|
Good morning Freespace welcome from me to Iceinspace and thank you for your very informative input.
I must say I like your approach as I see it as one based on reasonable and careful consideration together with I suspect hands on experience.
Given that I am not a scientist and have no degree that I fear the University awarding same will demand its return when I air my views... I say I do not believe gravity is a force of attraction but is in effect a pushing force which I think is generated by the radiation (somehow) of all the stars ( matter generally) in the Universe. Maybe the dark energy observers grab to explain gravitational inconsistencies)... I believe there is no force of attraction which makes it very hard to fit my views into the current thinking... but they are my views and I will hold them and others can say what they like about them and me... the pushing approach makes sense to me as it is the only way I can envisage there can be any communication through out the Universe.
I can not accept that a grain of sand makes it presence known by sending a message to the whole Universe that it is "there"... whereas pressure of radiation (particles whatever) requires no such message to be sent.
I see it is the flow of these particles and the resulatant pressure that bends the graph of space time.
You obviously understand that galaxies are not held together by an internal force (that's what I read into what you have said so forgive me if I have misinterpreted your meaning) such as attraction but by something "outside" that pushes.
I see gravity as a pressure that acts on everything rather than a force from an object that individually relates to everything else in the Universe.
It is perhaps my views on the way gravity works that started me thinking about the black hole concept... firstly because a pushing Universe may well do things differently to a Universe of attraction and secondly I find extrapolations to reach a view unsatisfactory.
I see extrapolations like taking a poll... the views of say 1000 people surely can not represent the views of everyone and may well have asked 1000 people representing in effect the minority view. Needless to say a poll can be spot on but it can also be very off the mark.
I am uncomfortable with the current big bang theory simply because I see it as a result arrived at from an extrapolation of the "observed" expansion... and feel simply because there is expansion this does not mean that at one end we will find a start "at a point" (and I understand there are different views on a start at a point as opposed to a overall change in condition).
Your point 7 interests me greatly as that sounds better than a mere inference drawn from "expected activity in the region" and I will search out that observation. Thank you for pointing that out I will be a happy man today as you have given me a mission.
As to point 8 from what I have read the limit seems accepted.
It interests me that the "cleaned out area" is in fact cleaned out. And that where matter was taken from the outer region of the cleaned out region why during the cleaning out more matter would not have come in... not necessarily from the influence of the black hole (limited by the inverse square rule) but simply the gravitational relationship between the matter in the outer regions (originally) to matter now sitting at the edge of the cleaned out region.... or put another way... why when the matter started moving in why matter further out would not have moved in to replace it. It seems hard to answer by saying the matter moved away too fast and therefore left the remaining matter in place... gravity (whichever way you see it would move much faster than the matter seeking to escape it). Maybe the outter matter was draw back by the influence of the galaxy... still you can see the strange things that pop into my thinking... but in my defence at least I try and think about these things.
My other difficulty with the big bang (not that I have to be convinced before the world excepts it) is it seems to rely very heavily upon the "theory of inflation".. which I think has little right to be called a theory in the sense that I understand a "theory" in science requires more than the "theory of inflation" has provided. I feel it is a big ask to expect the Universe could have expanded at such a rate (I know not expanded just doubled and doubled) ..to me it is unsupported nonsense... my view, not saying I am right or wrong just how I see it... I have asked many times seeking to be told my view is unreasonable and that I should take on board such and such so as to find it reasonable. Seeking a point much like your black hole and star observation which takes it to a new level for me.
I find it amusing that proponents of the big bang will point to the bible and a six day building plan as unreasonable yet then tell us that all we see reached a size even greater than we can observe in a mere fraction of a second... if you see my drift.(and I say I am not of any faith it is a mere observation of a curiosity)
Yet it seems inflation because it saved the big bang is readily accepted and a matter that is not seen as a flaw in the big bang theory.
I think there must be a better explanation but I can not suggest something to replace it.
Maybe if we remove inflation the age of the Universe could be reviewed and some inconsistent findings (stars older than they should be) reviewed again.
It seems inflation was introduced to fix the problem of how everything could be the same all over... maybe there are other solutions to get past this point that do not ask us to accept such a rapid "īnflation".
Thank you so much for your reply I found it informative and comforting as you seem to have a view that does not get carried away easily.
alex
|