other members of our forum.