A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

Vin samplor · Nov 28, 2014

theorist-constant12345 said: ↑

I have read your idea, and there is a fault in your logical reasoning ,

''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.''

If that were the case, then why does our Sun remain relative central and not expand the same as the rest?

If you said the expansion had passed the event horizon of our system gravitational pull, and was caught in some sort of ''centrifugal flow'', Then your idea might make sense.

Click to expand...

Gravity pulling on us does not decentralize the sun. The fact is we are being pulled by the gravity of our own and other galaxies. Gravity is apparently pulling the entire solar system without throwing it out of shape.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Vin samplor · Nov 28, 2014

paddoboy said: ↑

BINGO!!!!!!
I did say earlier in the thread that I smelt an agenda, and I think I have found it.
"Josh Greenberger" appears to be a Creationist .........
Click to expand...

BINGO is right!!!!!
You've just proven what a thoroughly intellectually dishonest individual you are. You remind my of those Obama supporters; when someone criticizes Obama, they bring up Bush.

You just brought up something that has no relation whatsoever to anything on this thread.

You make your ignorance of BB so obvious. You're problem isn't this new theory. You're problem is that your understanding of the big bang is extremely simplistic. It seems like you haven't kept up with any new developments on BB since you left school. For anyone to claim with such certainty that BB is on such solid ground when there is such a plethora of literature demonstrating the many shortcomings of BB, has to be either totally ignorant or thoroughly dishonest.

For the record, I happen to read Josh Greenberger's material on evolution (I haven't yet read "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began," which I'm looking forward to) and I can tell you that his disproof of evolution contains not one word of God, the Bible, scripture or Creation. His disproof of evolution is strictly science and quite convincing. It's typical of people like yourself, who do not have a good handle on what they believe in, bb in this case, to think that throwing out labels like troll and creationist absolve them of any kind of logical or intelligent response. That's not quite how it works. Throwing out labels doesn't make you look less ignorant.

I have a suggestion for you. Start up your browser. There's this search engine called google.com, I don't know if you've heard of it. (If you haven't heard of the problems with BB, I don't know what else you haven't heard of.) Type in a few words like big bang and inflation theory. I think you'll learn more in one hour than you've apparently learned in all your years in school. You'll definitely learn more in that one hour than you've learned since school. Let us know how you make out. I need another good laugh.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy · Nov 28, 2014

Vin samplor said: ↑

I have a suggestion for you. .
Click to expand...

And I have a suggestion for you and sal and Josh.....Take your God Botherering antics and anti science crap elswhere.
You, Sal/Josh has been dishonest right from the start, and the revelation that he also condemns Evolution and Abiogenesis, two near certain scientific theories, just reveals the agenda that he had.
That along with the inane crazy suggestion that souls are real is just magical pixie in the sky shit.
He has been revealed for what he is. A sneaky God bothering, anti science raving looney that has tried to gain some respectibility by posting in the science section.
Now go away!

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy · Nov 28, 2014

Four more books/subjects by this same fraud.......
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A SOUL EXISTS:
The Fossil Records Disprove Darwinian Evolution:
ABIOGENESIS: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE?

Now what were you saying Vin? Sal??Josh????
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This isn't a forum on FAIRY TALES OR NEVER NEVER LAND, OR ANY PIXIE IN THE SKY.
It's a science forum...Do your evangalizing, somewhere else.

There is no evidence for any soul...FACT:
The fossil records overall overwhelmingly support Darwinian Evolution.FACT:
Abiogenesis is a logical theory of the Universal evolution of life:
There is no other alternative....God or any other magical deity is not a scientific explanation...period.

paddoboy · Nov 28, 2014

Vin samplor said: ↑

"Edge of the unverse" is an expression. How can you take it literally? When someone tells you winter is around the corner, do you run around the corner looking for winter?
Click to expand...

No, it's an obvious misnomer and misunderstanding when referring to the BB by lay people.
The BB was an evolution of space and time, and happened everywhere at the same time.....so its rather easy to arrive at the conclusion that it had no center and no edges.
Do better next time.

paddoboy · Nov 28, 2014

Obviously Josh, sal and Vin are all one and the same person....all three supporting creationism and anti science, and all three with less then 4 or 5 posts.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anew · Nov 28, 2014

in interest of the thread topic, 'bigbang'''' I matterfully redefine the matter as offered in the subjective facet of entry to write here as "Exobiology. in meandering of the orgin of this fair we reside on leaving the matter as exobiology is most intelligent. Some are so cute to think that our planet earth was roundish icemass that thawed..perhaps this may have been true of it's core for moments/seconds in space far away. if the nesciencial (computermachinetechnology) of outspace inspection wouldn't convene about outspace in ways of being attracted to picture peaceful nebulae...perhaps such nebulae would place itself for away from the orbic systems we have named and orgin ifnot already of a planet similar to this may exist. Herethen as human are continuing to error one another, It is that such a planet wouldn't appear for human eye and often dry to to human error on this planet. then to use the comparison of how humans insult human the form of the human body, with biological scientific demands,commitments, of what is often falsity, like when a being looks at blood an seeks to title or label and give such vast variety of microscopic determination...here the word micro/scopic or whatever one would seek to expand upon in the realm of microscopes (considering-there is mirror/light/and often electricity utilized- intensivehuman query of relative opine... scope of definitive discernment is mostly unfair and or pseudo humor.

origin · Nov 28, 2014

Anew said: ↑

in interest of the thread topic, 'bigbang'''' I matterfully redefine the matter as offered in the subjective facet of entry to write here as "Exobiology. in meandering of the orgin of this fair we reside on leaving the matter as exobiology is most intelligent. Some are so cute to think that our planet earth was roundish icemass that thawed..perhaps this may have been true of it's core for moments/seconds in space far away. if the nesciencial (computermachinetechnology) of outspace inspection wouldn't convene about outspace in ways of being attracted to picture peaceful nebulae...perhaps such nebulae would place itself for away from the orbic systems we have named and orgin ifnot already of a planet similar to this may exist. Herethen as human are continuing to error one another, It is that such a planet wouldn't appear for human eye and often dry to to human error on this planet. then to use the comparison of how humans insult human the form of the human body, with biological scientific demands,commitments, of what is often falsity, like when a being looks at blood an seeks to title or label and give such vast variety of microscopic determination...here the word micro/scopic or whatever one would seek to expand upon in the realm of microscopes (considering-there is mirror/light/and often electricity utilized- intensivehuman query of relative opine... scope of definitive discernment is mostly unfair and or pseudo humor.
Click to expand...

Your post seems to indicate that you either ate WAY to much peyote or you have a really bad translator.

Billy T · Nov 28, 2014

Vin samplor said: ↑

Gravity pulling on us does not decentralize the sun. The fact is we are being pulled by the gravity of our own and other galaxies. Gravity is apparently pulling the entire solar system without throwing it out of shape.
Click to expand...

Part now bold is not 100% true - just so little "tidal force" the distortion is not observable. The tidal forces go as the inverse cube not inverse square as gravity's force does.

For example, the sun's gravitational force on the moon is greater that Earth's gravitational force is but the sun makes little tidal force on the moon (or the Earth). The earth makes much greater tidal force on the moon than the sun does.

wellwisher · Nov 28, 2014

joshgreen said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

The way I can explain all these problems, with only one premise, is to assume the BB singularity (and space-time) did not expand as a continuum of particles, but rather the singularity underwent quantum division, analogy to cell division. This premise explains CMB clumps as well as early galaxy and star formation without any additional premises.

To go from a singularity, into a division into two singularities, defines less entropy than an atomization into a continuum of particles. Since an increase in entropy needs energy to occur, the quantum division take less start-up energy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The original singularity, which quantum divides, causes space-time to quantum expand in steps. These two sister singularities then each quantum divide, etc. ,etc. The existence of galaxies, so early in the universe, suggests the quantum division and quantum expansion reaches a point, where a phase change occurs; mini big bang phase.

The mini big bang phase is where each galaxy level? singularity undergoes its own mini BB. These create the materials for the earliest galaxies, with the materials more contained in local space-time for easy gravity clumping and black hole formation. The extreme energy pressure waves from each mini big bang (baBOOM!!!) helps contain the material from others expanding galaxies, while also causing them to expand relative to reach other. The energy also adds mixing and turbulence to the for early star formation and CMB clumping.

NASAcarl · Nov 28, 2014

joshgreen said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

Josh Grenberger (if that is joshgreen), just read your theory. Your V-Bang theory is absolutely brilliant. I've never seen anything that comes even close to solving some of the problems of the big bang as your theory does. The only problem is that it does not belong on this forum. You really should present it for peer review by legitimate scientists.

Your theory involves an in depth knowledge, and more importantly, understanding, of several branches of physics that the average science buff (forget about layman) simply does not have and will therefore not have the capacity to comprehend.

People will fight something they do not understand. What I find especially amusing on this forum is that someone can claim not to accept your logic (as if they understand it) then make a statement like, "Abiogenesis is a logical theory of the Universal evolution of life." When it suites them, logic is good enough. When it doesn't suite them, logic is not acceptable. Do you understand the dishonesty you're dealing with here?

Josh, you have a great V-Bang theory. Take it to those who have the capacity to understand it.

origin · Nov 28, 2014

NASAcarl said: ↑

Your V-Bang theory is absolutely brilliant.
Click to expand...

BWAAAAAAAA.
Hey joshgreen, I think your mom just posted a reply, either that or it was a 10 year old on acid.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

stpmjag · Nov 28, 2014

paddoboy said: ↑

Four more books/subjects by this same fraud.......
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A SOUL EXISTS:
The Fossil Records Disprove Darwinian Evolution:
ABIOGENESIS: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE?

Now what were you saying Vin? Sal??Josh????
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This isn't a forum on FAIRY TALES OR NEVER NEVER LAND, OR ANY PIXIE IN THE SKY.
It's a science forum...Do your evangalizing, somewhere else.

There is no evidence for any soul...FACT:
The fossil records overall overwhelmingly support Darwinian Evolution.FACT:
Abiogenesis is a logical theory of the Universal evolution of life:
There is no other alternative....God or any other magical deity is not a scientific explanation...period.
Click to expand...

You're a raging lunatic.

origin · Nov 28, 2014

wellwisher said: ↑

The way I can explain all these problems, with only one premise, is to assume the BB singularity (and space-time) did not expand as a continuum of particles,
Click to expand...

You do realize that no scientist think this, so you disagree with an idea that you made up?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The rest of the post is classic wellwisher hand waving conjectures.

origin · Nov 28, 2014

stpmjag said: ↑

You're a raging lunatic.
Click to expand...

What a great second post! I am being sarcastic (thought I would let you know, since I am not sure if you sharp enough to realize it).

zgmc · Nov 28, 2014

NASAcarl. LMFAO! Possibly the most hilarious first post on record!

paddoboy · Nov 28, 2014

NASAcarl said: ↑

People will fight something they do not understand. What I find especially amusing on this forum is that someone can claim not to accept your logic (as if they understand it) then make a statement like, "Abiogenesis is a logical theory of the Universal evolution of life." When it suites them, logic is good enough. When it doesn't suite them, logic is not acceptable. Do you understand the dishonesty you're dealing with here?
Click to expand...

Oh, really, NASAcarl, so far including josh, you are the fourth newbie with less then a half a dozen posts under your belt to just 'pop in" and support the OP concept.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean the fraudulent attempt here stands out like dog's balls.

But anyway, since you have also written on "we have souls"and "Evolution is wrong" and "Abiogenesis" is impossible, please explain your alternative?
Do not use God, or any other pixie in the sky solution, as that is not scientific reasoning.

Abiogenesis of course must be certain, speaking Universally.In fact there is no other alternative or solution.
How life arose on Earth is less certain, but I am attracted to "Panspermia" in one form or another.

In actual fact "we were all born in the belly of stars" Star stuff is what we are.

paddoboy · Nov 28, 2014

stpmjag said: ↑

You're a raging lunatic.
Click to expand...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Number4!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

steward · Nov 30, 2014

paddoboy said: ↑

Four more books/subjects by this same fraud.......
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF A SOUL EXISTS:
The Fossil Records Disprove Darwinian Evolution:
ABIOGENESIS: IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE?

Now what were you saying Vin? Sal??Josh????
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This isn't a forum on FAIRY TALES OR NEVER NEVER LAND, OR ANY PIXIE IN THE SKY.
It's a science forum...Do your evangalizing, somewhere else.

There is no evidence for any soul...FACT:
The fossil records overall overwhelmingly support Darwinian Evolution.FACT:
Abiogenesis is a logical theory of the Universal evolution of life:
There is no other alternative....God or any other magical deity is not a scientific explanation...period.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip on Josh Greenberger's book "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt." I got the KIndle version. Greenberger's book is absolutely amazing. Loved every minute of it. I couldn't find the chapter "Is There Scientific Evidence Of A Soul" though. But it's a great book anyway. I highly recommend "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt." Nice going.

paddoboy · Nov 30, 2014

steward said: ↑

Thanks for the tip on Josh Greenberger's book "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt." I got the KIndle version. Greenberger's book is absolutely amazing. Loved every minute of it. I couldn't find the chapter "Is There Scientific Evidence Of A Soul" though. But it's a great book anyway. I highly recommend "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt." Nice going.
Click to expand...

That's alright josh/Sal/Nascarl/steward....Just telling it like it is.
It's just a pity that nutty creationists such as yourself, lack the intestinal fortitude to post in the correct section. Typical of your kind I suppose.

Log in or Sign up

A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

Do you believe observations point to our current big bang model?

No

Yes

Vin samplor Registered Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Vin samplor Registered Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Anew Life isn't a question. Banned

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

wellwisher Banned Banned

NASAcarl Registered Member

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

stpmjag Registered Member

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

zgmc Registered Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

steward Registered Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

A New Breakthrough Theory of the Big Bang

Do you believe observations point to our current big bang model?

No

Yes

Vin samplor Registered Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

Vin samplor Registered Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Guest Guest Advertisement

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Anew Life isn't a question. Banned

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

wellwisher Banned Banned

NASAcarl Registered Member

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

stpmjag Registered Member

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

zgmc Registered Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

steward Registered Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches