A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

The big bang theory presents a number of serious contradictions to our observations of the cosmos. Although many attempts have been made to reconcile these differences, many questions remain unanswered. This new big bang theory offers explanations that better fit our observations and leaves us with more answers than questions.
Before presenting a new big bang theory that seems to answer many questions that the current big bang theory does not, a brief review of some of the problems with the current big bang is in order.


The big bang theory has several vexing problems. First, there is the big void, close to a billion light years across space, which lies at the edge of the universe. It's difficult to explain how such a great void could have formed so early in the universe's history.

With the big bang model it is also difficult to explain why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is so "clumpy," strong in one place, weaker in another, when the big bang "explosion" should have distributed it's telltale sign more evenly.

It is also somewhat difficult to explain why there are galaxies altogether. How would the big bang's even distribution of matter have resulted in so much matter clumping together?

Then there are the problems of dark energy and dark matter. Scientists speak of them as if they are a reality, yet their existence have never been detected, measured or satisfactorily explained.

The full list of problems with the big bang and a more in depth explanation of the above problems is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that despite attempts to explain the above and other issues, many observations remain inexplicable with the big bang theory.

I believe there is a solution to most of the puzzles plaguing the big bang. A slight modification to the big bang's very initial stage would result in the universe unfolding in a substantially different manner than what our current model predicts. This new trajectory, if followed through to its conclusion, does, I believe, answer many currently outstanding cosmological mysteries.

Furthermore, this new big bang theory's approach has somewhat greater empirical support than the current big bang theory.

This new theory begins with the same initial "explosion" as the current big bang. But with two major differences. One, the expansion in this new model contains no matter whatsoever. The only thing that expands is space itself.

Two, the universe expands to its full length and breadth within a fraction of a second and stops. That is, the universe is no longer expanding.

Now, lets rewind the expansion and describe the process in more detail.

The moment the universe starts expanding, virtual particles flood the void in massive amounts and continue to do so even after the expansion ceases. (Why virtual particles flood the universe in far greater quantities than they do today is beyond the scope of this article and fully explained in my book.)

If you follow this scenario through, you will find that this process will have created just about everything we observe in the sky today, with very little observational contradiction.

The virtual particles that enter the universe at its moment of expansion would be pulled along with the expansion at terrific speeds. The particles that enter the universe once it has ceased to expand enter the universe in relatively stationary positions.

The collision of the high-speed particles with the stationary ones cause cataclysmic explosions that result in massive black holes and perhaps fusion reactions of various degrees that set in motion the inial stages of some star and galaxy formation. This all happens in a matter of seconds. (This is actually an abbreviated explanation. Again, a more detailed explanation of this process appears in my book "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began.")

At this point, this new big bang can already explain with ease some cosmological puzzles.

First, the "horizon" problem. For two regions of space to have the same conditions, like temperature, they'd have to be close enough to each other for information to be exchanged so that they can equilibrate to a common state. If they're too far, they are said to be beyond their horizons because even at the speed of light no communication between them can exist. So how did they coordinate their similar conditions?

With the new big bang theory this is not a problem. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation was produced by the massive particle collisions which occurred equally throughout the universe. No far-corner communications were necessary, since every region of the cosmos went through the same process.

Then, as the new big bang theory unfolds, it solves a few additional puzzles.

These massive black holes created in the new big bang theory would still be speeding outward at terrific speeds. Perhaps not as fast as the initial particles, but still quite fast.

The outward thrust of these enormous black holes then cause secondary collisions with the massive amounts of virtual particles still entering the universe. It is these secondary collisions that instantly initiate a second round of star and galaxy formation.

As these black holes absorb a substantial amount of particles in their path or very close to them, they leave behind huge swats of empty space or space with particles that never enter the process of star or galaxy formation.

This explains regions in space devoid of matter and regions that have enough matter to form stars and galaxies but never do, with the latter being more inexplicable than the former with the current big bang theory.

This also explains great "walls" of superclusters.

It explains the lumpiness of matter.

This also explains variations in CMB levels. The initial particle collisions that created the CMB radiation, although they occurred throughout the universe, would not necessarily have occurred evenly in every region.

It even explains why there is a heavier population of celestial objects the farther out into space you look. As the initial black holes moved outward, they left behind more and more particles untouched by their star and galaxy formation process. Thus, the farthest regions in space would have been subjected to longer periods of star and galaxy formation and with greater amounts of particles.

Furthermore, the collisions of these initial great black holes with more particles would have created secondary, fainter CMB radiations. Such secondary CMB radiations have been detected, but cannot be explained with the current big bang theory.

This new big bang theory, which I named the V-Bang, sheds light on a several other phenomena, which cannot be explain in full here due to space limitations, but are fully explained in my book "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began."

The V-Bang explains how the redshifts that give the appearance of a universe expanding at an increasing rate of speed (referred to as "dark energy") is due largely to gravitational redshifts caused by an increase in gravitational pull, from beyond the visible universe, the farther out into space you go. (My book explains what the source of this great gravitational pull is.)

And it is this strong gravitational pull that gives the impression of an expanding universe, when in fact celestial objects are simply being pulled outward by gravity. This would explain why only intergalactic space is increasing, but celestial objects are not being ripped apart by an "expanding" universe.

The V-Bang easily demonstrates why Omega is equal to one (the strange "coincidence" of the distribution of matter being so evenly spread throughout the universe). With the current big bang model this is just about impossible to explain. Even inflation theory, intended to explain it, requires a stretch of the imagination. The V-Bang explains it.

The V-Bang explains how there can be mature galaxies at the outer edges of the universe when, according to the big bang, they hadn't had enough time to develop. With the V-Bang, the process that initiated star and galaxy formation happened almost simultaneously throughout the universe; all stars and galaxies had about the same time to evolve.

Only time will tell if the V-Bang theory will hold upon new observations, but for now I believe it presents more answers than questions. "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began," available at Amazon, V-Bang.org and other outlets, describes the above material and more in far greater detail.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is link to the OP: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-new-breakthrough-theory-of-the-big-bang-the-op.143236/

Sorry zgmc, but I am adding a note before your post which was No. 2 in the "pre-move" thread.

I tried to move the thread to cesspool by just checking the box in the OP's lower left and then moving. That only moved the OP. So I returned and used the "thread tools" to do the same, but that made this thread of all the other posts that totaled 4 pages.
My first action created a new thread that I have re-named by added "(the OP)" to end of the name. I have now closed the "OP-thread." I am probably the least skill moderator so did not make these changes the best way possible. I hope some more skilld mod will move the OP to top of page 1 of this thread, but I don't dare try to do that.

Here is post 2 by zgmc in its entirety:

The "V-Bang"? You must be joking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, he's not joking.

Step right up, buy the book!

http://www.amazon.com/The-V-Bang-How-Universe-Began/dp/1463732643

Wait, if you call NOW you can get two books for only $19.90! They make great paper weights!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not sure if he thought that name through, or if he thinks its a clever joke.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I liked the one review of it, excepting for a "Big Red Flag. " ... it is in harmony with the Testament version of creation..." From this perspective I think it indicates a "bad recommendation" for the theory.

Yes, the BB model is pretty ugly. If this "alternative" theory is more logical, at least it would be better in that way, but upon reading your description of it it does not seem that appealing to me.

I now see you are the author of this book. I agree with your realization of the many problems with the current BB model. I wrote my own related theory and book on cosmology, which I will not mention, and think the final answers are much simpler than what you propose -- and completely different from the BB model. But good luck on your theory/ book promotion and further cosmological insights

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The BB/Inflationary model is on near certain ground, simply because it aligns with most observations, far better then any other model, including this one.
Secondly, I see somewhere you mentioned the new model is different from the old, in that it was spacetime that expanded/evolved and not matter/energy.
You do not know too much about the present model then, as that's exactly what the present model states.
The accepted BB/Inflationary model was an evolution/expansion of spacetime in the first instant. And that expansion continues to this day, undergoing slow downs and speed ups in the rate of expansion, all explained by current cosmology. Matter came a short time later.



Now down to the nitty gritty...
Why post in the Cosmology section, when you are proposing a new theory? A mistake to say the least, and dishonest at worse.
If you are confident that your model holds up and explains further and more then the incumbent model, then please via the accepted scientific method, get it properly peer reviewed.

 

Most of your post seems to be a litany of false assumptions, mistakes and down right lies....The above for instance....Clumpiness, and the great wall superclusters are easily explained by gravity...simple as that, and that has been the case for at least a few decades.

 

How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Do you have any reference?
As far as I know the CMBR is quite uniform and Isotropic at 2.7K, with very tiny minute variations [in the order of a few thousandths of degrees] that are readily explained as the seeds for galactic formation.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

Bullshit. Again, gravity readily explains that.

New discoveries? yes, problems? No, why? They are explanations and have been deduced and measured...Unknown, yes, certainly
read up on the bullet cluster and DM
DE, yep unknown, but also could be the CC of Einstein fame.
They don't invalidate the BB/Inflationary model though.

And again, why isn't this in the Alternative Theory section?

 

Joshgreen is likely Joshua Greenberger the author of The B-Vang (or whatever..). so as he has something to sell this thread could be construed as spamming.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The only problem I have with the Big Bang is extrapolation back to some singularity or some extremely dense small volume containing all the matter in the universe. Also: The Inflation part of it seems somewhat ad hoc.

An alternative possibility is a very dense finite volume containing both matter & antimatter, with an excess of matter. The mutual annihilation of matter & antimatter could initiate an expanding universe consisting of the excess matter.

Circa 1950-1960, there were three competing cosmologies..

Continuous Creation (aka Steady State) championed by Hoyle. It postulated the spontaneous creation of a neutron (which immediately decayed to a proton & an electron) in each small volume of space. I do not remember the details. The creation caused the expansion & balanced the amount of matter going beyond the boundary of the observable universe.

Alternating Bang/Crunches.

The Big Bang which was the name intended as derogatory by some one who was against the theory.​

My favorite was Steady State. It was shot down by the discovery of distant Quasars. This was evidence that the universe was different billions of years ago (there are no recent Quasars). Steady State required a universe which seemed to be unchanging (except for minor details).

I do not remember what caused the demise of the alternating Bang/Crunch theory.

 

it would help if you actually understood and knew anything about bb and other theories that are involved.
(shakes head)
typical.

 

I remember those very well, more commonly referred to as the BB, Steady State and Oscillating theories. Steady State was indeed shot down with the discovery of QUASARS for the reasons you outlined, and the Oscillating theory was discarded due to violations of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy, if memory serves me correctly.
Then the discovery of the CMBR buried both alternatives.

 

This is essentially what you have to say about everything. Could you possibly think up something fresh to say?
(shakes head) Typical.

 

as soon as something fresh comes along, yes.

 

Reported as book selling spam. What fool is going to buy this book after your horrific descriptions of it.

 

That along with the other aspect of posting an alternative theory.....ooops sorry, hypothesis, in the wrong section.

 

Most of the problems with this have been mentioned except for the very worst: unless you have math, you have nothing.

 

Strange that Joshgreen has not joined in any sort of conversation. He has only made the single post about his book. It is almost like he is advertising as opposed to trying to have a discussin on a science forum.

 

That's exactly what I said in post nine.