Black Holes as creators, not destroyers

[harry]

Hello Cosmo

If I was you read up on the Big Bang Theory. Not that I agree with it.
There you will find the explanation.

In the near future the Big Bang will be put to rest.

Cosmo said

What are you on about Harry?! You clearly have no understanding of big bang theory. There was only one big bang that created this universe.

I do have an understanding of the Big Bang and its a prime example of science gone wrong.

regardless read this link

Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

I cannot understand how a theory based on fanatsy ideas backed by religion and politics became the standard model.

When people study the history of the BBT and how it came about, they soon understand that science went wrong.

[cosmo_uk]

I agree with NASA Harry. In layman's terms the Big Bang occurred everywhere at once (although everywhere grew from nothing outwards with the BB). That doen't mean there are multiple Big Bangs!

[bystander]

Harry

I agree with cosmo_uk and nasa that the big bang (singular) happened every where at once. So to state the converse of what I laughingly said earlier.

"What if our big bang was simply sombody else's black hole?"

It wasn't meant to be serious, maybe a theme for a SF novel. I realize that there isn't enough energy/mass "disappearing" into even the most massive black hole to create this universe.

[harry]

Hello bystander

That is your option to agree with what ever.

As for the Big Bang, I cannot see any future for it.

So far I see no evidence to support the ad hoc ideas supporting the Big Bang. This is science gone wrong.

If you can show me evidence, I will look at it.

[cosmo_uk]

Harry to re iterate what i've said a thousand times already - there is an overwhelming ammount of evidence for the big bang!

-Cosmic Microwave Background
-Cosmological Redshift
-Observed galaxy evolution
-Type 1a supernova distances
-Observation that nothing we see is older than the Universe
-Nucleosynhesis predictions
-Olbers paradox

and so on and so on

I have no problem with you not believing it but I like to set the record straight incase anyone believes you.

[bystander]

Stephen Hawking outlines most of the major points in "A Brief History of Time" using language even most laymen can understand.

[harry]

Hello Cosmo

That's a good idea set the record straight.

Cosmo said

Harry to re iterate what i've said a thousand times already - there is an overwhelming ammount of evidence for the big bang!

-Cosmic Microwave Background
-Cosmological Redshift
-Observed galaxy evolution
-Type 1a supernova distances
-Observation that nothing we see is older than the Universe
-Nucleosynhesis predictions
-Olbers paradox

and so on and so on

It does not matter if you say it a million times. Without evidence the above means nothing. If you do have evidence please supply it.

I have read all the above and they are in dispute big time.

I have no emotions for any theory.

In actual fact the best theory is the one that is interested in the working parts of the universe. A puzzel cannot be put together until its parts are worked out.

At this present time we will have to wait for another few years.

Further studies in compact star cores
Deep field images beyond 14 billion light years with good contrast.
The formation of the elements H to Fe within the star and the heavier elements during a supernova.
The actual distances and movements of the galaxies.

and so on.






Have you really studied the above information or just accepted their opinion without question.

[cosmo_uk]

Harry, there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers on all of the above topics. Perhaps you should have a read rather than declaring them "ad hoc" all the time.

As for my level of study on these topics, I can definitely say it is considerably more advanced than yours.

[harry]

Hello Cosmo

Please do not read my words out of context.

You may be more advanced and I do not question that.

So please show me any evidence that backs the Big Bang theory.
Yes I have read many papers supporting the Big Bang and they claim to have evidence to support it.

We can take it point by point.

If you like to add this information to the existing link.

"The Origin of the Universe"

That way others may read the supportive information.

Rather than hearing my side of the fence.