question about origin of universe

Yet another failure by the BB idea :


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm


Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

superluminal. Space is said to have expanded from a point source to 98 or is it 158 billion light years across. How?

Gravity cannot bend light. It bends the space light travels through, so bends light. This is because space has structure. Photons which are waves travel through this "material". It is not just a literal space between everything. I suspect that structure is the reason we have an ultimate speed, the speed of EMR and gravity.

So is space is endlessly expanding, is ever more being created or is it being endlessly stretched? If created, where from? If stretched, it should be becoming "less dense" so the speed of light should increase continually. I suspect the atomic forces would weaken too.

In the early eons of the universe, how could space carry matter with it when it was closer than it is now in wide-spread galactic clusters, like our own which are held together, despite "expansion"

Space carrying matter with it also backs up my idea that space has structure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

superluminal. According to the BB, the whole of the matter and energy of the universe was there from the first instant. It should never have inflated/expanded in the first place. Even if it did somehow, as soon as plasma formed, it was millions of times denser than needed to form a black hole, so should have done so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Playing god will get you nowhere. "should have's or should have not's" are not the most compelling scientific arguments.

Really? I thought that infinite density was reguired to form a black hole. Which is the definition of a singularity. So, you can provide evidence that this plasma was locally dense enough that self gravitation should have caused it to collapse into infinite density?

 

Magic? If we knew that we'd be a lot more informed than today's scientists.

Right. Could be.

It is.

Why? You just proposed an idea ("I suspect that structure is the reason we have an ultimate speed") that is completely unsupported, and are now using it to argue against standard theory? That's pretty sketchy at best.

Because the expansion happened so fast and the change in expansion rate was so extreme during inflation (a well supported idea).

Again, a fine idea. Space has virtual energy, as we all know, well supported by quantum theory and actual experiment. BUt the structure you're imagining may be just that. Imagination.

 

Failure? Has it been submitted and peer-reviewed yet? No. Has there been time to cross-check the data and analyses? No. Have other explanations been investigated and ruled out? No.

Moving on...

 

superluminal. The big bang has no actual information to support it. Just two effects (red shift and CMB) which might have other interpretations. Not good science. Over a year has passed and no evidence against the "shadow test" has been found. It still stands.

 

Ok. I'm tired of debating what even a simple search can clear up. BB theory is not just some off-the-cuff idea that people with Phd's toss around at faculty cocktail parties.

While this link is somewhat directed at answering creationist nonsense, it is an awesome description of BBT with tons of references to supporting articles and papers.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

Please read it and abandon your crackpot analytical style. It's fine to have nifty new ideas, but try to keep at least a bit of a grip on reality as we currently understand it.

 

The answer to the second question is yes, in the September 2006 issue of the Astrophysical Journal. The answer to the last two questions is indeed no.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14785762

Most importantly, the answer to the first question (failure?) is a resounding no, even from the author, here in an interview that same MSNBC article,

Even if every single bit of the original article by Lieu et al is correct, the article does does not falsify Big Bang theory. It would merely imply that refinements are needed to make the theory agree with observation. He would have to prove that no refinements are possible to falsify Big Bang theory.

Finally, even if Big Bang theory were completely invalidated, this would not prove the existence of god. This is the "god of the gaps" approach. This approach doesn't work because science is always filling in the gaps that purportedly prove the existence of god.

 

Wrong. Black holes rotate. A point source cannot since it is non-dimensional. A neutron star can have an escape velocity of 2/3 light speed. The next stage of course means that there are no neutrons. Probably no protons either. But quarks and electrons are possible as the contents of a black hole core.

For a black hole to form, it merely requires that there be sufficient material in a small enough area. If we could magically dump several solar masses of material into an area the size of the sun, it would quickly collapse into a black hole. Rotation will slow down collapse (to a point).

 

I long ago gave up with such bland quotations of dogma with creationists like yourself after spending hours going through the sources point by point only to have them ignored. So I will not do that again here.

Even a super-genius like you should be able to find something worth quoting on this site you bow down to with such gusto. Quote me something and see what I have to say on the matter.

 

DH. Does this mean anything to you?

First we are told WMAP is no good for such work, then we are told it is, according to these mysterious "other astronomers". I'd like some names mentioned here to show this person is not just another BB-er making it up as they go along.

 

Might as well, considering the worth of your replies. :shrug:

 

If you do not back up your assertions with evidence, or at least a logical argument, you will not gain any respect. That leads to being either ignored or ridiculed.

For instance, I see you attack the big bang hypothesis as 'laughable', but how do you propose the universe began, the very first photons and hydrogen atoms in the universe?

 

I know they do.

Who says the singularity at the center of a black hole is physically dimensionless and cannot rotate?

The "singularity" is a description of where infinities appear in the solutions to the math.

A serious question for you (let kaneda answer it). How do the neutrons in a neutron star form? Where do they come from? What happens to the rest of the atomic particles?

Volume, but yes.

If we could magically dump several solar masses of material into an area the size of the sun, it would quickly collapse into a black hole.
[/QUOTE]
Correct.

 

Ok.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

 

But Spergel (princeton) says he seriously doubts the conclusions reached by Lieu's team are correct for a number of reasons. First, WMAP, one of the instruments used by Lieu's team, is not the best instrument for detecting the shadow effect, Spergel said. The shadow effect "occurs on small angular scales predominately, while WMAP is designed to look at large scales across the sky," he said.

Secondly, other astronomers have confirmed the shadow effect in other galaxy clusters using not only WMAP, but also with ground-based radio telescopes, which have higher resolution and are thus better able to spot the effect.

Lieu counters that WMAP's resolution might be a problem for far away galaxy clusters, but points out that the clusters he examined were relatively close by, and certainly close enough for WMAP to see a shadow effect if it existed.

"The WMAP's resolution is not an excuse here," Lieu said.

Afshordi, the Harvard astrophysicist, suggested that a more likely explanation for Lieu's findings is that there is something about galaxy clusters scientists don't yet understand.

That's two...

 

The BB idea does not back up it's assertions with any actual evidence. It just says we have the CMB and the redshift and GOD himself has told us that there can be no other meaning to these than the BB so we are right.

At the most basic levels it could be argued that nothing really exists. What we see as a SOLID world is just the interactions of vibrations and such. My idea is that nothing split up. Nothing = 0. +1 and -1 = 0. + trillion and - trillion = 0. All it needs is that it all balances out and several years ago when scientists added up all the matter, energy, gravity, etc in the universe, it came out to nought. I think gravity is the counterforce to matter and that energy is a byproduct. Obviously you would think that the most basic particles would form first, like hydrogen. But with the BB in it's earliest days, you have the equivalent of a super-nova with huge concentrations and huge pressures. I think it would have formed the heaviest elements first rather than the lightest, even elements far above number 92.

 

You shouldn;t be soooooo had on yourself. You have it in a nutshell!!!

 

superluminal. Infinity is a mathematical convenience. It doesn't exist in the real world.

Protons and electrons in an atom are crushed together to form neutrons. However, they are not ultimately stable and I suspect that there is a sharing of electrons where neutrons continually break up and reform with some neutrino help. Since there would be some leeway in the size of a neutron star, I would think the exact mechanics of this process would depend on whether it is just a neutron star or not far short of collapsing into a black hole.