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

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Hello Mad dog

 

Maybe this link may explain.

 

Big Bang Theory Busted

By 33 Top Scientists

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

 

and

 

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

BB top 30 problems

 

and

 

Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

 

and

 

Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged

 

Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged

 

and the unexplained super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies.

Note the repeat in clusters. They are 13.2 Gyrs just 500 yrs to form theses monsters. No book in reference to the BBT could explain their formation by scientific logic.

[maddog]

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

This is not in of itself make a credible link. Anybody can put up a website - as did Rense.com did.

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

BB top 30 problems

No is this site "Metaresearch.org" affiliated with and scholarly institution.

Thus can say anything it wishes.

Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

Another Fringe website (not credible).

Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged

Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged

Another homebrew (not credible) website.

unexplained super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies.

Note the repeat in clusters. They are 13.2 Gyrs just 500 yrs to form theses monsters. No book in reference to the BBT could explain their formation by scientific logic.

In what peer reviewed journal is this written up ? I am aware of Super cluster (embedded 2 deep) and wall structure of about 1 G-Parsec or so

which has been found in the last ten years by the Harvard - Sloan Deep Sky Survey.

 

There are papers (like Hoyle when he was alive) that wish to kill BBT. There are many more

papers about that are a protagonist for BBT than those

who are against. Many more.

 

You can be against it all you wish. I don't care. Normally, you spit out papers

from a bonified journal archive. Now you are giving me links from sites that vary from interesting to Crap! :Glasses:

 

At first I did have trouble with the idea of inflation. I am still not "completely" sold on it.

I am forgetting the author though he is portuguese who had come up with a competing idea as

VST (Variable Speed-of-Light Theory) in the last couple of years.

Look for the book called, "Faster than the speed of light". It is written by a physicist and gives a

credible alternative to inflation.

 

maddog

[Erasmus00]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

 

Hello Mad dog

 

Maybe this link may explain....

 

It should be noted that several of these rely on Arp's work on quasars "connected" to low redshift galaxies. This work has largely been disproved- in each case pointing a better telescope at the objects has shown them the quasars to not be connected via a "luminous bridge."

-Will

[FRIPRO]

My friends of the Forum: I have asked this question several time, "What if the Universe was rotating in an infinite nothingness?"

 

Would that not explain many questions being asked in the past 400strings on this thread?

 

Just because the slowing red shift is judged as meaning the Universe is expanding, it also could mean it is rotating. A rotating Universe would explain gyroscopic gravity to me--why not to the rest of our questioning fourm members?

 

The Big Bag could be a local bang in an eternal Universe. There are billions of Big Bangs in this eternal Universe together with their vortex centers (Black Holes).

 

These uncountable galatic systems centers (so called black holes) are spawning grounds for fantastic energy beams that make more vortexs within the dark matter of the eternal universe.

 

The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether.

 

Of course this is a hypothesis who can prove otherwise?

[Essay]

"The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether." -FRIPRO

Very evocative....

Have you thought that all black holes may be connected in various ways; especially by (say wormholes) a network of spaghetti spokes, radiating out from the big-mother black hole at the center of a galaxy (perhaps qualifying as some dark matter?), dragging the galaxy so cohesively (with those similarly connected to other galaxies even)?

===

 

FRIPRO,

Wouldn't the main suggestion from your post give a strong directionality to those things you mention: red shift and gravity?

 

Aren't you just substituting rotation (like acceleration/ gravity) for inflation?

 

It's an interesting strategy (thought experiment) to use with many questions (or perspectives) in cosmology and other theoretical physics perhaps....

 

So in a way you could be right, but first get away from thinking of space as an area "contained within that nothingness," and then apply those ideas. Those attributes of space that you suggest would apply (maybe) if you visualize many different kinds of space, overlapping, co-located, non-additive (except via expansion?), interacting to minimize or maximize various relationships, generated by and generating more....

Think of every point as simultaneously the center of that rotating....

We are the center of the universe!

~ :D

 

...spaghetti w/ blackholes....

mmmmmmm....

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Hello Maddog

 

Look at the science, look at the issues. Before you become a critic of crap.

 

What scientific point do you disagree with?

 

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

 

Hello Erasmus

 

You may say what you may about Arps work, but! the dispute over redshift is still on the table. The intinsic redshift in supernova and black holes has not been disproved.

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

 

Hello Fripro

 

You said

 

The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether.

 

THat I would agree with.

 

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

 

I have some interesting links, please read them if you wish.

 

[astro-ph/0405083] Another origin of cosmological redshifts

Another origin of cosmological redshifts

 

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov

(Submitted on 5 May 2004)

 

Abstract: If gravitons are super-strong interacting particles which fulfill a flat non-expanding universe, we would have another possibility to explain cosmological redshifts - in a frame of non-kinematic model. It is shown by the author that in this case SNe 1a data may be understood without any dark energy and dark matter. A value of relaxation factor is found in this paper. In this approach, we have Newton's law of gravity as a simplest consequence, and the connection between Newton's and Hubble's constants. A value of the latter may be theoretically predicted.

 

 

 

and

 

[astro-ph/0409111] A quantum gravitational model of redshifts

A quantum gravitational model of redshifts

 

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov

(Submitted on 6 Sep 2004)

 

Abstract: The main features of an alternative model of redshifts are described here. The model is based on conjectures about an existence of the graviton background with the Planckian spectrum and a super-strong character of quantum gravitational interaction. This model is connected with the assumed quantum mechanism of gravity. A behavior of two theoretical functions of a redshift $z$ in this model - the geometrical distance $r(z)$ and the luminosity distance $D_{L}(z)$ - and an existence of two different cosmological horizons for any observer are discussed.

 

 

[astro-ph/0403130] Another possible interpretation of SN 1a data - without kinematics: Comments on the paper astro-ph/0402512 by A. Riess et al

Another possible interpretation of SN 1a data - without kinematics: Comments on the paper astro-ph/0402512 by A. Riess et al

 

Authors: Michael A. Ivanov

(Submitted on 4 Mar 2004)

 

Abstract: It is shown here that for redshifts $z < 0.5$ the luminosity distance, which is predicted in author's model astro-ph/0005084 v2, fits well supernova observational data of astro-ph/0402512 by A.Riess et al. Discrepancies for higher $z$ would be explained in the model as a result of specific deformation of SN spectra due to a discrete character of photon energy losses. The model does not require any dark energy; it is based on the conjecture that gravitons are super-strong interacting particles fulfilling a flat non-expanding universe.

[maddog]

Look at the science, look at the issues. Before you become a critic of crap.

:doh: "Look at the science" ?? Where -- in those fringe sites -- there wasn't any....

 

Even you call it crap... :doh:

 

I think I hit a nerve ?!?

 

What scientific point do you disagree with?

It is not science that I disagree with. It is that which like a wolf in sheeps

clothing, made to look like science that I am skeptical.

 

You may say what you may about Arps work, but! the dispute over redshift is still on the table.

I think we found your hero [Arp]. There is NO dispute over redshift. Only in your mind and those that believe in flat Earth !!!

 

The intrinsic redshift in supernova and black holes has not been disproved.

Intrinsic Redshift is not even an issue...

 

I would agree with.

You agree with Fripro -- someone who's post wasn't even coherent.

 

maddog

[maddog]

My friends of the Forum: I have asked this question several time, "What if the Universe was rotating in an infinite nothingness?"

 

Would that not explain many questions being asked in the past 400strings on this thread?

No, it does not. Like the Newton Bucket idea that Mach argue with about the time Einstein was coming up with SR -- ~1905; You have a something

rotating against a background of nothing, you have no reference to judge

what anything is doing. No measure.

 

Just because the slowing red shift is judged as meaning the Universe is expanding, it also could mean it is rotating. A rotating Universe would explain gyroscopic gravity to me--why not to the rest of our questioning fourm members?

Increasing red shift with distance (said slightly different than yours) is not

associated directly with universal expansion. It is associated with the fact that the expansion was slowing -- an argument for a closed universe.

Recent WMAP probe data now show the universe to be accelerating in its expansion.

The Big Bag could be a local bang in an eternal Universe. There are billions of Big Bangs in this eternal Universe together with their vortex centers (Black Holes).

 

These uncountable galatic systems centers (so called black holes) are spawning grounds for fantastic energy beams that make more vortexs within the dark matter of the eternal universe.

Galaxies are not likely to be "uncountable" in the universe, even if the universe were infinite in size. You misunderstand the meaning of the word.

In mathematics the Real numbers are uncountable while the integers are not. Integers can ONLY be countable ! (1, 2, 3, ...)

The Universe has no beginning and no end--eternal, just more of the same construction in strings, waves, vortexs, sine wave oscillating gas cloud radiation outputs, converting to mass and back via the Universe's atmosphere--Newton's AEther or ether.

 

Of course this is a hypothesis who can prove otherwise?

Wheeler invented the term "Multiverse" to hypothesize the idea of a "Universe" of universes. Maybe yes, maybe no. There are a lot of papers out there on the ideas spawn from, on "Bubble Universes".

 

None of this has to do with Aether (which BTW -- Newton had nothing to do with).

 

 

maddog

[litespeed]

Sirs:

 

Just about everything in the universe seems to be speeding away from everything else. This seems to suggest everything came from the same original place. In addition, lots of actual data have accumulated in the last decades that suggests something like this did actually happen long long ago in a place very far away.

 

On the other hand, these same folks were convinced throughout my entire life the expanding stuff was slowing down. The only question being would it slow down enough to reverse. Well.

 

Now just about everyone is convinced the universe is ACCELERATING its expansion. I am old enough to remember the SNL Church Lady. "Never mind." Truely a cautionary tail. Specifically. The rules DO seem to change. For instance, recently we learned the universe originally 'inflated' faster then light speed because space/time was not yet in charge. They use a term called a 'scaller' field to explain this. Seems tautological to me.

[FRIPRO]

My friend: Inside the international space station (INS) all soap bubbles are nearly spherical and float gently (wobble) with the breeze. In fact man moves (side by side)within the cabin at the same rate-unless he is pushed by some mechanics.

 

This simple display, we all have seen on our TV screen.

 

That same space station uses a gyroscope to align itself--why would the Universe G' be any different. . .

 

The question seem to be is the Universe rotating or expanding. What mass or radiations are rotating is another question?

 

Huble's latest deep space stereo photos express indirectly toward rotation rather then expansion--- less there would be no free fall within the INS, and the spherical clusters of galaxies (in spherical vortexs like huricanes on the earth) are easly seen in Huble's photos.

 

Free fall being a demonstration of the equivalence principal--the feather and the ball falling at the same rate from the leaning tower of Piza-etc

 

The rotating Universe could qualify as the source of the equivalence principal. Of course the big bang follows the same concept-- in fact millions of them do. So does the Earth.

 

However the expansion or decay hypothesis--does not permit an equiivalence principal to exist on the space station.

 

This Univers's gravity G' is a complicated equation that no man will ever solve--it is a hypothesis only--not to be mistaken with the formula G on earth.

 

One's belief in a Big Bang that started it all--is ludicrous.

 

Let us not become a Luddite.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

All observation do not show that the parts within the universe expand.

 

The parts that contract are those that matter we can see eg, towards a gravity sink such as a star, black hole , cluster of galaxies such as the great attractor.

 

The expanding parts are the jets that we see on Stars, Black holes and the intereatcion between stars and galaxies.

 

The expansion that people talk about is time/space and not actual distance.

 

Hello Maddog

 

You hit no nerve, I'm more interested in understanding what the hell is going on.

 

Too busy reading papers and papers to find out why the BBT become the standard model. Where did science go wrong and for what reason. I assume that most scientists have a head on their shoulders and yet there is a mountain of information that is in conflict with the BBT.

 

Just to support the BBT because its the standard is a great mistake.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

This is a recent paper and quite interesting.

 

[0811.2197] The galileon as a local modification of gravity

The galileon as a local modification of gravity

 

Authors: Alberto Nicolis, Riccardo Rattazzi, Enrico Trincherini

(Submitted on 13 Nov 2008)

 

Abstract: In the DGP model, the ``self-accelerating'' solution is plagued by a ghost instability, which makes the solution untenable. This fact as well as all interesting departures from GR are fully captured by a four-dimensional effective Lagrangian, valid at distances smaller than the present Hubble scale. The 4D effective theory involves a relativistic scalar pi, universally coupled to matter and with peculiar derivative self-interactions. In this paper, we study the connection between self-acceleration and the presence of ghosts for a quite generic class of theories that modify gravity in the infrared. These theories are defined as those that at distances shorter than cosmological, reduce to a certain generalization of the DGP 4D effective theory. We argue that for infrared modifications of GR locally due to a universally coupled scalar, our generalization is the only one that allows for a robust implementation of the Vainshtein effect--the decoupling of the scalar from matter in gravitationally bound systems--necessary to recover agreement with solar system tests. Our generalization involves an internal ``galilean'' invariance, under which pi's gradient shifts by a constant. This symmetry constrains the structure of the pi Lagrangian so much so that in 4D there exist only five terms that can yield sizable non-linearities without introducing ghosts. We show that for such theories in fact there are ``self-accelerating'' deSitter solutions with no ghost-like instabilities. In the presence of compact sources, these solutions can support spherically symmetric, Vainshtein-like non-linear perturbations that are also stable against small fluctuations. [short version for arxiv]

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

 

This may interest you

 

[astro-ph/0601659] The rotating and accelerating Universe

The rotating and accelerating Universe

 

Authors: Evangelos Chaliasos

(Submitted on 28 Jan 2006)

 

Abstract: An attempt is made to explain the spiral structure of spiral galaxies through a possible rotation of the Universe. To this end, we write down a possible form of the metric, and we calculate the necessary quantities (Rik, Tik, ...) in order to form the Einstein equations. We find the two Einstein equations pertaining to the Robertson-Walker metric and no rotation at all in this way. There are introduced then two suitable rotational motions in the universe, and we try to generalize again the Robertson-Walker metric in this way. The result is again null, since it is found that the corresponding angular velocities must vanish. A third attempt is finally done, without restricting ourselves to generalize any existing cosmological model. We introduce again two suitable rotational motions, and we form the appropriate Einstein equations. After solving them, we find that one of the rotations is a usual rotation, while, completely unexpectedly, the other one is interpreted as an acceleration. This acceleration may explain the lately observationally discovered acceleration of the Universe (1998) without a cosmological constant or the ambiguous dark energy.

[FRIPRO]

I thank you for the reference about the rotating Universe. I clicked there and was impressed;however, every time I leave the forum for a reference I can not get back in. Has anyone solved this earthly problem? FRIPRO

[Pluto]

G'day fripro

 

Copy the link to another window.

 

and keep this window open.

[maddog]

My friend...

A presidential candidate said that as he was about to lecture about the "error of our ways". He lost.

 

...uses a gyroscope to align itself--why would the Universe G' be any different. . .

An allegory in of itself does not constitute as evidence.

 

The question seem to be is the Universe rotating or expanding.

Not necessarily. Rotation does not depend on Expansion or visa versa.

What mass or radiations are rotating is another question?

nonsequitur. Que ?

Huble's latest deep space stereo photos express indirectly toward rotation rather then expansion--- less there would be no free fall within the INS, and the spherical clusters of galaxies (in spherical vortexs like huricanes on the earth) are easly seen in Huble's photos.

Please give a reference of such an example photo.

Free fall being a demonstration of the equivalence principal--the feather and the ball falling at the same rate from the leaning tower of Piza-etc

You have your facts wrong. Principle of Equivalence was Einstein's method of showing how a 1g gravity field was equivalent to acceleration at 1g (for example). You ball & feather example was attempted by Galileo. This was demonstrated effectively on the moon (without air resistance).

The rotating Universe could qualify as the source of the equivalence principal. Of course the big bang follows the same concept-- in fact millions of them do. So does the Earth.

Extrapolation and conjecture.

However the expansion or decay hypothesis--does not permit an equiivalence principal to exist on the space station.

Huh ???

This Univers's gravity G' is a complicated equation that no man will ever solve--it is a hypothesis only--not to be mistaken with the formula G on earth.

Predicting what will happen in the future is risky business. Who knows maybe a Quantum description of Gravity is possible (with string or without). I do suspect some assumption we have made in the last few hundred years so that we have taken to be sacred will have to be eliminated. Who is to say.

One's belief in a Big Bang that started it all--is ludicrous.

So you like Pluto here both seem to think the conventional wisdom about the BBT treat it like some explosion is what created the universe. Maybe go read that website alread listed here (TalkOrigin) in this thread somewehere above. The BBT is a description of the initial expansion to now.

Let us not become a Luddite.

I don't think I have been called a "Luddite" before... I am honored to be considered an "old fuddy duddy".

Let's see - from Websters' the Definition for Luddite is

 

Luddite [n. LUH-dite] The noun Luddite specifically refers to one of a group of early 19th century English workmen who were campaigning against the automation of the power loom. Under cover of night and generally masked, the workers often destroyed the equipment that had displaced them. Today the word broadly refers to anyone who is opposed to technological change or new working methods.

The name Luddite is presumed to come from the leader of these angry workmen: Ned Ludd. The Leicestershire worker is said to have rushed into a stocking weaver's house and destroyed his equipment. More about Ned Ludd and the Luddites: http://www.bigeastern.com/ludd/nl_whats.htm and http://publish.uwo.ca/~nallen1/ludd.htm.

 

Now if I understand both and your and Pluto's objections about BBT and sincere nature of tearing down the scaffolding of workability to return to some pastoral earlier time of Steady State Theories by Fred Hoyle, et al.

I might from the above definition construe both of your fetal attempt to shoot it down as Luddite-like behavior.

 

As for the root idea you started with -- rotation of the universe. I might agree with you in principle (though for different reasons). I originally while in high school thought the universe could be with some initial rotation. I never figured a method to measure it. In those times the conventional wisdom had the universe as thought to be closed. Thus and such expansion would only slow down to a stop and turn around. I have conjectured if

Quasars were cosmological, and the universe were closed, and these events all seemed to be no more than light-days across that maybe they just copies of each other.

 

This was also before a Quasar spectrum could be resolved either. This turned out not to be the case nor now known the universe found now to be accelerating outware and not slowing down. Though I digress.

 

To be able to resolve a rotation of the whole universe -- you would need a background to measure against. Maybe another method can be done. This is open in my mind.

 

maddog

[maddog]

All observation do not show that the parts within the universe expand.

Huh ? Not sure the meaning of this remark ... :confused: :shrug: :confused:

 

The parts that contract are those that matter we can see eg, towards a gravity sink such as a star, black hole , cluster of galaxies such as the great attractor.

The expanding parts are the jets that we see on Stars, Black holes and the intereatcion between stars and galaxies.

What a component does compared to whole is like have the 4 blind sufi's looking at the 4 different parts of the elephant to determine how old the elephant is. ?????? :eek_big: :eek: :confused:

 

The expansion that people talk about is time/space and not actual distance.

In cosmology basically (at cosmological distances) Distance = Time.

 

I'm more interested in understanding what the hell is going on.

So am I. That is why if I thought like you I would not just Ignore Redshift and discount it. I would at least consider why it appears to be somewhat consistent. I will grant the Hubble constant still fluctuates a bit

due to the patchwork in the way it is put together across the cosmological scale. If it is flawed, it in these assumptions that this is OK (kinda' like the small angle approximation).

 

Too busy reading papers and papers to find out why the BBT become the standard model. Where did science go wrong and for what reason. I assume that most scientists have a head on their shoulders and yet there is a mountain of information that is in conflict with the BBT.

There is that myopic flaw in your thinking again. "Science didn't go Wrong ?!?!? :eek::confused:

Just to support the BBT because its the standard is a great mistake.

This I do not do. I do support BBT over others as it is More Accurate at describing behavior in the universe.

 

maddog