PDA

View Full Version : No Big Bang



Sinera
4th February 2013, 10:08 PM
Big Bang theory over? Another pillar of mainstream materialist science gone down the drain?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c9M33FLH40#!

CFTraveler
5th February 2013, 02:38 AM
1- It's a cluster, not 'one' thing,
2- They forgot 'lensing'. It happens.

heliac
5th February 2013, 04:48 AM
Anytime a pillar of mainstream anything goes down the drain usually awesomeness entails, so i really hope that the scientists and astronomers have found something new and exciting on the horizon.

Sinera
5th February 2013, 11:02 AM
This new, huge LQG appears to be the largest structure currently known in the early universe. Its size suggests incompatibility with the Yadav et al. scale of homogeneity for the concordance cosmology, and thus challenges the assumption of the cosmological principle.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/uclan_team_discover_largest_structure_in_the_unive rse.php

eyeoneblack
5th February 2013, 07:06 PM
So, are you saying this argues for a 'created' universe? Is that necessary? If the universe is not 'smooth' then can't we allow for an anomoly without abandoning the Big Bang theory? It's all over my head but I would be inspired by a theory that could point to a 'before', a nexus that defies the Big Bang. Red shift however points to a 'before' by its uniqness, though it doesn't imply that it is precedent to the BB. But something fundamental must have produced it - a plethora of black holes?

It's interesting.

This doesn't make any sense, sorry.......

CFTraveler
5th February 2013, 09:07 PM
Frankly, I don't think it proves anything, one way or the other. They've revised the size before, and more than likely will again, simply because they just don't know enough about the universe to pinpoint the correct point of reference for a starting point for the universe, or if the model of the big bang explains what we have sufficiently. There are many variables and even Einstein wasn't happy with the cosmological constant- he knew it wasn't right, but he just coudn't abide a universe that was chaotic and unpredictable.
My problem with the initial video is that it is from a group that has a preconceived belief about how the universe works, and right or wrong, they have a mission, and this latest discovery, although it doesn't prove any model at all, (or disprove any, just that there's something wrong with how much matter there is in the universe and how much matter we think there should be if it started when we think it did), and frankly, I think that this should be seriously investigated (as I'm sure it is) instead of grabbed on by a group that simply wants to use it to 'prove' something else is 'wrong'.

My opinion & I'm just sayin'.

heliac
6th February 2013, 04:14 AM
So, are you saying this argues for a 'created' universe? Is that necessary? If the universe is not 'smooth' then can't we allow for an anomoly without abandoning the Big Bang theory? It's all over my head but I would be inspired by a theory that could point to a 'before', a nexus that defies the Big Bang. Red shift however points to a 'before' by its uniqness, though it doesn't imply that it is precedent to the BB. But something fundamental must have produced it - a plethora of black holes?

It's interesting.

This doesn't make any sense, sorry.......

Maybe some context is missing. I don't think Vogerle is trying to say the cosmological principle has been dis-proven therefore god created the universe. That certainly wouldn't make any sense at all.

I dunno, Vogerle, was there any other context surrounding this finding other than mainstream science is going down the drain??Maybe we just feel like taking minor shots at mainstream science today??

Agree with CFT

CFTraveler
6th February 2013, 04:02 PM
I don't think this was Volgerle's interpretation, it certainly was from the point of view of the 'electrical universe' folks.

And speaking of info, I (believe it or not, by coincidence) ran into this, which illustrates what I said about 'lensing'.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C005626/Quasars.htm


From this article: "One particular theory about Quasars that has been proven was made by Albert Einstein in his theory of relativity. Called the Einstein cross, this theory states that a quasar emits energy through a high mass galaxy and the galaxy, acting like a mirror or a lens, produces several images of the quasar, and since the quasar is directly behind the galaxy, the image formed from this process is perfectly symmetrical from a viewer's point of view (Moore 200). Pictures of this have been taken from the Hubble Telescope."

eyeoneblack
7th February 2013, 02:11 AM
ya' know, it seems sometimes a little silly that we pour so much energy into speculating about a phenomemon in terms of whether it adds up to a theory that recognizes we know nothing about our universe except what we can observe, when we can only observe 4% of what there is out there. That's an awful proud 4% isn't it?

Until we can identify something of the dark energy and matter out there, what can we say? Like looking at the elephant's toes and thinking we know an elephant.

CFTraveler
7th February 2013, 02:43 PM
ya' know, it seems sometimes a little silly that we pour so much energy into speculating about a phenomemon in terms of whether it adds up to a theory that recognizes we know nothing about our universe except what we can observe, when we can only observe 4% of what there is out there. That's an awful proud 4% isn't it?

Until we can identify something of the dark energy and matter out there, what can we say? Like looking at the elephant's toes and thinking we know an elephant. Ha ha which is what gave Einstein so much pain, how much do we need to know before we know enough? That's why the cosmological constant is so hinky- and yet interesting- and bear with me-
many 'avant garde' philosophers believe the universe is either holographic or fractal, or a combination thereof- yet discoveries like this hint at it 'not' being like this- which muddles the theoretical thinking, IMO.

Sinera
7th February 2013, 11:02 PM
I dunno, Vogerle, was there any other context surrounding this finding other than mainstream science is going down the drain??
I had put a question mark behind it, see OP above. I don't know what it proves or disproves, as I am not an astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist etc.

But did anyone read my second post or the links given? Here it is again with a relevant longer statement in bolds:


"Dr Clowes said: “While it is difficult to fathom the scale of this LQG, we can say quite definitely it is the largest structure ever seen in the entire universe. This is hugely exciting – not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the universe. The universe doesn't seem to be as uniform as we thought. Travelling at the speed of light, it would still take 4 billion light years to cross. This is significant not just because of its size but also because it challenges the Cosmological Principle, which has been widely accepted since Einstein. Our team has been looking at similar cases which add further weight to this challenge and we will be continuing to investigate these fascinating phenomena.”
http://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/uclan_te...e_universe.php (http://www.uclan.ac.uk/news/uclan_team_discover_largest_structure_in_the_unive rse.php)
(...)

"This new, huge LQG appears to be the largest structure currently known in the early universe. Its size suggests incompatibility with the Yadav et al. scale of homogeneity for the concordance cosmology, and thus challenges the assumption of the cosmological principle."
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.6256


Again: It's not by the folks of the Thunderbolt / Electric Universe proposition, but by the scientists who found this out and commented on it themselves. Please follow the links given, I've put the quotes above the right links now. It's the original guys. A university with an institute: http://www.star.uclan.ac.uk/.

Given the quotes and the genuine origin, it seems that the mainstream hypothesis has a problem now.

It's been on some mainstream news here on Germany also, btw. Really, I don't know if it 'debunks' the Big Bang, and couldn't care too much. The BB is a probably weak theory anyway and maye not provable at all? And I've heard other arguments against it by experts (also astronomers iirc). But again, I don't know. Just found it interesting.

Moreover, for me it only applies to "this" universe and physical dimension, for me that's got nothing to do with spirituality, be it a bang or a constant emanation of a holograph or whatever. Reality is way different anyway. You know it, too, friends.
;)

CFTraveler
7th February 2013, 11:37 PM
I didn't mean to say that the electric universe folks were behind this discovery, I was saying that they were the ones that were smugly saying that all science is wrong and that this proves it. The scientists' links (which I read also) were careful in not saying anything specific other than 'well, this shouldn't be, so let's study this some more'. They could even be right, I just don't like their tone.

Given the quotes and the genuine origin, it seems that the mainstream hypothesis has a problem now. Ha ha I think most observed things go counter to 'mainstream', whatever that is. Which is why it's so interesting, IMO.
I asked a physicist I know what he thought of this, and he said that this is just one more thing that doesn't fit in what used to be considered 'mainstream', like gravity, quasars, how galaxies spin, dark matter and dark energy, which were created to cover up the gaps in 'mainstream' theory.

baalixan
13th February 2013, 06:03 AM
with out getting into all the technical stuff. my personally stand is that the universe was not created, it had no start and has no end(in any of the 4 physical dimensions) and infact i see the big bang as science's attempt at a creation myth(dont get me wrong, i am very much a man of science, as much as i am a man of spirit) i have said for some time now, as our eyes get bigger and better, we will see further and further, and the age of the universe will get older and older.....now i do have a question...if the age of the universe is 13.6 billion years, and the furthest object we can see is close to that distance...first, what happened to objects in the opposite direction? and second, for the distance to be a true measure of age we would have to assume that we are at the center of the universe, and everything flew away from us at the speed of light, or very near to it. i could be wrong, but the logic here seems to be flawed, if existant at all?

CFTraveler
13th February 2013, 01:32 PM
I'm pretty sure that the big bang has been totally set aside, as there are many other theories with equal backing from the scientific community- the brane theory, and too many others to count. So the big bang is not the 'accepted' theory (or rather, hypothesis) anymore.

first, what happened to objects in the opposite direction? What opposite direction? The bb posits that at some point before there was space as we know it, a whole bunch of energy got too hot and exploded, and this explosion created space and all that goes with it. Space, in scientific terms, is not 'nothing', as many people believe- space is something, no one knows what- that is the background (a field?) that can be bent or warped, and in which stuff happens, like the Higgs Boson. Matter is the interaction of a virtual particle with a field (space?) that gives particles mass. So, it can be said that space is the thing that gives mass. This of course is my own pure speculation, since I am not a scientist, but I'm just trying to illustrate that space is a something, not a 'nothing'. So the bb is supposed to be the beginning of space, the energy already existed.



and second, for the distance to be a true measure of age we would have to assume that we are at the center of the universe, No! No! No! The Hubble telescope was the first instrument to show where the bb probably began (it satisfied the temp. calculations predicted by the scientists who came up with this), out there in space-Not Here. In fact, the bb was just a guess before the Hubble was built and sent out in space, far enough that it could see far out away from the atmosphere's effects on readings- it was the Hubble that found the likely spot for the bb, because space is cold, and they found the hot spot that satisfied the expected temp difference added to the color shift effects of the expansion, giving them an idea of where stuff were moving from, and it pointed to 'that' area. So the bb, flawed as it is, does not assume that we're at the center.

As we write, scientists are trying to come up with a theory that fits all the evidence. Is it a creation myth? No, it's a creation hypothesis. The big bang was the beginning of science trying to explain what happened according to the evidence they had. For a bit they thought they had it, since it satisfied what they thought they knew about the universe, but eventually they realized that there's still too much that doesn't fit-and that is why they're still studying the evidence, and trying to learn more, and try to come up with a hypothesis that can account for all of what we know-the bb may not be right, but it's a good start.

eyeoneblack
13th February 2013, 05:08 PM
This following is excerpted from Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" Vintage Books/Random House, New York. Feb. 2005 (p. 236)

A few subtle points in our explanation of cosmic expansion are worthy of emphasis. First, remember that in the balloon metaphor, it is only the balloon's SURFACE that plays any role - a surface that is only two-dimensional (each location can be specified by giving two numbers analogous to latitude and longitude on earth), whereas the space we see when we look around has three dimensions. We make use of this lower-dimensional model because it retains the concepts essential to the true, three-dimensional story but is far easier to visualize. It's important to bear this in mind, especially if you have been tempted to say that there is a SPECIAL point in the balloon model: the center point in the interior of the balloon away from which the whole rubber surface is moving. While this observation is true, it is MEANINGLESS (my emphasis) in the balloon analogy because any point not on the balloon's surface plays no role. The surface of the balloon represents ALL of space; points that do not lie on the surface of the balloon are merely irrelevant by-products of the analogy and do not correspond to any location in the universe.

(footnote follows)

To go beyond the two-dimensional metaphor of a balloon's surface and have a spherical three-dimensional model is easy mathematically but difficult to picture, even for professional mathematicians and physicists. You might be tempted to think of a solid, three-dimensional ball, like a bowling ball without the finger holes. This, however, isn't an acceptable shape. We want all points in the model to be on a completely equal footing, since we believe that every place in the universe is (on average) just like any other. But the bowling ball has all sorts of different points: some are on the outside surface, others are imbedded in the interior, one is right in the center. Instead, just as the two-dimensional surface of a balloon surrounds a THREE-dimensional spherical region (containing the balloon's air), an acceptable round three-dimensional shape would need to surround a FOUR-dimensional spherical region. So the three-dimensional spherical surface of a balloon in a four-dimensional space* is an acceptable shape. But if that still leaves you groping for an image, do what just about all professionals do: stick to the easy-to-visualize lower-dimensional analogies. They capture almost all of the essential features. A bit further on, we consider three-dimensional FLAT space, as opposed to the round shape of a sphere, and that flat space can be visualized.


*Please note, the fourth of four-dimensional space is NOT time. That's a losing argument on the these boards so I won't take it up again. But please remember, you won't make it far in this discussion if you think time has anything to do with it.

The only point I'm really hoping to make is what I call and has been called non-locality. As Dr. Greene explains there are no special points on the balloons surface and certainly any point not on the balloon's surface is irrelevant.

By that we understand that there can be no region of space that could stand for a point of origin of the Big Bang. The BB is better understood as that incredible instant (that wasn't) of Inflation.

Well, that's my two-cents for now.

[edit] Non-locality is an element of the fourth dimension and prob. doesn't apply to the 'balloon' metaphor.