Did it bang or not

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by timojin, Nov 28, 2017.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    The Big Bang never happened - and there might be traces of an earlier universe, scientist claims
    For nearly half a century, the Big Bang theory has been accepted by many as the best explanation for how the universe began.

    But what if it was wrong – and the universe’s current expansion was actually preceded by an earlier phase, and there are still traces of that ‘previous’ universe?
    Brazilian physicist Juliano Cesar Silva Neves of the University of Campinas says, ‘I believe the Big Bang never happened.


    Perhaps , people are not going to listening to him because he is from the jungle.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    I don't get it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    Your link does not appear to say anything about the big bang never having happened. It seems to be something to do with avoiding a singularity in some way, but that seems to be rather different. Can you explain why you interpret this to mean no big bang?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Do you want me to stick my head out so you can pounce on it? I will give you the pleasure later today , before you go to sleep.
     
  8. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    What don't you get ?
     
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    I didn't read the link; I didn't know there was one.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    No timojin, I just want to understand the science of what is being said and who is saying it.

    If it's just you talking out of your arse, then yes I may take issue with you, but if it is something you have read, then let's have the details and try to work out what they are really saying. The link you have posted so far does not seem to me to dispute the big bang hypothesis.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    I got caught out on that recently as well. It is not at all obvious where embedded links are.
     
  12. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,431
    Yeah... our CSS format rather sucks...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    770
    That part is not in the article you linked to?
     
  14. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Bab. I will provide with one . ( would this be considered sexual harassment )?
     
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    Uh?
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    By Cheyenne Macdonald For Dailymail.com
    Researchers say the start of the universe may have sprung as it transitioned from a previously contracting state.

    They suggest that all particles in the early universe would have been governed by the laws of quantum mechanics.

    So rather than collapsing and destroying itself at the end of a period of contraction, the universe was likely saved by quantum mechanics.

    This would mean the universe did not experience a violent beginning or ending, as in the Big Bang and Big Crunch scenarios.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eory-claims-WASNT-Big-Bang.html#ixzz4zkZatSJy
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Published: 16:07 EST, 27 November 2017 | Updated: 20:38 EST, 27 November 2017
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...eory-claims-WASNT-Big-Bang.html#ixzz4zkYsEdZe
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2017
  17. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,623
    You need to understand: the Daily Mail is not really a newspaper, it is more a sort of, ooh I don't know, ...... a sort of..... toilet paper.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is certainly NOT where I would go for science news.

    But thanks. I now see what you mean. Indeed it is a cosmology that avoids the initial singularity. But it is not new: such models have been around for a while, for example see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce , and they don't really contradict the Big Bang. They just say the "bang" (expansion) might have followed a crunch (contraction) and that possibly there has been a repeating cycle of crunches and bangs.
     
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,387
    A big bounce idea has been around since 1980, but I did find something dated May 9 2016:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05834.pdf

    Originally I thought the OP was more politically motivated than anything else...
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2017
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Why the giant letters timojin. Trying to make a point?
    Let's see...Firstly the BB was a term of derision applied by an astronomer back in the fifties who preferred another model called "Steady State" So no it was not an explosion or bang as generally thought of. It was simply an evolution of space/time/universe from a hot dense state, starting at t+10-43 seconds.
    Since that time of course the evidence for the BB has grown somewhat, particularly the discovery of the CMBR and now stands out as the overwhelmingly accepted model of the evolution of spacetime.
    Thirdly, any future QGT will most likely entail and encompass the BB and not invalidate it. Your article does not invalidate the BB and it still stands as the accepted model. Nice try though.
     
  21. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The Daily Mail?? Are you trying to make us all laugh timojin? You chose the greatest tabloid publisher of sex lies and rumour that ever went to print to highlight that the BB is false??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You need to do better...a lot better!!

    Irrespective though, while the BB is the overwhelmingly supported theory of the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds, your article simply proposes and "speculates" about outside the parameters of the BB. Nothing wrong in speculating outside the model, but you need to realize it is just a hypothetical and does nothing to invalidate the BB.
    Here's some more far more reputable speculative stuff by a couple of experts timojin.
    https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/


    Oh and imbedded in your own link I found this.......
    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/without-big-bang-universe-crumpled-143428059.html
    "Without a Big Bang, the Universe Would Have Crumpled and Collapsed Immediately"

    I hope all that helps timojin.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Yep, it was actually known as the Oscillating Theory. There were three competing together, the BB, the Oscillating and Freddy Hoyle's Steady State.
    The discovery of the CMBR saw the other two fall by the wayside and the BB rise in stature and survive until today.
     

Share This Page