Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by timojin, Nov 28, 2017.
Do you have a preference Timojin regarding these theories?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's my understanding that a singularity is not part of the Big Bang theory, so the idea that the early universe was a contraction from a previous one seems perfectly compatible.
I think the point raised by Timojin's references is that some versions of the oscillating universe theory are still not entirely out of the picture.
I would not surprised if this idea were to make a come-back in some form, since it seems to me that there is no observational evidence at present that can discriminate between an oscillating big crunch/big bang model and a one-off big bang model.
I like the idea as it would take the notion of a point of creation out of the game.
The BB is applicable within its zones of applicability. Any Oscillating model will encompass what we see as the BB. Any Oscillating model or any model that delves outside t+10-43 seconds is simply speculative at this stage of the game.
Yep, that point is probably what bugged Fred Hoyle and turned him away from the BB, and the fact that IDers and YECers etc, had something to hang their hat on. It is though a credit to science that irrespective of that "opening" they persisted with the scientific methodology and followed the lines of evidence.
I was also once informed [and as I mentioned previously] by an astronomer on another forum, that any future validated QGT will all most certainly encompass the BB, while obviously extending the parameters of its applicability.
I am with Fred. His concern was well founded given the Christians who look to the other side and find god.
I don't like inflation so science should do better...take out inflation and simply push the start back a couple of billion years...hang on I didn't get rid of the start.
But is there a start given there was no time before?
Yes exactly. The two are equivalent currently, as far as extrapolation from observation is concerned.
What I found tantalising about timojin's reference was that there was a suggestion, from this Brazilian scientist, that conceivably the form of oscillating model he has in mind could be tested by some features of matter and energy distribution that might persist through the crunch and bang process.
Let the testing begin.
But I'm also certainly not gullible enough, and probably not nice enough, to believe there was any "real intent" in the posting of the article, to add any knowledge per se.
Well I at least have learned something from this thread, which for me is the object in participating.
Obviously Alex, some things are just hard to conceive. Personally, I have a problem understanding infinity. And I believe a universe from nothing firstly needs a better understanding of "nothing"or as near as we can get to nothing anyway.
In summing and in my opinion, the fact that cosmologists are reasonably able to describe how our universe developed of the last 13.83 billion years, is nothing short of outstanding...and the BB does a great job of that. Note also the BB is not about any beginning, [simarily the theory of evolution of life is not about how life got started] it describes how it evolved from a hot dense state at 10-43 seconds.
And also pretty amazing that science can also give reasonable speculative scenarios re the two links I have given.
Agreed, but still speculative. I like speculating that the singularity as applied to the BB, is actually the arse end of a BH, or a White Hole, and also that BHs within our universe lead to wormholes and ERBs to other out pourings or white holes creating other universes. The problem with that speculative scenario though was I once was informed by a reputable GR theorist that WHs were impossible in our universe.
It is a wise man who can imagine a stick without ends.
So much better than the made up out of thin air god did it approach.
I like the idea of the oscillating universe. (Although what I like is irrelevant.) But I thought it had been abandoned due to evidence that the universe was expanding faster than gravity can slow it down.
Bingo!!! Hit the bloody nail right on the head I suggest.
What was the date on the OP article?
Bouncing cosmology inspired by regular black holes:
In this article, we present a bouncing cosmology inspired by a family of regular black holes. This scale-dependent cosmology deviates from the cosmological principle by means of a scale factor which depends on the time and the radial coordinate as well. The model is isotropic but not perfectly homogeneous. That is, this cosmology describes a universe almost homogeneous only for large scales, such as our observable universe.
Yes, nice speculative hypothetical...and until we are physically able to observe at the quantum/Planck level, or alternatively obtain some knowledge re the eternal workings of BHs, speculative it remains. Note timojin, your articles will be far more reputable from science news sites rather then tabloid sex lies and rumour media. That's not to though dismiss entirely, sensationalistic type headlines which even us mere amateur mortals participate in on the forum.
I am just copying with not bad intent , this is how my computer is set, So o bach and hibernate
Hi old man, in what cave where you hibernating ?
I'm sure he is younger then I, but remember, he and I are already there: You have yet to get there! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Been busy with multiple hobbies building stuff but mostly counting my money that takes ages.
My birth certificate will say I am 71 in early Jan but I know I must be much younger than that.
Separate names with a comma.