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).
Big bang theory was initally hinted at by running the observed expansion backwards. There are other supporting evidence, such as the fact our universe is finite in age as far as we can tell(the fact we have dark skies, for example), and also cosmic background radiation, something predicted by the big band model, something which we have found and fits well into our models. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...nd_radiati on
Well there is no doubt that the big bang model can be made work if you want it to work but I simply suggest that everything in support may be explained differently if one was seeking to establish a different model. Maybe that is my background in law showing being accustomed to arguing essentially the same matter from different positions and being able to argue either successfully at different times for different clients.
I am not trying to detract from the research but simply suggest if one expects to find something to support one views one will find the material in support and say it washes away the opposing ideas.. I have been labeled as morosophic with my approach to gravity rain, which I admit, but say this condition is common in humans. We will take what we find as evidence in support of our idea and somewhat gloss over things that don’t support the idea.
As to background radiation could it not be explained in a steady state Universe if one tried.. maybe it is evidence of more Universe far off and it is that corrupted message we interpret as background radiation. Needless to say anyone supporting background radiation to fit the big bang will have explanations why that is incorrect.. but mainly in that instance really be saying..”well it fits the theory it is what we expected so it is what we say.”
If a infinite Universe would we not get similar evidence of radiation from afar… if you see my drift.
Dark skies may be related to radiation running out of steam at some point rather than being a reflection of the current proposition. Again not saying that is right but such does not seem unreasonable given my limited grasp of what we are trying to explain.
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.
There is more than "expected activity" which strong supports the existence of blackholes. The mathematics tell us such objects should exists, and models which consider what happens to gas falling into a blackhole closely matches observation of X-rays being emitted from centre of galaxies etc.
My point is simply here that indeed the math tells us that if such concentrations of mass are possible then we will have a black hole. I simply suggest (as indicated earlier) that the maths says that is what will happen if those conditions are reached.. I ask can they in fact be reached and the possibility that nature will not allow (for whatever reason) mass not to enter the theoretical regions we take it to on paper.
Again my ignorance is my burden as there may be good reason why it should.. but for me I feel that the Universe is not bound by what we determine on paper. The math may seek to explain a situation that is never reached. And that is not saying the math is flawed in any way but that we may be calculating a situation that never comes to pass. This view is from my hope that physics applies all the way and does not give up when a theoretical limit (self imposed) is passed.
I would like to shed light on the per mass limit, and I can next Wednesday when I go back to uni.
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.
The expansion of the universe, inflation, is observed in the redshift of distant galaxies. Its hard for the first cosmologists to accept it, but in the face of evidence, they had to. Space /is/ expanding. Objects further away from us are accelerating away from us, as shown by the fact light from them are red shifted. Very /VERY/ few distance objects are accelerating towards us.
It is the inflationary period where the suggestion is put forward that the inflation occurred within a split second, and that in this split second we are asked to accept that the Universe grew from very small to more than we can see today.. if the inflation concept was limited to everything we see growing to that size in a split second that would be hard to swallow (it is for me) but the Universe is larger than our Observable Universe.. infinite or finite there is more to it than we can observe.. as I understand to date.
The current expansion (which I have problems with when considering an infinite Universe) is nothing like required in the inflation theory .. which is rated in the trillions of times in a second.. a fare cry from current observations.
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.
It is not entirely unreasonable. When you consider space itself was expanding, momentum and inertia plays no role. We can not say for sure exactly what happened during the big bang, if indeed there was one, but from what we can observe today, we can make predictions on what should have happened. The rate of expansion etc can be inferred from the background radiation, the amount of hydrogen and helium we can see, etc. IF you look into it, varying the rate of expansion in the inital big bang changes a few things. More information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang Note Big Bang isn't entirely with out problems. Science isn't blind to its own short comings. Big Bang is "accepted" because it is the least wrong of our theories :-)
Yes indeed as I said science does not have to wait for me to be satisfied before it moves on…
My biggest problem with seeing a big bang is very basic… I can not see a state of nothing (and although that is not really put forward as all models start at a point just after the big bang..but the inference seems to me that we started with nothing and from a quantum fluctuation we derive the seed that set it all in motion. Nothing is a word that rolls off the tounge easily but when you sop to think of it ..nothing in this context points to an absence of everything.. well presumably there must have been something… I find a Universe that is expanding should be expanding into a region of nothing… which I reject saying we can not have a condition called “nothing”
Where is the fence line between the Universe and nothing, does a photon leaving our Universe and moving into nothing colonize nothing and claim it for the Universe.
I am not putting these matters forward in an effort to destroy anything but in an effort to share ideas that run through my head.
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 "ïnflation".
Sorry, inflation wasn't introduced, it was observed. To explain the inflation we proposed the Big Bang theory.
I question inflations introduction to the mix. As I understand a fellow by the name of Guth (I think without checking) who put it forward originally and it presents the proposition of a doubling in size of the Universe early on that as I said above sees a time where “inflation caused the Universe to double and double in a split second. If this extreme condition has current evidence I would like to know more in an effort to grow my understanding. I get the impression that such is not currently supported and read recently “they” are trying to work out an experiment to prove such occurred in a similar way to looking at the early background radiation.
How that could be done given the time that has passed and the time it is thought to have occurred will be difficult given the age of the information and the minor variations to be noted to support the prospect. But if it is required to support the current model they must seek it, as to me I still see inflation as an idea not a theory as unless I miss something it is unsupported by evidence.
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.
My pleasure, I do my best, however I may have slipped. I am by no means a fully qualified physicist, and my year off from uni has robbed me of some memories
Well Steve you certainly have a better grip than me and as to being fully qualified I doubt if a life time accumulating qualifications will equip anyone to really come up with absolute proof… how can we ever know.
I think a recognition of the enormity of what we seek to deal with does not escape me or you as easily as many who have dedicated a life time to research and convincing themselves they have all the answers.
As to the concept of gravity rain it started as an idea but the more I read the more I am convinced I can make it work… that is morosophia at work but on the bright side it drives me to keep interested in stuff and seeking how gravity really works.
Thanks for all the links and particularly the time and respect you have extended to me.
alex
although I suspect that some scientist somewhere will be able to come up with a theory that suggests in the first 100 thousand years of the universe age some sort of thing happened whereby the density of the universe was decreasing at a specific rate due to the universes expansion which put an upper limit on these things (just as we could also put an upper limit on galaxy size - we don't see galaxies with 4 trillion stars for example)
.
.
