Is the big bang ready to explode?

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by a1120028

Ok I'm gonna stop replying to this thread, bad topic to get into.

Excellent idea. The same conversation goes round and round and will continue to do so.

How's the weather over there?

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by a1120028

Ok I'm gonna stop replying to this thread, bad topic to get into. I just can not fathom on any level people teaching children, the future leaders of our world something that is so obviously untrue, go ahead beat me up for saying it but come on really, how can any reasonable person believe the universe and all we see and don't see was created in 6 days by one supreme being.

I really am a tolerant, non judgmental person but pushes my buttons to see kids being led up the garden path so to speak by people they trust.

I'll leave it there, and apologize if I offended anybody or their beliefs.

Without turning this into a religious thing because I respect and support all sides .... the Bible gives God 6 days and I say to you six days is more acceptable than 30 seconds as given in the big bang ...I refer to the period of inflation in the big bang...

I can swallow 6 days easier (which I dont) if you see my drift .

I understand your feelings that the big bang has a monopoly on science at the moment... it does in truth... be it correct or incorrect does not change that... so you must respect its position... that does not mean you have to accept it that means you have to be determined to identify why you feel uncomfortable .

You are blessed if you have the math, I have an "idea" about the Universe which will remain that without math....

work within the system and dont feel frustrated the system will welcome new valid input.. with math you should be able to back your views and ideas with facts and math.

I would not be feeling frustrated if I were you I would feel the world was at my feet for you have the equipment to make your view stand... prove your views with math.

Now I will read the rest of this interesting thread... but I am suspicious of the big bang I say at this point .
alex

[duncan]

I'm open to all ideas. The bible says 6 days but it does not define the length of a day. Is it possible that back then a day could have been hundreds,thousands or even millions of years long by our standards?
Who knows, but it sure is fun trying to solve it all.
Cheers

[xelasnave]

Dont get carried away but have a look here you may feel at home ...dont sign anything

http://www.cosmology.info/index.html

alex

[duncan]

Hi Alex,
I've seen that one before. I think we should all just keep a very open mind on the whole subject.
Cheers

[xelasnave]

My point exactly... it is no good just ripping into everything there is valuable things to be found everywhere... I have a big bang Universe where all those rules apply and keep alternatives separate out of respect for the current model.
Within the big bang Universe I think we just have problems of a minor nature I dont like inflation because I would prefer something different.. and I use it as a prod at the big bang whereas in truth I just think we have not got that part figured correctly... inflation is needed to cure certain problems that may well have been taken care of in manners we dont understand yet... everythingthe same etc.
From my reading I think one has to be very careful ireading anything that purports to discredit the big bang as usually there is an axe being ground... some stuff is simply off the wall,

if you find conflicts open another Universe and keep the conflicting stuff in different Universes.

alex

[a1120028]

I said I'm not going to post re creation etc but just wanted to clarify why I started this thread.

The idea I brought up was I feel there may be some merit to the idea that there is a non-cosmological component to redshift in high redshift quasars and active galaxies.

Some questions arise

Is there a connection between galaxies and certain types of galaxies and the quasar?

Are quasars ejected from galaxies, and infact proto-galaxies themselves?

Is there some other astrophysical process that can explain the redshift anomalies.

These questions are asked and looked at in depth in the documentary "The cosmology quest".

Someone once said, and I fear it's an ominous prediction "In the future whenever we point a telescope skyward, we are only going to find what we already know is there".

I have become intrigued by the fact that if we take certain quasars associated with galaxies such as NGC 7603 and treat them as is if they are at their observed distance, ie in the vicinity of the associated galaxies, and not at their proposed red shift distances then no new ultra high energy process is needed to explain them. If this idea turns out to have merit it casts new light on things such as dark matter/energy and the BB theory.

That was the general idea.

I didn't intend to get into a theological debate. So if anyone has any ideas on the redshift thing please let me know. I'd be interested to hear them.

[g__day (Matthew)]

Two comments on some previous logic:

For God to create the world in 6 days...

1. God has infinite power, or energy
2. But energy equal mass
3. So God has infinite mass
4. But any infinite mass in a finite volume would impy an infinite gravitational field, i.e. so severe it would close spacetime (a blackhole)
5. So as time runs slower near a heavy mass object, maybe from our frame of reference God's days are kinda long

Secondly object with mass can't move faster than c

1. In a relativistic framework
2. If an object's speed gets too close to c then its energy density is likely to run into the energy signatures where relativity may break down and the rules of quantum gravity apply; yes that's right - get something up to the energy levels involved in the heirarchy plroblem 10^14 - 10^ 19 GeV and you may be able to travel as fast as the laws dominanting and area ruled by quantum gravity - not relativity - apply.

[xelasnave]

I dont believe there is dark matter only dark energy.
In the Gravity Push Universe(or Gravity Rain Universe) (my idea not my theory) there is no need for attraction and hence dark matter.

If this is found to be the case it will not require the big bang to be dropped but may explain something better or different...as an example...I like my ideas to fit current popular thought ( as much as possible)... your questions are extremely interesting and the matters relating thought provoking.

And I was not into a theological debate so dont worry about that...I was just saying you can shoot holes in either if you wish... does not worry me other than it upsets the the rules of here which I avoid..me I dont believe in anything so its hard to pick a side to support...so dont worry...more on your ideas and the implications of things you have noticed... one at a time perhaps.
alex

[leon]

I'm staying out of this one.

Leon

[xelasnave]

Sorry Gday I missed your excellent post ...so if I do something wrong it may be a while before he sees it maybe... no I will be good and not look for a loop hole.
alex

[a1120028]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I dont believe there is dark matter only dark energy.

I'm sorry I don't quite understand that statement as I thought energy and mass were one and the same. I believe this is a very well known physical principal called the mass energy equivalence. E=mc^2.

Thanks for all your input but I think it's time I moved on.

[xelasnave]

I agree but there is a fine point.
Nice talking with you keep up with your investigations, respect the system and work on it nevertheless.
Good luck.
alex

[avandonk]

Mike has just deleted I post I made about this being a waste of time not to mention how it was the blind leading the blind so now I will stop my post and see if it survives.

I have figured it out, one can make the most outrageous claims but don't tell them that they are deluded!


Bert

[mill (Martin)]

As i have seen everywhere, posts about ideas and theories are getting heated and then die a sudden death

[avandonk]

There is nothing wrong with exchange of ideas and information but when individuals and or big companies set the agenda to limit the the discussion to very basic elements of very complex problems you will end up with a solution that suits the powers that be. Try arguing with any powerful mob all through history. You all know what happened to them!

Never stop arguing! But for your own sake duck!

I will never resile from despising the idiots that think they run things!

bert

[xelasnave]

Personally I missed seeing there was an argument I guess I am very blind indeed ... I am thick to use the vernacular.

Big bang has cred and so does the church simply because of the numbers in each camp... but then others have cred like the Government of the day where the numbers ebb and fall... who is really correct.

I think there is a camp that will never let go of the big bang as there is a camp that will never let go of the church...

I am not sure that the supporters of any side can look at the motivations and opinions of the other without disdain... that is the way the world works it seems to me.

As stupid as war is to me there are many others to come forward and argue the benefit... presumably they know more of the facts than me...but will that make them right?
I like to hear all views it does not mean they have to upset me or I have to bite ( which I don't these days) there is too much nonsense thrust in our face each day not to take a relaxed approach.

Bert I agree with your view on those in power.. they seem to develop a notion that they firstly know more than everyone else, that they are somehow more capable of intellectual input and mainly that rather than meeting argument with relevant fact resort to name calling to discredit the messenger rather than review the issue like adults.

I see holes in the big bang..I see holes in the church...I see holes in our governemnt but I also see good points in all... so I go on...and on
alex

[PeteMo (Pete)]

I'm often surprised how science and the church often imply that there are only two camps ie Big Bang or Steady State when the truth could be a wierd blend of both. Is light a particle or a wave? Both camps appear contradictory yet each can claim that their model, either particle or wave is supported by their observations or equations.

One thing that puzzles me with Big Bang, the COBE probe detected Cosmic Background Radiation and this was taken as immediate proof of big bang, yet how do we know that this background radiation actually came from the big bang and not something else? If we came across what we thought was a driveby shooting the discovery of any gun would be taken as evidence that it was a shooting. As a tester I often perform negative testing as well a positive testing, to make sure that the incerse also applies, yet there seems to be a reluctance to look at other factors that could also account for background radiation. Sometimes it appears that some evidence is only circumstantial at best.

For all we know E=Mc^2 could be a modern day Zeno's Paradox, it looks right from a certain logical standpoint, but does not match what we are observing when galaxies are receding from us at greater than c. The explanation that space is expanding is the kind of thing I expect Mr Spock or Dr Who to say. It could be correct, but it sometimes seems more like an elastoplast job to plug the holes in Big Bang rather than state (Admit) that we need to modify Big Bang to account for the anomalies. Then again as Alex points out, there are holes in everything.

I seem to be leaning more towards Steady State but cannot overlook the main parts of Big Bang that do match what we see. When you consider that Cosmology is not very old, there's a lot more discovering and exploring to do before we get a better model to update Big Bang/Steady State.

Incidentally if anyone was interested in an approach to interpretting and understanding Genesis that does justice to the text and is compatible with modern day scientific views, I'm more than willing to share this, but maybe on another thread or as an article.

[bojan]

I said that before in another thread and I am saying the same thing again here:
It is impossible to understand those concepts without solid knowledge of the tool that helped scientists to fit the observing data into theories and come up to all those conclusions... That tool is mathematics.
Everything else is just a coffe-break chat, and no matter how much we enjoy those discussions ( I do) , they are no more than that.
In the threads like this one I would like to see more mathematical arguing and less guessing and hunching.. After all, in the guidelines for this section it says in writing:
"Astronomy Science
Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please."

Otherwise, we can use General Chat ...

[Argonavis (William)]

There is virtually no disagreement about big bang cosmology amongst professional astronomers.

The theory is based on several almost irrefutable pillars of evidence:

1. cosmological redshift - the fainter the galaxy, the higer the redshift, implying greater speeds of recession for galaxies further away; this is confirmed by other distance markers on the cosmic distance ladder.

2. The observed ratio of hydrogen to helium (75:25) in the Universe is consistent with a big bang nucleosynthesis. This was worked out by Gamow et al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis).

3. the cosmic background radiation at 2.7 degrees K, exactly matching predictions of a black body cooling from the primaeval fireball.

4. In the deep Universe, galaxies appear younger, or at least how you would expect young galaxies to look (see Hubble ultra deep field http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/1996/01/

5. Finally, the big one, the sky is dark at night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers_paradox)

6. Also Einstein predicted the expansion of the Universe in his field equations, but stuffed it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_big_blunder)

There is no other explanation for the observations.