Starship Asterisk*

Hello All

As per the discussiion with aichip.

If we can discuss the origins of the universe putting forth all models and ideas to the table.

I know there are a number of models.

The standard model is the Big Bang Theory

Which model is correct ?


All for one and one for all.

Given that there is no empirical evidence because all of space/time would fall in on itself at that point, i like theories that try to add in a bit of pre-universe state

accidental point collision between vast dimensional energy membranes =>
big bang/ energy leak =>
hot rapidly inflating plasma soup that starts to congeal as it cools/expands =>
atoms congeal on the expanding cooling soup's surface into huge gas-mould structures and alarmingly large proto-star croutons =>
more exotic energy dissipation systems appear: supernovae, collapsing neutron stars, black holes...everything wants in on the free energy =>
black holes lead to galaxy formation, becoming super massive, trying to eat up more of the universe's free energy / supernovae lead to smaller suns with planetary dust-disks =>
planets occasionally lead to LIFE =>
Life leaves all it's appliances on at night and consumes the last remnants of the 'verse's energy =>
TV winks out of existence in a cold pathetic fizzle; goodnight, gracie

We're just an energy leak, that grew energy mould, which consumed the energy and then went brown and dusty and will sit there looking digusting in some back-of-the-cupboard dimension for all the other more interesting multiple-history 'verses to poke fun at

Hello All

I took this from a Sydney paper a few months 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".

I will hold back on my opinion, for the simple reason I do not want to influence which model to take on board. More so for the new comers to cosmology.

Consider that a cyclic universe is not necessarily ruled out, but so far we don't really see any evidence that a "big crunch" will occur- quite the opposite. But there are alternatives as well.

First, there are three basic types of universe (in theory). They are "one shot" universes where there is a big explosion or event that creates it all, and then it all runs downhill one way or another. Then you have "steady state" universes that seem to create enough matter to fill the voids as expansion occurs, or some such mechanism that makes it last indefinitely without ever running down due to entropy. Finally, there are the cyclic universes that expand and collapse indefinitely, renewing in each cycle.

So far, our universe seems to be of the first type, where some cataclysm brought it all about in the beginning, and it might either expand from dark matter repulsion or run down due to heat death, or some other ultimate end.

However, that is not the end of the matter. There are other possibilities, even if you have "one shot" universes. Consider that our universe might well be simply one of an innumerable number of universes in some larger manifold. Think of the concept that universes with various physical properties might be emerging all the time, and some will support chemistry and life, others will not. Some might be nothing more than photons radiating outward forever, some might have such density that they immediately form black holes, but these universes, in concept, are forever sealed off from each other.

In this scenario, our universe might be one of this "grape cluster" of bubble universes in the larger manifold, which some crudely refer to as a "higher dimension".

Now, there are other possibilities. Perhaps the formation of a black hole spawns a new, interior daughter universe, and in that interior universe (still sealed off from the parent universe) there could be identical or slightly different physical laws, and so a sort of inherited rule set might determine most of the properties of these daughter universes. This is a new universe that you might have access to, depending on your level of technology.

This is just a sampling of the possibilities, and I have only touched the surface of the subject. However, the "Big Bang" might conceivably be a simple process to explain where it came from in our case,and we would be hard pressed to prove otherwise. After all, a huge mass collapsing into a black hole in some parent universe would strongly resemble a big bang to those inside a universe, emerging billions of (internal) years after the event. To an outsider, it might only take moments.

harry wrote:Hello All

I took this from a Sydney paper a few months 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".

I will hold back on my opinion, for the simple reason I do not want to influence which model to take on board. More so for the new comers to cosmology.

A newspaper is not considered a scientific paper that needs to stand up to
peer review. As you live nearbySydney, are you the author of the article ?

For me the universe originated in 1940!
Actually at this point in the game I'm open to all possibilities! Even though I'm having a hard time accepting the Big Bang; I can't dismiss it either. I'm a little interested in the plasma cosmology Ideas.
Orin

Hello All


Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,I'm not the writer of the above.

You could write to Professor Turok a theoretical physcist at Cambridge University in Britain for confirmation.


Or possible find the article in the science journal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sorry for being short,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,my computer will not come on board until one more day.

If the Big Bang did happen. Why is that many objects out there have a life span of 10^65 years.
Why is it that when we look in to deep field 13.2 billion light years that we see existing galaxies and not the birth of the universe.
and so on.

I'll be back,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

harry wrote: Why is it that when we look in to deep field 13.2 billion light years that we see existing galaxies and not the birth of the universe.

What are the farthest/deepest/oldest images we can see with Hubble etc.?




According to big bang theory the universe is what 13-14 billion years old? And if this image is indeed of a galaxy that is 13 billion LY away, how is this possible? Odds are very slim that the gravitational lens from the galaxy cluster Abel 2213, which is where this image was taken, is directly in line with the supposed origin of the big bang.
I must be missing something, because simple geometry shows that in order to see an object that far away, in a sense as old as the universe, it would have to be the actual "big bang" or something several million years off (very close).
Did we just happen to stumble upon it? I think not.

Unless of course we are moving faster than light away from the middle of this bang, in which case we would be looking back on ourselves.

So either:
1) The universe is a good bit older than this image (13 bil)
2) The image isn't really that far away (old)
or
3) The big bang theory is just that, ... a theory.

I had a theory that if I thought hard enough I could make my head explode.
And perhaps start another universe in the process.

there are many theories on the creation of the universe. The big bang theory is the most regarded. Here is one that I just recently learned about.
http://www.antimatterenergy.com/plasma_cosmology.htm
Whether right of wrong it is gaining a little bit of noriety.
Orin

I've always been a little fond of the peculiar mathematical... indication (I hesitate to call it a theory) that, given the assumption that a general-purpose computer can simulate a universe, it is most probable that we're living in a simulated universe instead of a 'real' one. It's amusing and creepy as heck to think about that, at least for me.

But, sticking with physical theories, my money is still on the Big Bang or its descendants, whatever they may be. The theory is always slowly changing and being refined, like all good scientific theories, and I haven't yet encountered any evidence that would seem to provide an insurmountable problem for it. And I like hurting my brain trying to imagine a four-dimensional spacetime unfolding out of non-space. Sometimes I start bleeding out of my ears!

(okay, that last bit was an exaggeration, but only slightly!)

As for plasma cosmology, while plasma most certainly must play a role in cosmological evolution, I'm not going to buy any theory that claims there are a large number of anti-matter stars in our galaxy, let alone that comets are made of anti-matter. I'm sorry, no, not possible.

I'm thinking along the lines of Wadsworth as well. I never quite understood how we can look at something that's 13 billion L.Ys. away and still see galaxies when the universe is supposed to only be 13.2 billion years old, it doesn't add up. On top of this, with the picture that Wadsworth attached along with his post, you can see galaxies interacting with eachother (just left of centre at the bottom of the pic). That process alone takes however millions of years as well. But I don't know, maybe this is just an indication that we aren't really seeing as far back as we really can and the supposed age of the universe still needs some fixing up.

It'd be so fascinating if we could actually focus a bit more on those distant smudges of light in the background of that pic too!! mmmm now that's candy to me!

I looked at that page and there are a number of peculiar flaws in it. First, the bald assertion that there are two black holes at the center of the galaxy- there is no evidence of this. What are the references for this statement?

Second, one is matter, the other antimatter- again, what are the references? How was this determined?

Third, if antimatter was that common, there would not be a galaxy. Annihilations would result in a growing cascade of gamma radiation and more annihiliations, until there was nothing but a huge smear of gamma and cosmic rays here. No galaxy would be stable for more than a few million years, assuming it could form at all.

This guy has no idea of the power of matter-antimatter reactions or he would drop this idea fast. There could be no life in such a galaxy- the sheer volume of radiation would destroy it all, and possibly the life in all the galaxies in its local group.

The pointed question is this- what would keep the two from reacting? Some force would have to be present that kept the matter and antimatter from destroying each other.

constant or steady state?
steady state runs out of material
constant has it's material renewed
Big Bang supports steady state by placing all material at once into the universe and then steady state consumes it.
Big bang supports constant by creating material AND physics for replacing material (Stars,Black Holes, Galactic gravity to pull it in)
I was intrigued by Achips reference to a universe in a black hole appearing to be in a big bang state.
Matter must be being renewed and as evidence I offer that given our location in the universe (visually we seem centered but that does not mean we are as we could be on a corner and the universe is greater distance in a given direction) and in this 'center' we are still seeing material being turned into stars and Vast clouds of gasses coming from?
this material must surely have been consumed over the estimated 14 billion years of universal existence. the power of the multitudes of galaxies swinging through space sucking in all forms of matter, would over the Eons have cleared and consumed this material,yet there is evidence that new material is available.
Constant Steady state beggining inside ?

Hello All

Sorry I have the flu bad and so I will be out for another few days.

Until than for those that are interested read the following links

If you have read them before than read them again.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fun ... 825305.800


In my opinion at the present time no one models answers all the questions.

The problem that we have is the momentum of one model been fed by fantasy ideas.

Regardless it will take probably another 3 years before that momentum stops.

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

Smile and live another day.

Hello All

The image posted by Wadsworth above is only a rice seed size from the total.

Imagine the rest, that is why I cannot even think of trying to support the BBT. There are no legs and no foundation. Most people that I talk to have this mentality that the BBT is it.

Hey! maybe I'm wrong.

Smile and live another day.
Maybe 007 could use this in the next movie.

harry wrote:The problem that we have is the momentum of one model been fed by fantasy ideas.

I think you misspelled 'observations' there, and as two words, even!

Hello Qev

If that is all that I missspelt than I'm doing OK.

Not bad fo and old bloke.

Bit of an interesting article on Space.com today...

The Universe Might be Bigger and Older than Expected!

Hello Qev

Read the link before.

In my opinion it is a load of hoo haa.

It says

[quote]Scientists now estimate the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang) and about 156 billion light-years wide.[/quote]

Did you pick the oops in their calculations.

The person writing this post is a Big Banger and therefore would have tunnel vision.

I cannot wait for the day, that the Big Bang is out.

Unless I'm wrong, I will be eating my hut, if the BBT is correct.

harry wrote:Hello Qev

Read the link before.

In my opinion it is a load of hoo haa.

It says

Scientists now estimate the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang) and about 156 billion light-years wide.

Did you pick the oops in their calculations.

No, not really, because they didn't show their work. I assume you're making the argument that the universe being only 13.7 billion years old can only be 27.4 billion light years in diameter? Remember that Hubble expansion doesn't violate special relativity, even though it creates the appearance of objects receeding from each other faster than light...

I cannot wait for the day, that the Big Bang is out.

You'll probably be waiting quite a while, IMO. Though if someone does prove it wrong, it'd be quite the revolution.

lol -I ddn't realize that I was reading an old thread until I read Harry's post.

......At first you would consider that these structured galaxies at the edge of our OBSERVABLE universe conflict with the BBT. Unless of course, you realize that it is only an image of the most distant OBSERVABLE galaxies to date. As far as I know there is no scientific evidence to support a conclusion that our universe is not larger/older than what we can observe......

With all the supporting evidence of BBT in front of you, spread out across your desktop, what is the most logical conclusion:

A) The BBT is false and should be thrown away.

B) The universe is older than we can currently observe.

If you are not familiar with the "KISS" theory it stands for:

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID

It also applies to the origin of the universe.

The most commonly excepted aspect of the BB is the creation of space/time. Because our universe lies amid the space/time fabric, no other qualities of the pre-BB can be known until the creation of space/time is understood. All other qualities are (almost inconsequential) speculation.

Resolve the space/time quandary first and work from there.

Hello Dr Skeptic

This post contains preposts and to save new readers the time I posted it again.

There is no way in hell, that I would even consider the BBT, even though it is regarded in cosmology as the standard model.

Through history man has adopted varies models as standard and in time proven to be wrong.

You look at all the evidence supporting the BBT. Its fantasy stuff and information used to support the model.

Don't take my word for it.

The many modern cosmologists are not giving much weight to the model.

But! thats my opinion.

In a few more years we shall see where this model (BBT) ends up.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... xplode.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bang.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... o.htm#cos1

http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/DidTheU ... inning.htm
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTh ... inning.asp
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/Quasa ... susFar.asp

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

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.

Note the list of people who do not think much about the Big Bang.
The above link.

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

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.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time with the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are inconsistent, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones.
At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation(1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass, the more toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red - is the light frequency shifted.
These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe far greater than imagined.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical review and a reply to a widely- circulated criticism as well as a technical reading list, a report on a recent workshop and links to other relevant sites, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology.

Do not get me wrong, I 'm not against the BBT, its just that I cannot see it as the standord model. Its had its day or should I say years.


Tom Van Flandern - bio sketch, resume, bibliography
http://metaresearch.org/home/about%20me ... andern.asp

There is no way in hell, that I would even consider the BBT, even though it is regarded in cosmology as the standard model.

I could post many times the number of websites agreeing with the BBT than you can apposing it, but I choose not to. I choose not display my knowledge vicariously through other peoples work (other than occasionally to save time). 3/4 of the research of the last 25 year would need to be ignored for "your" overly simplified version of the "recycled universe" to be a valid theory.

Harry:

Do you truly understand how large infinity is and what that would imply?

Infinity is much more than a big number!

Hello All

Dr Skeptic

I know what infinity is.

The universe is infinite.

Many years ago, i had a similar discussion with other cosmologists. They said that when we are able to see into deep space we shall see the birth of the universe. I said that we shall see galaxies as we see them close with relative age.

Now we see deep field images with existing galaxies.
===============================================

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.

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

The observations that we see, should be used to work the model. Not the reverse.
==============================================

Look at the location of the super clusters of galaxies.

http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/research/threed/


The Pisces-Perseus Supercluster
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/acad ... 01/pps.htm

http://www.mistisoftware.com/astronomy/ ... luster.htm


With all the clusters, whether local, medium clusters or super clusters you will find the same basic, rule: They want to cluster together, not the principle applied by the BBT , expansion of the universe.

There is a pattern, and that pattern can be observed.

I do not want to use any model, although some models work better than others.

I could agree with the BBT, than find out in a few years that it was all wrong. It is better to question and try to pull it down, and if it still stands under the pressure, than well and good. I do not think the BBT has any emotions.