Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:17 pm**

I know what infinity is.

I don't know what infinity is. I'd like to know, but I don't think the human mind could handle such knowledge.

Now we see deep field images with existing galaxies.

"Deep field" Is a relative term. As we come up with better technology, our field of view will become increasingly deep. Deep compared to infinty?? I think not.

Why even use the BBT as the standard. Mark my words within 3 years time it will be out.

I didn't know it was a standard.. I think it would be called BBS if it weren't a theory. Theories that didn't make it in the past still took their due time to fail. If BBT is completely wrong, it will none the less carry strength until the masses are satisfied with something else.

One of these days, all the questions will be answered, until then we'll do our best to label the facts that we can see, and theorize on the rest.

cheers

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:21 pm**

The Big Bang

It is generally accepted that a massive explosion spawned the universe, creating space and time and generating all the matter and energy the universe will ever hold. It is unclear exactly what triggered this sudden cataclysm in the vacuum of space. It is clear that for an incomprehensibly short period of time, the universe was an infinitely dense fireball.

Scientists believe that a process called inflation was suddenly and wildly activated, enabling a specific, idiosyncratic type of energy to push out and expand the fabric of space. The expansion slowed as this odd energy was transformed into matter and a more familiar type of energy.

In less than a second after it began, inflation ended. The universe continued to expand, but more slowly, becoming less dense and cooler. The fundamental forces of nature emerged in that first second, the strongest of which was gravity. Other particles and energy that made up the infant universe were quarks, electrons, photons and neutrinos. These smashed together to form protons and neutrons.

In the next few minutes, the protons and neutrons coalesced to form the nuclei of simple elements: hydrogen, helium and lithium. It would be hundreds of thousands of years before electrons would join these nuclei to form stable atoms.

For half a million years after the Big Bang, the universe was a gigantic ball of hot, swelling gas. This long period of expansion caused waves of light to be stretched and photons to rush outward. Photons from this period are visible today in the form of microwave radiation. When the temperature of the universe cooled to a certain threshold, electrons were captured into the orbit of the hydrogen and helium nuclei, forming the first atoms.

As the universe continued to swell, gravity brought helium and hydrogen gas clouds together, causing them to become denser and hotter as the atoms collided within. These tight pockets ignited to form stars, groups of which are considered the first galaxies. Modern telescopes can detect the remnants of these primitive galaxies.

Between 1 and 3 billion years after the Big Bang, small galaxies combined and formed elliptical galaxies, resembling shapes like spheres and spirals. Sometimes the union of galaxies was so violent that the stars and galaxies collapsed into huge black holes. Gas flowing into these dense areas of space glowed brightly before disappearing, creating quasars visible across great interstellar distances.

Also during this period, the circle of life inside galaxies was evolving: As new stars were born, others died. Sometimes larger stars put on a glorious show on their way out, erupting in enormous explosions called supernovae. Supernovae assisted in the evolution of the universe by distributing elements such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium and iron into space.

_____________________________________________________________

The WMAP image is a giant step forward in the science of cosmology, which up until now has consisted of lots of theoretical models, but suffered from a lack of data to test cull them. Models can (now) be ruled out.

The best-ever picture of early light, seen in the form of faint microwaves confirms the inflationary "Big Bang" theory of how the universe began, as well as why galaxies exist.
The image of the cosmic microwave background is also a giant step closer to seeing "time-zero". The observed density fluctuations are pretty important to because they grew to be galaxies. And it's because of galaxies that we have stars and planets and places like Earth where life can evolve

_____________________________________________________________

It’s long been speculated that as you get to the Big Bang, quantum theory is going to be important.

Galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics writ large across the sky, referring to the physical theory that rules over matter at the atomic scale and may have reigned in universe's first moments. What has blocked the pre-Big Bang view from theoreticians was the mathematical expression of what was happening -- based on certain assumptions about space-time. The problem was the calculations kept ramming up against infinity. When that happens, equations fail. It’s like having an impenetrable wall. When it comes to infinity we cannot, in physics, go beyond it.

Space-time is a model that combines three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a single unit called the space-time continuum. In this continuum, time is considered the fourth dimension. What was becoming infinite in scientists' calculations was the curvature of the space-time continuum as you near the time when everything in the universe and all the gravity was concentrated into a single point. The pre-Big Bang gravity basically shredded the space-time fabric and left only the physics of atoms -- quantum physics -- to work with.

The general belief is that the continuum may be just an approximation. This is something even Einstein said.

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:10 am**

Think about, do you really think there was a Big Bang and if you do what evidence is there without using fantasy words and maths to make it fit.

I would bestowal my kingdom to see you explain it without the math - in scientific terms.

Without math, it's irrelevant pontifications.

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:13 am**

Hello All

It is exciting to discuss.

Hello Martin, read your post again, what you state is impossible.

I cannot change your thinking. But! do more study on other options.

I remember when the Big Bang was it, and nobody could talk me out of it.

Read this link
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTh ... inning.asp

The following is a list of people who do not agree with the Big Bang, and its not limited to these.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

If you want to sign this statement , please click here

Original Signers | Scientists and Engineers | Independent Researchers | Other Signers

Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)
Highlighted names are linked to related web pages

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA) ................................................. 10
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France) ........................ 20
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA) .................................................................... 30
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

New signers of the Open letter since publication

Scientists and Engineers

Jorge Marao Universidade Estadual de Londrina Brazi
Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d'Electricite, France
John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UK
Jonathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK ................................................................. 40
Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UK
Adolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey .................................. 50
Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d'Astrophysique, CEA, France
Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA ............................................................ 60
Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
Thomas R. Love, CSU Dominguez Hills, USA
Andrew Coles, Embedded Systems, USA
Eit Gaastra, infinite universe researcher, The Netherlands
Franco Selleri, Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, Italy
Gerald Pease, The Aerospace Corporation, USA .............................................................. 70
S.N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, Russia
Miroslaw Kozlowski, Warsaw University (emeritus), Poland
John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Australia
Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA
Tibor Gasparik, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA
Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Henry Hall, University of Manchester, UK
José da Silva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Markus Rohner, Griesser AG, Switzerland
William C. Mitchell, Institute for Advanced Cosmological Studies, USA ............................. 80
Aurea Garcia-Rissmann, UFSC, Brazil
Cristian R. Ghezzi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
Daniel Nicolato Epitácio Pereira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gregory M. Salyards, US Naval Sea Systems Command (ret.), USA
Luiz Carlos Barbosa, Unicamp, Brazil
Luiz Carlos Jafelice, Federal University of the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Michael Sosteric, Athabasca University, Canada
Steven Langley Guy, University of Elizabeth (Physics Department), Australia
Robert Fritzius, Shade Tree Physics, USA
Irineu Gomes Varella, Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ............................................... 90
Tom Walther, Southern Cross University Australia , Australia
Mauro Cosentino, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Moacir Lacerda, Univeersidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
Roberto Assumpcao, PUC Minas, Brazil
Roberto Lopes Parra, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Ronaldo Junio Camppos Batista, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Ermenegildo Caccese, University of Basilicata, Italy
Felipe Sofia Zanuzzo, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil
Edival de Morais, Sociedade Brasileira de Física, Brazil
Graham Coupe, KAZ Technology Services, Australia ....................................................... 100
Gordon Petrie, High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, USA,
Jose B. Almeida, University of Minho, Portugal,
Antonio Cleiton, Laboratório de Sistemas Complexos - UFPI, Brazil
Sergey Karpov, L.V.Kirensky Institute of Physics Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Wagner Patrick Junqueira de Souza Coelho Nicácio, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Sokolov Vladimir, Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS, Russia
Edwin G. Schasteen, TAP-TEN Research Foundation International, USA
Gerry Zeitlin, openseti.org, USA
Henry H. Bauer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA
Yasha Fard,H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada .................................................................. 110
Roberto Caimmi, Astronomy Department, Padua University, Italy
Tobias Keller, ETH (SFIT) Zurich, Earth Sciences, Switzerland,
Deborah Foch, Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, USA,
Henry Reynolds, UC Santa Cruz, USA,
Paramahamsa Tewari, Nuclear Power Corporation (ret.),India
Jouko Seppänen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland,
Cristiane Ribeiro Bernardes, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Eric Blievernicht. TRW, USA
Dr. Robert Bennett, Kolbe Center, USA,
Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa ....................................... 120
Wieslaw Sztumski, Silesian University, Poland
Lars Wåhlin,Colutron Research Corporation,USA
Riccardo Scarpa, European Southern Observatory, Italy,
Olivier Marco, European Southern Observatory, France
Joseph Garcia, International Radiation Protection, Germany,
Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania
Jean de Pontcharra, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France
Gerardus D. Bouw, Baldwin-Wallace College, USA
Josef Lutz, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany,
Harold E. Puthoff, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, USA. .......................................... 130
Hermann Dürkop, Nabla Systemberatung, Germany,
Klaus Fischer, Universität Trier, Germany,
Werner Holzmüller, University Leipzig, Germany
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Richard Gancarczyk, University of Nottingham, UK
Steve Humphry, Murdoch University, Australia
Alberto Bolognesi, Università di Perugia, Italy
Daniele Carosati, Armenzano Observatory, Italy
Brendan Dean, H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada
W. Jim Jastrzebski, Warsaw University, Poland .................................................. 140
Gero Rupprecht, European Southern Observatory, Germany
Rainer Herrmann TEWS-Elektronik Germany
Felix Pharand University of Montreal Canada
Jerry Bergman Northwest State University USA
Tibor Gasparik SUNY at Stony Brook USA
Rei Gunn University of Nantucket USA
Sinan Alis Eyuboglu Twin Observatories Turkey
Esat Rennan Pekünlü University of EGE Turkey
Anne M. Hofmeister Washington U. USA
Quentin Foreman IEEE New Zealand .................................................................... 150
Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada
Y. P. Varshni University of Ottawa Canada
Robert Martinek McMaster University Canada
Bob Criss Washington University USA
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Paul LaViolette, The Starburst Foundation, U.S.A.
Seetesh Pandé, Universite Claude Bernard, Lyon France
TAHIR MAQSOOD, PSA, PAKISTAN
Hartmut Traunmüller, University of Stockholm, Sweden ..................................................... 160
Nico F. Benschop, Amspade Research, Netherlands
Aaron Blake, USAF, USA
M. Ross Fergus, University of Memphis, USA
Sonu Bhaskar, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India
Frederico V. F., Lima Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
Andrei Kirilyuk, Institute of Metal Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine
Christian Jooss, Institut fuer Materialphysik, University of Goettingen, Germany
Sonu Bhaskar, BCISR, India
Robert O. Myers, ROM Technologies, USA
Ana Cristina Oliveira, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil ..................................... 170
John Wey, Idaho National Laboratory, USA
Jorge Francisco Maldonado Serrano, UIS, Colombia
Pasquale Galianni, Dipartimento di Fisica Università di Lecce, Italy
Martín López-Corredoira, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, Spain
Michael A. Ivanov, Belarus State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics, Belarus
Xiao Jianhua , Shanghai Jiaotong University, China
Pierre J. Beaujon, Hoornbeeck College, The Netherlands
J.Georg von Brzeski Helios Labs. USA
vidyardhi nanduri , Cosmology Research center , India
Mike Rotch NBSA USA ....................................................... 180
Paul Noel, Independent_Researcher, USA
Swee Eng, AW Royal College of Pathologists, SINGAPORE
Ricardo Rodríguez , La Laguna University , Spain
Linda Camp Harvard University USA
James B. Schwartz , The Noah's Ark Research Foundation , Philippines
Marshall Douglas Smith , TeddySpeaks Foundation ,USA
Abbé Grumel , Association Copernic , France
Ives van Leth Waterboard Utrecht The Netherlands
Francis Michael C. Perez, Department of Transportation, USA
AHMED A. EL-DASH UNICAMP BRAZIL ................................................... 190
David C Ware, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Alek Atevik, Skopje Astronomy Society, Macedonia
Peter Rowlands, University of Liverpool, UK
Robert Day, Suntola Consulting, Ltd., USA
Luís Paulo Sousa Loureiro, Portugal
Maingot Fabrice, Université Louis Pasteur, France
Kris Krogh, University of California, USA
Pierre-Marie Robitaille, The Ohio State University, United States
Charles Creager Jr, Creation Research Society, United States
Stephan Gift, The University of the West Indies, St Augustine Campus, Trinidad and Tobago ... 200
Joseph J. Smulsky, Institute of Earth's Cryosphere Siberian Branch Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Jorge Marao Universidade Estadual de Londrina Brazil
Jim O'Reilly Orion Consultants USA
Robert MacKay University of Warwick UK
Chris Vermeulen Astronomical Society of Southern Africa South Africa
Emilson Pereira Leite Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics Brazil
Allen W Green ATK Space Systems USA
Ron Balsys Central Queensland University Australia
Paul ten Boom University of New South Wales Australia
Mosheh Thezion The Empirical Church, USA .......................................... 210
Markus, Karsten,, Wilhelm-Foerster-Observatory Berlin e.V
Don. C. Wilson,: Process Technology and Development, USA
Marek Gajewski, Raytheon Co.,USA
Tuncay DOGAN, University of EGE, Turkey
Andrew M Uhl, Pennsylvania State Univeristy, USA
Klaus Wieder, Independent_Researcher, Germany
John Caley, Omegafour Pty Ltd, Australia
Keith Scott-Mumby, Capital University for Integrative Medicine/California
Institute for Human Sciences, USA ............................. 218

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Independent Researchers

Garth A Barber, independent researcher, UK
Alberto Bolognesi, Independent Researcher, Italy
DEAN L MAMAS, Independent Researcher, USA
David Blackford, Independent_Researcher, UK
Alan Rees, Independent Researcher, Sweden
Udayan Chakravarty, Independent Researcher, India
Georg Gane, Independent Researcher, Germany
Robin Whittle, Independent Researcher, Australi,
Joseph A. Rybczyk, Independent Researcher, USA
G.Srinivasan, Independent_Researcher, India, ........................................................ 10
Geoffrey E. Willcher independent researcher USA
Douglas S. Robbemond independent researcher the Netherlands
khosrow fariborzi independent researcher Iran
Etienne Bielen independent researcher Belgium
Steve Newman independent researcher USA
Ethan Skyler, Independent researcher, USA
Yvon Dufour, Independent Researcher, Canada
Jorge Ales Corona Independent Researcher Spain
Cristiano De Angelis, Independent Researcher, Italy
Roland Le Houillier, Independent Researcher, Canada ................................................ 20
Richard Tobey Independent researcher USA
Steve McMahon Independent researcher USA
Eugene Savov, Independent researcher, Bulgaria
Lars Woldseth, Independent researcher, Norway
Robert L. Brueck, Independent researcher, USA
Mark S Thornhill, Independent Researcher, United Kingdom
Nainan. K. Varghese, Independent Researcher, India,
Andrew Kulikovsky, Independent Researcher, Australia
Charles Sven, Independent Researcher, USA
Gabriele Manzotti, Independent Researcher, Italy ..................................................... 30
Brian S. Clark independent researcher USA
Jim O'Reilly Orion Consultants USA
Geoffrey E. Willcher independent researcher USA
Douglas S. Robbemond independent researcher the Netherlands
khosrow fariborzi independent researcher Iran
Etienne Bielen independent researcher Belgium
Steve Newman independent researcher USA
Thomas G. Franzel independent researcher USA
Bernhard Reddemann independent researcher Germany
Ives van Leth Waterboard Utrecht The Netherlands ............................................... 40
Jeroen van der Rijst independent researcher The Netherlands
Harry Costas independent researcher Australia
Andrei Wasylyk independent researcher Canada
Jack Ruijs independent researcher The Netherlands
Leo Sarasúa independent researcher The Netherlands
Edward Smith independent researcher USA
Linda Camp Harvard University USA
Gary Meade independent researcher USA
Stan Kabacinski independent researcher Australia
Jack Dejong independent researcher USA ........................................................... 50
J.Georg von Brzeski Helios Labs. USA
Nigel Edwards, Independent Researcher, Australia
Dieter Schumacher, Independent Researcher, Germany
Rudolf Kiesslinger, Independent Researcher, Germany
Gerd Schulte, Independent Researcher, Germany
Stuart Eves, Independent Researcher, UK
James Marsen independent researcher USA
Edgar Paternina independent researcher Colombia
Donald E. Scott Independent_Researcher: USA
José M?df; Cat Casanovas, Independent researcher, Spain ........................................... 60
Aaron Hill, Independent Researcher, USA,
Hans-Dieter Radecke, Independent Researcher, Germany
Mawell P Davis Independent Researcher New Zealand
Gordon E. Mackay Independent Researcher USA
Dave Sagar Independent Researcher USA
Benjamin I. Iglesias Independent Researcher Spain
Alper Kozan Independent Researcher Turkey
Hartmut Warm, Independent Researcher, Germany
Jan Mugele Independent Researcher Germany
Andrew Rigg Independent Researcher Australia ...................................................... 70
Thomas Riedel Independent researcher Denmark
Helen Workman Independent researcher Canada
Morris Anderson, Independent researcher, USA
Mario Cosentino, Independent researcher, France
Paul Richard Price, Independent researcher, United States
Philip Lilien, Independent Researcher, USA
Ott Köstner, Independent researcher, Estonia
Bozidar Kornic, Independent researcher, USA
William F. Hamilton, Independent researcher, U.S.A.
Joel Morrison, Independent researcher, USA ....................................................... 80
James R. Frass, Independent Researcher, Canada
Arnold Wittkamp, Independent Researcher, Netherlands
Dimi Chakalov, Independent Researcher, Bulgaria
Herb Doughty, Independent Researcher, USA
Robert F. Beck, Independent Researcher, UK
Tuomo Suntola, Independent Researcher, Finland
Richard Hillgrove, Independent Researcher, New Zealand
Herbert J. Spencer, Independent Researcher, Canada
Thomas B. Andrews, Independent Researcher, USA
John Dean , Independent Researcher , South Africa ........................................................ 90
Peter Loster , Independent Researcher , Germany
Charles Francis, Independent Researcher , UK
Ahmed Mowaffaq AlANNI , Independent Researcher , Iraq
Mogens Wegener , Independent Researcher , DENMARK
Peter Jakubowski, Independent Researcher , Germany
John Brodix Merryman Jr. , Independent Researcher , USA
Christian Boland , Independent Researcher , Belgium
Warren S. Taylor, Independent Researcher, USA
Constantin Leshan, Independent Researcher , Moldova
Avid Samwaru, Independent Researcher, USA ...................................................... 100
Thomas Goodey, Independent Researcher, UK
Johan Masreliez, Independent Researcher, USA
Efrèn Cañedo, Independent Researcher , Mèxico
Michael Bliznetsov, Independent Researcher, Russia
Peter Michalicka, Independent Researcher, Austria
Ivan D. Alexander , Independent Researcher,
S. Ray DeRusse, Independent Researcher, USA
Chris Maharaj, Independent Researcher, Trinidad
Peter Warlow, Independent Researcher, United Kingdom
Gordon Wheeler, Independent Researcher, United States .................................................. 110
Boxer Ma, Independent Researcher, Thailand
Robert Wido, Independent Researcher, United States
John Hunter independent researcher U.K
Marcelo de Almeida Bueno independent researcher Brazil
Jean-Pierre Ady Fenyo, Independent Researcher, United Status
Adam W.L. Chan , Independent Researcher , Hong Kong
Renato Giussani independent researcher Italy
Brian S. Clark independent researcher USA
Mustafa Kemal Oyman, Independent Researcher, Turkey
Richard Wayte, independent researcher, UK ....................................................... 120
Ron Ragusa independent researcher USA
N.Vivian Pope independent researcher UK
Roy Caswell independent researcher United Kingdom
Erin S. Myers independent researcher USA
Ugo Nwaozuzu independent researcher Singapore
Daniel Coman independent researcher USA
Birgid Mueller independent researcher Mexico
Mihail Gonta independent researcher Moldova
Vladimir Rogozhin independent researcher Russia
J. J. Weissmuller independent researcher USA ......................................................... 130
Muhammed Anwar independent researcher India
Geldtmeijer Djamidin independent researcher Netherlands
Scott G. Beach independent researcher Canada
Neil Hargreaves independent researcher UK
julian braggins independent researcher Australia
Kari Saarikoski, Independent_Researcher, Finland
Marcelo de Almeida Bueno independent researcher Brazil
Ron Ragusa independent researcher USA
Brian S. Clark independent researcher USA
Geoffrey E. Willcher independent researcher USA .................................................. 140
Douglas S. Robbemond independent researcher the Netherlands
khosrow fariborzi independent researcher Iran
Etienne Bielen independent researcher Belgium
Steve Newman independent researcher USA
John Hunter independent researcher U.K
Jeroen van der Rijst independent researcher The Netherlands
Thomas G. Franzel independent researcher USA
Bernhard Reddemann independent researcher Germany
Leo Sarasúa independent researcher The Netherlands
Edward Smith independent researcher USA .......................................................... 150
Gary Meade independent researcher USA
Stan Kabacinski independent researcher Australia
Jack Dejong independent researcher USA
Harry Costas independent researcher Australia
Andrei Wasylyk independent researcher Canada
Jack Ruijs independent researcher The Netherlands
James Marsen independent researcher USA
Edgar Paternina independent researcher Colombia
Ghertza Roman, Independent_Researcher, Romania
Roland Schubert, Independent_Researcher, Germany ..................................... 160
Alexandre Wajnberg, Independent Researcher, Skyne, Belgium
Dennis H Cowdrick Scientific Independent_Researcher: USA
Michail Telegin Independent_Researcher: Russia
Robert L Stafford, Independent_Researcher, USA
Martin Sach, Independent_Researcher, UK
Charles L. Sanders, Independent_Researcher, USA/South Korea
Alex Carlson, Independent_Researcher, United States
Lyndon Ashmore, Independent_Researcher, UK
Liedmann, Matthias, Unaffiliated_Scientific_Researcher, Germany
Ingvar Astrand, Independent_Researcher, Sweden ......................................... 170
Olli Santavuori, Independent_Researcher, Finlande
Touho Ankka, Independent_Researcher, Finland
JR Croca, Independent_Researcher, Portugal
Sol Aisenberg, Independent_Researcher, USA
Mustafa Kemal OYMAN, Independent_Researcher, Turkey
Gerard ZONUS, Independent_Researcher, FRANCE
David W. Knight, Independent_Researcher, USA
Marcel Lutttgens, Independent_Researcher, France
Dr Stephen Birch, Independent_Researcher, United Kingdom
Abramyan G.L., Independent_Researcher, Russia .................................. 180
Martin Peprnik, Independent_Researcher, Slowakia
Van Den Hauwe, PhD, Independent_Researcher,: Belgium
Ingvar Astrand, Independent_Researcher, Sweden
Daniel Toohey, Independent_Researcher, Australia
Jed Shlackman, M.S. Ed. (LMHC, C.Ht.), Independent_Researcher, USA
Dr. John Michael Nahay, Independent_Researcher
Guido Grzinic, Independent_Researcher, Australia ................. 187

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Signers

Charles Weber,USA
David Gershon ,USA
Peter G Smith ,USA
Richard J. Lawrence ,USA
Naszvadi László, Hungary
Roger W. Browne, USA
Bart Clauwens, Netherlands
Noah Feiler-Poethke, USA
Jonathan Hardy, UK
John S. Kundrat, USA ........................................................................... 10
Vincent Sauve, USA
Chris Somers, Australia
Jagroop Sahota, USA
Edgar Raab, Germany
Gordon Hogenson, USA
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Burebista Dacia, Romania
Christel Hahn, Germany
Robert Angstrom, USA .............................................................................. 20
Norman Chadwick, USA
Harley Orr, USA
Clive Martin-Ross, UK
Alasdair Martin, UK
Marcus Ellspermann, Germany
Bruce Richardson, USA
John Dill, USA
Judith Woollard Australia
Michael Cyrek USA
Randall Meyers ITALY ............................................................................................... 30
Craig Arend USA
Onur Cantimur Turkey
Roland Scheel France
Murat Isik Turkey
Markus Hellebrandt Germany
Mehmet Kara Turkey
Abhishek Dey Das India
D. N. Vazquez USA
Suzan R. Rodenburg USA
Shuming Zhang China ................................................................................................. 40
Codie Vickers USA
Richard Tobey USA
Elfriede Steiner-Grillmair, Canada
Gabriele Manzotti, Italy
Michael Wember, USA
Fuksz Levente, Romania
Seppo Tuominen, Finland
Marvin C. Katz, USA
Laura Fridley, USA
Michael Christian, U.S.A ........................................................................................... 50
Edgar S. Hill USA
Q. John T. Malone USA
Michael Bruttel Switzerland
Eric W. LaFlamme USA
Robert Diegis, Romania
William S. Jarnagin, USA
Kevin Glaser, USA
Robert Diegis, Romania
William S. Jarnagin, USA
Kevin Glaser, USA ................................................................................................ 60
JoAnn Arcuri USA
Attila Csanyi USA
Pratik Sinha India
Donald C. Bull New Zealand
Hans Walhout Netherlands
Robyn Stewart Australia
Tor Johannessen Norway
Rick Schmidt USA
Terence Watts UK
Jody Fulford USA ............................................................................................ 70
Gene Gordon USA
Monica Veloso Alves Brazil
Ferdi Prins South Africa
Adam Hansil USA
Herbert M Watson USA
John Patchett UK
Jurrie Noordijk, The Netherlands
P.S. Phillips, U.S.A
JoAnn Arcuri USA
Martin Gradwell , ns, United Kingdom .............................................................. 80
Sami Murtomäki, Ns, Finland
Anthony Abruzzo , United States
Tim Reed, ns, USA
Daniel Rijo , ns, USA
Ken Couesbouc , ns, France
David L. Harrison, United States
Kees de Boer
Tom HigginsUSA
David Calder Hardy, New Zealand
Jochen Moerman, Belgium ......................................................................... 90
Berend de Boer, New Zealand
Edward E. Rom, USA
Jukka Kinnunen, Finland
Jerome M. Hall, USA
Maria Alvarez, Argentina
Paul Chabot, Canada
Julia, Russia
Amr Malik: Canada
Maureen Bevill, USA
Horst Barwinek, Austria................................................................ 100
Lindsay Smith, Australia
Richard DeLano, USA.
Stefan Landherr, Australia
Peter Wilson, USA
Gregory Kiser, USA ............................................................. 105

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:37 am**

I would ignore the large majority of people on this list as "independent researchers" are notoriously intellectually deficient and there are a number of institutions on there that I've never heard of. However I'll check out the story behind the guys at the recognised institutions and see what their ideas are.

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:44 am**

Hello Cosmo -UK

Check the evidence more important than the number on the list.
==========================================
I read this sometime ago

News flash. Sydney Morning Herald.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"London: The universe we live in may not be the only one but just the latest in a line of repeating big bangs stretching back through time, according to the latest theory from cosmologists.
Instead of being formed from a single big bang about 14 billion years ago destined to expand and eventually peter out to the cold, dead remains of stars, the universe may be an endless loop of explosions and contractions stretching forever.
The latest theory has been postulated to account for what Einstein described as his biggest Blunder"", the cosmological constant, a number linking energy and space, which he proposed to account for the galaxies being driven apart."
Physcists have since than measured the number as too small.
The constant is a mathematical representaion of the energy of empty space, known as dark energy, which exerts a kind of anti-gravity, pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate. It hapens to be a googol(1 followed by 100 zeros) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single big bang.
According to the new theory, published yesterday in the journal Science, the discrepancy can be explained if the universe itself is billions of years older and fashioned from cyclical big bangs.
people have infered that time began then, but there really wasn't a reason for that infrernce, said Neil Turok, a theoretical physcist at Cambridge University in Britain. " what we are proposing is very radical. Its saying there was time before the Big Bang".
There doesn't have to be a beginning of time, Professor Turok said. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinetly large".
If this theory is right, how long have we got until the next big bang?
Professor Turok said " We can't predict when it will happen with any precision- all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:31 pm**

More speculation- no science.

Posted: **Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:07 pm**

Harry,

As I stated several times before in previous posts, our understanding of the event is limited to our current abilities and our intellectual capacity.

Do we know exactly what happened before it –NO! Do we know exactly what happened after it –not exactly! We will add to the BBT and we will take from the BBT because that is the intellectual process of true science -but at the end of the day –THERE IT REMAINS! The Big Bounce, the multiple bang theory or the M-theory does not diminish the BBT –rather it only adds to it our comprehension of it.

If you are capable of rational thought then you are capable of admitting this to others.

Question: How do you explain the fact that the most distant stars of any galaxy remain in orbit opposed to them just drifting off into deep space?

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:57 am**

There doesn't have to be a beginning of time, Professor Turok said. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinetly large".

No credible scientist would ever publish a paper stating such a vague concept without following with a strong argument. -Everything - as in everything - is measured in quantum units ⇒ summations of quantum units cannot =f∞. Period!

Posted: **Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:26 am**

Hi Harry, Martin and Dr S

I wouldn't say Turok was not a credible scientist but he and the other multi bang, M/string theory etc people are generally highly skilled mathematicians (I live with one) who concentrate on the universe as a whole rather than whats in it. As an observational cosmologist I've seen no convincing evidence to suggest that the BB is incorrect

Posted: **Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:22 pm**

Hi All I came across the following post by Harry, the pedant in me wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't note a few problems with these assertions.

A small amount of background on myself, I am an astronomer (or try to be), I'm not a to the death defender of any particular theory (im not old enough for that), I use whichever one fits the observables the best and at present that is the BB.

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

#The BB isnt struggling for viability, it allows us to accuratly reproduce the observed large scale structure of the universe in computer models, something that is still amazing to me.

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

# This is an interesting point as I'm not sure what your claiming here, I don't really know what data your talking about, but the fact that all distant galaxies are observed to have recessional velocities must surely be a problem for a static Universe. Or perhaps you think only the galaxies are moving but the universe is static? In that case the MW must have some sort of infection and every galaxy outside the local group must be trying to get away from us. Or maybe you think light is slowing down or something else that is already disproven by laboratory physics.

2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

#Related to the point above, if the Universe is static it is presumably also eternal, therefore as was conjectured by Olbers the night sky should be as bright at the Sun, as every single line of sight would eventually hit a star so the surface brightness of the sky would be that of an average type star i.e the sun. This is of course very different situation to that found in the CMB.
Another way to look at this is to look at the energy in starlight, this has recently been done by Dole et al 2006. They find that the energy in optical and infrared background light (starlight) is only equal to perhaps 10% of the energy of the CMB. This would require some very strange physics indeed. As you would need to convert 90% of the starlight that has been created into the CMB but in such a manner that stops happening before the present epoch (because we could observe it).

3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

#This is another interesting point, as it is actually very confused. If you have ever had experience fitting models to data you will find that it
is actually considerably easier to make your models fit the data (i.e. work) if you have more free parameters. The reason that there are so many free parameters is that nuclear physics is HARD, to do with all the different interactions going on i.e. Weak Nuclear force, Strong Nuclear Force and Electromagnetic force. I'm sure it would be nice to be able to live in world where you can describe nuclear fusion reactions and decays by only two numbers but unfortunately science doesnt work like that. In addition to this the BB predictions are pretty damn good, in fact the agreement is one of the main reasons for the acceptance of BB nucleosynthesis.

4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

# This point is actually true, if you dont allow for the effects of Dark Matter. When you do, everything works beautifully.

5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

# I don't really understand enough about this to comment except to say that the quasars that exist in the nearby universe are not the same as ones found at high redshift, due to evolution that has occurred in the intervening period. The gas they are accreting is higher in metallicities and they tend to exist in smaller galaxies.

6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

# This is one point I can really comment on, I work on Globular Cluster systems and this point is flat out wrong. It was the case several years ago that this appeared to be true, but that was due to the models used in the field to estimated the age of GCs from their spectra. Modern models take into account subleties that were ignored previously. In the past 3 years I have not seen a single GC that has high signal-to-noise spectra have an age that is more than 12-13Gyr, despite the models frequently allowing ages up to 18Gyr.

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

# This is also wrong. People have counted the mass in the local regions and find that the local streaming motions are entirely consistent with the observed galaxy distributions (assuming that DM is associated in the same ways as it is in the MW). The other point is that no one has ever claimed the Universe is uniform, on average it is, but in local areas (i.e regions less than about 0.5Gpc) there is structure that is obvious to see. As you noted in point 4 there are large structures visible in the universe, so it clearly is not everywhere uniform. Gravity built these large structures, and continues to build them, in fact most of the Milky Ways motion is due to the attraction of the very large Virgo Cluster of galaxies.

8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

#Not technically true, at the present time 70% of the energy/matter in the Universe is dark energy, 25% is dark matter and the rest is baryonic matter. I'll admit that a lot of astronomers are uncomfortable with Dark energy, but it does fit so many observable so well. Dark matter however is not controversial, its effect is seen in a dozen different ways, from spiral rotation curves, to X-ray profiles of galaxies to gravitational arcs.

9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

# Not sure the point being made is. I think this betrays a lack of understanding of selection effects. Its not possible to simply observe everything, in fact it is almost impossible to get redshifts for objects in the range of z=7-10, this is simply because the spectra have been so redshifted that any emission/absorbtion lines in their spectra are shifted into the far infra red, where technology means its not possible to get spectra that would allow a redshift to be determined.

10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

# This is another re-tread of the fine tuning argument which a lot of people have problems with, the fact is though its simply not a problem. This can be understood by a simple thought experiment: What would have happened if it hadnt been that way? Answer we wouldnt be here to be having a discussion on whether its odd the Universe has conditions that allow us to exist.

Posted: **Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:54 pm**

Thanks Astro-UK,

As a layman struggling to understand the BB and its various ins & outs, I am glad to hear I'm not wasting my time. Am too old a dog to learn new tricks, when I still have difficulty learning this one.

Posted: **Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:39 am**

Hello Astro-uk

I could comment on your genral statement.

I would rather you read up on

http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY

Barry Setterfield & Daniel Dzimano

15th December 2003.

Abstract

The history of the redshift is traced and a variety of problems listed in addition to two major anomalies. One of these anomalies is the quantized redshift, which was first noted by Tifft in 1976 and was again confirmed in 2003 by Bell. The second anomaly is the breakdown in the redshift/distance relationship, evidenced by the observations of distant Type Ia supernovae, that has revived interest in the action of the cosmological constant. These problems and anomalies admit a resolution if the energy density of the electromagnetic fields making up the vacuum Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is increasing with time. This approach predicts that light emitted from distant galaxies should have a basic redshift quantization of 2.671 km/s, which is in good agreement with Tifft’s basic quantum of 2.667 km/s. In addition, the standard redshift/distance relationship is shown to derive from known physical processes that produced the ZPE rather than the expansion of space-time or the motion of galaxies. The equations governing these processes readily allow an alternate explanation for the deviation from the standard formula at high redshifts without recourse to the action of a cosmological constant

and get out of the Big Bang tunnel vision.

===========================================

Hello Toejam

Smile, take one day at a time. Look at the evidence. There are no sides to go to. The old man syndrome is just an attitude.

Posted: **Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:46 am**

astro_ukastro_uk:

Good post.

Real science. Real thoughts. No unqualified URLs!

Oh, hi and welcome.

Posted: **Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:53 am**

Very interesting on the face of it.
Until you dig just a little bit deeper.

First of all the "paper" you reference has never been peer reviewed, in fact it is also written by people in the paid service of a Creationist Science organisation hardly the most independent of thinkers. Also the authors have no real background or training in astronomy or physics.

Aside from that they cite a paper by Bell 2003 prominently in their abstract which supposedly proves the existence of this effect, they mysteriously forget to reference it at the end though, despite managing to reference Max Plank from 1911. A quick search on ADS shows that no papers published or peer reviewed with anyone called Bell as first author made any such claims. So either Bell 2003 doesn't exist or it also has not been reviewed by any one that knows anything about the topic.

On a more serious note they totally misrepresent the words of several astronomers, for example

“Thus, redshift does not really have anything to do with velocities at all in cosmology. The redshift is a … dimensionless number which … tells us the relative distance between galaxies when the light was emitted compared with that distance now. It is a great pity that Hubble multiplied z by c. I hope we will eventually get rid of the c.”

what he is actually saying is that no astronomer thinks that redshift is due to a galaxy moving away from us, the redshift is due the fact that space is expanding between the two objects (and in fact an objects which are not graviationally bound). The next quote attributed to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is equally puzzling, as these are exceptionally good physicists i will have to check if they have been quoted accurately but the point of the quote is totally spurious

"Nor are the quasar redshifts likely to be Doppler; how could so massive an object be accelerated to v ~ 1 [the speed of light] without complete disruption?”

As has already been explained the galaxies do not feel an accelaration, they are gravitationally bound and its the space between them that expands, this is why it is possible to have z greater than 1.

The rest of the "paper" is littered with such misunderstandings.

On a more interesting note, the effect you discuss was discounted in this paper in '02

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0208117

check it out, this is how science is actually done, with a real paper carefully examined by a group of peers that understand the data, the theories and the problems with analysing data.

For those who dont want to wade through this let me summarise: the redshift quantization is an artifact of how you collect your data. In the past we only had quasar surveys that covered very small angular regions of the sky, the sample of quasar redshifts is also not fair. Because there are not a large amount of quasars at low redshift in your selection area but more at large redshift (because your area on the sky forms a cone in redshift). Also you have problems selecting quasars at large redshift because thier colours change (because the light is redshifted from one colour to another) so they drop out of your sample. Combine this with the fact that galaxies and therefore quasars tend to be found in clusters, this means that sometimes your quasars will be physically associated at the same redshift (i.e they are in the same cluster) and as you look further back in redshift you tend to see more clusters so you begin to see a random signal because of the separation between clusters. All of these effects combine when you have a small number of quasars like Tifft did, when you get a huge sample like the 2dF and combine that with an understanding of how you have biased your sample the effect vanishes.

The devil really is in the details.

This is why self proclaimed "self taught" experts should always be treated with some caution as any analysis of data requires a deep undertanding of the way it was selected.

Hope this clears up a few points.

Posted: **Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:35 pm**

Hello Astro-uk

You sound that you know what you are saying, I respect that.

Since you are from UK, I assume.

Can you check out :

News flash. Sydney Morning Herald.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"London: The universe we live in may not be the only one but just the latest in a line of repeating big bangs stretching back through time, according to the latest theory from cosmologists.
Instead of being formed from a single big bang about 14 billion years ago destined to expand and eventually peter out to the cold, dead remains of stars, the universe may be an endless loop of explosions and contractions stretching forever.
The latest theory has been postulated to account for what Einstein described as his biggest Blunder"", the cosmological constant, a number linking energy and space, which he proposed to account for the galaxies being driven apart."
Physcists have since than measured the number as too small.
The constant is a mathematical representaion of the energy of empty space, known as dark energy, which exerts a kind of anti-gravity, pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate. It hapens to be a googol(1 followed by 100 zeros) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single big bang.
According to the new theory, published yesterday in the journal Science, the discrepancy can be explained if the universe itself is billions of years older and fashioned from cyclical big bangs.
people have infered that time began then, but there really wasn't a reason for that infrernce, said Neil Turok, a theoretical physcist at Cambridge University in Britain. " what we are proposing is very radical. Its saying there was time before the Big Bang".
There doesn't have to be a beginning of time, Professor Turok said. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinetly large".
If this theory is right, how long have we got until the next big bang?
Professor Turok said " We can't predict when it will happen with any precision- all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years".

=============================================

Although I disagree with what you say, that does not make me right.
Through out history many scientists who speak well and talk above other, think this makes it right. History proves in many cases the majority being wrong.

I remember when I was so emotionally strong in my belief in the BBT, that I got very aggressive with people who spoke against a standard model. I now smile.

Posted: **Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:47 pm**

Well said astro!

Finally a post on here I can entirely agree with

I would recommend everyone to look at NASA's ADS site to find the papers they quote on here to back up their arguments otherwise they will be non peer reviewed and as such open to ridicule. I'm sure this will prompt some people to say that there is some sort of conspiracy against "independent thinkers" but there is nothing stopping them from submitting their work to a reputable journal.

Cosmo

Posted: **Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:06 pm**

hello Harry

As I've said before theorists such as Turok are highly skilled mathematicians whom I respect. However he is not saying that there was no big bang. In fact his version of the universe would look just the same as the single BB version BUT the theorists (not the observers) have a problem with their equations that gives too small a value for dark energy. To correct for this they introduce the many Big Bangs. I am not disagreeing with him as he may well be entirely correct but we cannot observe things that happened before the BB (or the most recent BB

) or things that will happen in the future so the work of the theorists is a kind of complicated mathematical philosophy.

In summary he could well be right but we will never know for sure and our observations are entirely consistent with the single BB

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:31 am**

Hello All

Hi! cosmo, it is better to look at each point and the evidence for and against.

Today, i'm off to look at another project.

If you are interested to join in on this form of discussion, I would be more than happy to have you part of it. That goes for anybody.

We could set up a form or method on how to do this and maybe resolve some issues.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:57 am**

Thanks astro_uk, your comments are very rational and informative!

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:15 am**

Why should the universe have an origin or beginning? Seems to me this assumptions needs to be examined before you can start entertaining specific scenarios, espeically since it arguably makes a nonsense of the word itself. How can something universal have an origin?

For thousands of years before modern theoretical physics came on the scene, religious belief systems have assumed that the universe had a beginning. Many religions have a Genesis-type story to establish the omnipotence of a deity or the primacy of a spiritual existence.

Theoretical physics's theories of the origin of the universe therefore have some explaining to do as to why they so closely resemble religious narratives in their assumptions.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:17 pm**

rummij wrote:Why should the universe have an origin or beginning? Seems to me this assumptions needs to be examined before you can start entertaining specific scenarios, espeically since it arguably makes a nonsense of the word itself. How can something universal have an origin?

For thousands of years before modern theoretical physics came on the scene, religious belief systems have assumed that the universe had a beginning. Many religions have a Genesis-type story to establish the omnipotence of a deity or the primacy of a spiritual existence.

Theoretical physics's theories of the origin of the universe therefore have some explaining to do as to why they so closely resemble religious narratives in their assumptions.

Let me help you understand the question first.

On another thread I posted:

-Everything - as in everything - is measured in quantum units ⇒ summations of quantum units cannot = f∞. Period!

Summation: The universe cannot be infinite in size, mass or age.

The reason the theory(s) of the origin of the universe parallel religious narratives is because they are both equally non-provable arguments.

No theory can be ever be proven - only disproved.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:56 pm**

Hello rummij

The Idea is correct.

The universe is endless.

The parts within are not infinite in age. The process of recycling alters the age of the parts within the Universe.

If you think along the lines of the Big Bang, than you will have a start to it all. This start is from an infinite point called a singularity where time and space is beyond our thoughts.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2006 3:24 pm**

harry wrote:Hello rummij

The Idea is correct.

The universe is endless.

The parts within are not infinite in age. The process of recycling alters the age of the parts within the Universe.

If you think along the lines of the Big Bang, than you will have a start to it all. This start is from an infinite point called a singularity where time and space is beyond our thoughts.

How can you scientifically explain away

-Everything - as in everything - is measured in quantum units ⇒ summations of quantum units cannot = f∞. Period!

If you can't, you are speaking of a philosophical concept not a scientific one.

Here is one example of an infinite number of conflicts if infinity is allowed to exist in our universe:

What are to odds of an exact duplicate of Earth entering the Earths orbital plane where we can all meet ourselves?

Answer: 1/infinity

With the universe being infinite in size, the equation infinity/infinity = 1 or 100% chance.

That is the size of infinity!

If you are not shaking hands with your other self right now, infinity does not exist.

Posted: **Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:02 pm**

While I disagree with Dr. Skeptics logic the essential point is true, an infinite Universe is not plausible given current understanding. It really doesnt matter anyway, as we are always limited to observing regions of the Universe within the sphere that light has had time to travel across to reach us. I.e assuming a constant non expanding Universe it would simply have a radius equal to the age of the Universe x speed of light. Now as has already been discussed in the real Universe due to expansion and various other effects the sphere actually has a radius greater than this, but still the principle holds. So whatever Universe we live in (infinite or BB model), we are limited to seeing only a region of it.

Note that this assumes that the Universe is infinite only in size, if it is also infinite in age we run into the problem that demonstrably rules out Harrys ideas about an infinite recycled Universe. Namely the Olbers paradox, that if the Universe is infinitely old and constantly recycled then the sky would be as bright as the surface of the Sun. This is simply due to the fact that no matter what direction you looked in, your line of sight would hit a star. There is simply no way to get round this without invoking strange theories that light emitted from these stars somehow decays before it reaches us. This is a non-starter because laboratory experiments of quantum physics demonstrate that this is ruled out, especially on the short timescales (cosmologically speaking) that would be required.

Starship Asterisk*

Origins of the UNIVERSE

Hi all