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

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

 

 

You said

 

There is "no need" of research as Big Bang is the prevailing theory.

Your article by Narlikar, Burbidge, etc is interesting yet is based upon earlier

work of Hoyle which is a Steady State Model. I respect their opinion, just

don't agree based upon what evidence I am aware. So do most other

Cosmologists that are in the field.

 

I thought this maybe of interest to you.

 

[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

 

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma

(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

 

Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.

The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.

In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.

[maddog]

[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

 

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma

(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

You are repeating yourself. I said I already read this (from first comment the other day). This is based upon a Steady State Model (not Big Bang).

 

It is now my feeling this topic has been beaten to death many times over so

I will not comment nor reply here further. If you wish to discuss this topic, I

nead (for my own clarity) a new thread with a new and clear topic to discuss.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Mad Dog

 

ooops must have been a late night and mixed the forums.

[Pluto]

G'day

 

Maddog said

 

It is now my feeling this topic has been beaten to death many times over so

I will not comment nor reply here further. If you wish to discuss this topic, I

nead (for my own clarity) a new thread with a new and clear topic to discuss.

 

Thinking what you said, reminds me of what is actually happening out there with all the scientists. The subject has been beaten to death and you would think that they would have resolved many issues and yet many issues will not be resolved for another 10 years or so if we are lucky.

 

In the last 2 years very important information has be observed and the minute we think we are close, we find that we know less.

 

Two important issues are the workings of our Sun and ultra dense cores such as Neutron stars and black holes.

[FRIPRO]

What if?

Again I raise the question what if the Universe is eternal?

With millions of Big Bangs through out its rotating Surface.

 

What we see through the space telescopes is only a small fraction of the Universe. So...the local Big Bang may have existed however it is only local and therefore was not the beginning of the Universe.

[modest]

What if?

Again I raise the question what if the Universe is eternal?

By eternal do you mean infinitely old or that it will never end?

With millions of Big Bangs through out its rotating Surface.

Why rotating?

What we see through the space telescopes is only a small fraction of the Universe. So...the local Big Bang may have existed however it is only local and therefore was not the beginning of the Universe.

It is possible that the big bang is both:

1. Only locally observable
   
2. Represents something that was the beginning of the entire (visible and beyond-visible) universe
   

But, the big bang theory itself currently makes no predictions of the shape, content, or beginning of areas beyond our visible universe as is said here:

• Because the universe has a finite age (~13.7 billion years) we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.7 billion light years. This is our so-called horizon. The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon - space-time could well be quite different out there.
  
• It is possible that the universe has a more complicated global topology than that which is portrayed here, while still having the same local curvature. For example it could have the shape of a torus (doughnut). There may be some ways to test this idea, but most of the following discussion is unaffected.
  

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

Fibro said

 

What if?

Again I raise the question what if the Universe is eternal?

With millions of Big Bangs through out its rotating Surface.

 

What we see through the space telescopes is only a small fraction of the Universe. So...the local Big Bang may have existed however it is only local and therefore was not the beginning of the Universe.

 

There is no question to it that the universe is eternal, i tend to agree. Many papers that I'm reading discuss bounce and cyclic parts of the universe and not as a total.

 

And yet my mate emailed me this link on the Big Bang

 

Not that I agree with, but it is great reading, it's quite logical and yet falls short with evidence.

 

Evidence for the Big Bang

Evidence for the Big Bang

 

a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

 

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

 

The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.

BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.

The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

[FRIPRO]

The below coment is by FRIPRO not fibro, an I mostly agree with Pluto.

[Pluto]

G'day Fripro

 

Sorry mate, the name is a tongue twister.

 

What is almost agree?

 

80%,,,,,,,,,90%,,,,,,,99%

 

smile

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

I like to share this link

 

[astro-ph/0509800] Conceptual Problems of the Standard Cosmological Model

Conceptual Problems of the Standard Cosmological Model

 

Authors: Yurij Baryshev

other papers

arXiv.org Search

 

(Submitted on 27 Sep 2005)

Abstract: The physics of the expansion of the universe is still a poorly studied subject of the standard cosmological model. This because the concept of expanding space can not be tested in the laboratory and because ``expansion'' means continuous creation of space, something that leads to several paradoxes. We re-consider and expand here the discussion of conceptual problems, already noted in the literature, linked to the expansion of space. In particular we discuss the problem of the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equations, the receding velocity of galaxies being greater than the speed of light, and the Hubble law inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. Recent discussion by Kiang, Davis & Lineweaver, and Whiting of the non-Doppler nature of the Lemaitre cosmological redshift in the standard model is just a particular consequence of the paradoxes mentioned above. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity (general relativity), where there is not a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field and hence no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity.

 

 

Do we really understand or are we just happy to accept some model reagardless if its reality or wishful thinking.

[maddog]

Not that I agree with, but it is great reading, it's quite logical and yet falls short with evidence.

 

Evidence for the Big Bang

What you leave out is what you disagree with... and why.

 

Please answer me in your words and not links of others work.

 

As for the link

 

Evidence for the Big Bang

 

when I print it out (the top level web page) prints out as 54 pages with

nearly 30 pages as evidence of their position (currently I'm only at page 10).

The overall look/feel of the site is quite professional. I will let you know

after I've read more than 30 pages.

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Mad Dog

 

Darn I was afraid you would ask that.

 

Read it it through first than when you have completed it than I will discuss it.

 

Also there is a difference between evidence and using the term standard model and reallying that as evidence.

 

I post links because the abstracts are from the paper and my opinion only adds to the chinese whisper.

 

Also some papers are worth sharing.

 

 

I came across this recent paper and find it quite interesting.

 

[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

 

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)

Submitted on 1 Oct 2008

 

Abstract: The space expansion physics contains several paradoxes which were clearly demonstrated by Edward Harrison (1981, 1995, 2000), who emphasized that the cooling of homogeneous hot gas (including photon gas of CBR) in the standard cosmological model based on the violation of energy conservation by the expanding space. In modern version of SCM the term "space expansion" actually means continuous creation of vacuum, something that leads to conceptual problems. Recent discussion by Francis, Barnes, James, and Lewis (2007) on the physical sense of the increasing distance to a receding galaxy without motion of the galaxy is just a particular consequence of the arising paradoxes. Here we present an analysis of the following conceptual problems of the SCM: the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equation, the absence of an upper limit on the receding velocity of galaxies which can be greater than the speed of light, and the presence of the linear Hubble law deeply inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity, where there is no a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field, no energy quanta - gravitons, and no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity because gravity is not a material field.

 

This is an update of the 2005 paper.

[maddog]

There is no question to it that the universe is eternal, i tend to agree. Many papers that I'm reading discuss bounce and cyclic parts of the universe and not as a total.

 

And yet my mate emailed me this link on the Big Bang

 

Not that I agree with, but it is great reading, it's quite logical and yet falls short with evidence.

 

Evidence for the Big Bang

Evidence for the Big Bang

 

Darn I was afraid you would ask that.

Read it it through first than when you have completed it than I will discuss it.

Well I read it. You did not mention what you do "not agree with".

 

:eek:

 

Also there is a difference between evidence and using the term standard model and reallying that as evidence.

I would agree with the implication of

"The absence of evidence is Not the evidence of absence".

 

However, in this blog on BBT - Evidence for the Big Bang

(which when printed out is 54 pages in length has over 30 pages of verified and validated evidence !

 

Plus saying that evidence is not evidence, does not make it so. :confused:

 

From you many posts in which you make claims or draw conclusion without

any attempt in the use of the scientific method.

 

One must conclude that your paradigm of logic is other than conclusion

drawn from a hypothesis using analysis. You must be Creationist!

 

:doh: :eek_big: :doh:

 

I post links because the abstracts are from the paper and my opinion only adds to the chinese whisper.

As a quote from Shakespeare that ends, "Much ado about nothing!"

 

:lol:

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozz

 

 

Hello Maddog

 

Creationist, no way.

 

How did you read that from what I have been saying?

 

My thoughts are on a recycling process that we can obsereve on star formation and the various phases and galaxy evolution of different forms that are directly related to the size and activity of the ultra dense core that some call black holes.

 

If you have read the link.

 

What evidence are you refering to?

[maddog]

Creationist, no way.

 

How did you read that from what I have been saying?

My apologies if you take offense. I just found it odd, every time I would mention "Big Bang"

in any form, you appeared to sound off in a contrarian way and Always spit out one paper

(that typically didn't supply any corroboration to what you were saying).

 

My thoughts are on a recycling process that we can obser[e]ve on star formation and the various phases and galaxy evolution of different forms that are directly related to the size and activity of the ultra dense core that some call black holes.

An oscillating universe of some kind is fine with me. However, you have to take all evidence into account - - WMAP, CMB, etc.

 

So oscillate is OK - how I think is the Most important part.

 

If you have read the link.

What evidence are you refering to?

In regards to the link you mentioned

 

Evidence for the Big Bang

 

everything from section 2.0 on is there evidence and quite accurate and upto date.

 

What has me curious is why you didn't agree with [paraphrased].

 

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day maddog

 

You said

 

My apologies if you take offense. I just found it odd, every time I would mention "Big Bang"

in any form, you appeared to sound off in a contrarian way and Always spit out one paper

(that typically didn't supply any corroboration to what you were saying).

 

No need for apopgies and no offense take.,But! thank you for the thought.

 

Smile, there is no way that I can see the BBT as a theory that can explain the observed universe.

 

You also said

 

An oscillating universe of some kind is fine with me. However, you have to take all evidence into account - - WMAP, CMB, etc.

 

 

Are you refering to the total universe or the parts within?

 

You need to know that I have taken the evidence into account.

[maddog]

Smile, there is no way that I can see the BBT as a theory that can explain the observed universe.

Please explain why.... :doh:

Are you refering to the total universe or the parts within?

Explain what difference would matter ?

You need to know that I have taken the evidence into account.

Please list the evidence you have taken into account ???

 

maddog