|
Anton mentions the established size of the observable Universe at 93 billion light years diameter and it seems most folk ( cosmologists) think it is much much bigger...I read an article that pit the most conservative model as having the Universe at 250 times the size of the observable Universe ...I really find it extremely difficult to accept that, even if we limit the size of the Universe to 93 billion light years diameter that such a huge item could have grown from something the size of an atom or whatever small size the Big Bang Theory suggests... and if we imagine say many atom sized universes ...well think that thru....I mean if one even thinks of growing from the size of a pea to say the size of this planet that simply seems impossible.. I know I lnow I don't understand the math .. incredible pressure, particles with no dimension, temperature at incomprehensible levels ..see it all works out..well not for me unfortunately.
But to grow from atom size to the size of the observable, 93 billion light years diameter universe for me is beyond realistic...Yet no one seems to have the same inability to accept the current best cosmological model...And I don't care what the sums say I cant not see that it can be correct...Further the Big Bang Model was presented when "they" believed that the Universe was the size of our galaxy, Milky Way, a mere fraction of the size of our current estimation of the Observable Universe, let alone what lays beyond.. yet finding it is very very much bigger has not presented any concern at all...well it would some could think...the critism of the Big Bang Model at the time it was presented was that it smacked of a religious undertone, which given the presentor was a priest and the theory took us back to the start of time suggested this was science designed to point most strongly to a creation point...but, no, even though we pick up the story a zillionth of a second after "The Big Bang" there is no comment as to what it may be and "they" quickly point out that the theory only deals with the evolution of the Universe...now what is most interesting is the fact even scientists talk about "something from nothing'...well most telling because there is nothing in the theory that suggests it all came from nothing.. in fact the theory does not take us past "a hot dense state" in other word "something"... there is no mention of nothing...so I see the speculation that the universe is a doughnut a ploy to take our mind off the problem of having a infinite expanding universe or even a finite expanding universe.
Our observations show the universe is flat ( no bias in gravity) and I can not understand the motivation for speculation that suggests something that as I see it now solid foundation in fact...
Given that our best cosmological model takes us no further than a hot dense state why conclude there was a big bang... to me the answer is rather obvious... now to make it work we need a doughnut it seems.
Alex
|