rethinking how the universe began

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by arauca, Jul 26, 2013.

  1. MarkM125 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Name one, and cite a (peer-reviewed) paper that explains current cosmological parameters (WMAP) with said proposal.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The normal way is to ignore the anomalies and pretend all is well; the global warming tactic of PC science is not new. If they continue to mention this data, there will be an effort to discredit and silence. Much of science is about money and prestige; mercenary science, not about truth.

    Data from 5-10 years ago showed huge superstructures within the universe, with the time needed for these to form from a matter and anti-matter inflation and other current assumption older than the universe. Instead of forming a new theory to explain this and all the rest, it was ignored so the status quo does not have to lose their spot at the big table. This new data is that older data.

    A better theory, closer to truth, will need to explain the rapid rise of structure, like stars in less than a billion years after BB, spiral galaxies with too many turns for the age of the universe, huge superstructures and massive cold areas. Or we sweep these under the table and discredit anyone who dares expect truth in science.

    The easiest way to explain all these observations is with a quantum BB expansion. The primordial atom or singularity does not inflate as a continuum but quantum divides. We live in a quantum universe yet still use a 19th century continuum explanation for the inflation.

    A quantum division requires less input energy, than a big boom continuum since less entropy is created all at once. Entropy needs to absorb energy and a quantum divide takes less energy than all at once.

    Picture something that looks like black hole cells dividing, spreading, dividing, etc. until these subunits undergo the mini big bang phase. In the human body, this cell division process results in a fully assembled superstructure as soon as the division is complete.

    The mini big bang phase would more than likely appear at the galaxy level of division, maintaining material closer in space, with a center of gravity allowing materials to be fetched, quickly. The pressure waves from each galaxy mini big bang will cause an expansion relative to the galaxies also helping to contain each galaxies while adding eddies.

    If these mini big booms were all synched, we would see a uniform background radiation. Cold spots imply some of these divided up differently and boomed earlier.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,134
    Your first 2 sentences are the typical mantra of the uneducated hack. The rest of the post has precisely zero science content. Congrats! At least you got to talk about your favorite subject; entropy (even though you again have shown you don't even know what entropy is).
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MarkM125 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    You need to include a reference when citing experimental data that no one else is familiar with it. Also, don't post some link to a pop-science writer, as that gets you nowhere.

    There is a model for that.
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Yes. We have our own pop-science writers right here. We don't appreciate the competition.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. MarkM125 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Haha, you know what I mean. If I didn't include that, he may have responded with an overly-speculative article written by someone who hardly even read the paper they were writing about. Not all popular science is like that, but there's enough of it.
     
  10. PartyBoy Registered Member

    Messages:
    71
    Far too much time and effort is spent perpetuating criticism of poor ideas and ignorance. Not much is spent rationalizing self obvious flaws in decent ones.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534


    No there is not!
    The Inflation addition was originally a 'fudge factor" to try and iron out existing problems in the BB theory, namely the observed flat, homogeneous, and isotropic observations.
    Since that time, more evidence has been forthcoming further supporting it.

    With or without Inflation, the BB model explain our observations far better then any other model.
     
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Like I said, the wagons will circle, rather than deal with the truth. Nobody can prove anything that far back into time, so it comes down to who has the bigger telescope/budget, which is why nobody wants change.

    I was wrong. The superstructure observations have been around since at least the 1980's but are still tucked under the rug since I am surprised this is not taught.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534


    Like I said, there is no proof in science.
    Our models are a result of our observations, and the more we observe or the farther we observe, our models may require some tinkering...eg, the discovery of the acceleration in the expansion rate.
     
  14. PartyBoy Registered Member

    Messages:
    71
    would it really be so hard to recreate a structure which expanded faster than the surrounding environment, or create a structure with enough "contrast" to discern and give a true picture of the original creation?
     
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Another consideration that has always bothered me about the current model is having space-time expansion leading matter. Has this ever been proven in the lab to be possible?

    Mass can expand space-time, for example, if we blow up a star. This would be due to mass/density decreasing such that GR decreases causing space-time to expand. But the other away around pulls energy out of hat, to do something not yet proven in the lab. Dark matter and energy have not been directly proven but only inferred. We use something not yet proven as the energy source of cause and effect, we can't prove in the lab.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    The BB/Inflationary model was not a creation/evolution of matter in the first instant....It was the evolution of space/time as we know it. Matter came about a short time later, when the decoupling of the Superforce, created false vacuums and phase transitions.
    From the instant of the creation of our first fundamentals, until now, the story follows accepted creation of more complicated matter with drops in temperatures and pressures.

    DM and DE are indeed inferred from their observed effects on space/time etc, just as BHs are only inferred from its effects on matter within its vicinity.
    But in all those cases, the evidence is always mounting with technological improvements of our equipment.
     
  17. Undefined Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,695
    Hi paddoboy.

    I would suggest caution when repeating that same old simplistic 'explanation' about time and space being created by the BB etc.

    If you have been keeping an eye on the science discourse lately regarding the actual basis for the 'time' abstraction, you will note that without actaul 'motion' of something across space to any 'degree of freedom', there is no 'time' abstraction' to be made/assumed in reality.

    So I naively prefer to think of energy-space as existing in its own right whether or not any 'discernible energy-space features' arise within it (ie, what we would call an 'object distinguishable from underlying/background energy-space' dynamics ----think in quantum mechanics terms).

    So as far as I can observe the reality (above and beyond the abstractions): 'time abstraction' did not 'exist' before 'energy-space'; nor could 'time abstraction' count off anything/events before 'objects' arose in that energy-space to create the comparative dynamics from which we could abstract 'time' as an analytical 'dimension' (not a real thing like motion in energy-space is).

    Anyhow, paddoboy, that's my naive take on what comes first/next etc.

    I hope it at least has served to give you and everyone pause, and another line of thought if you are re-appraising that simplistic 'explanation' repeated in the above quoted post? Bye!
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Hi Undefined...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I take the mainstream simplistic scenario in question as it seems to make most sense to a layman such as myself.
    And as a layman, I also don't mind stepping into complete unknown territory on the other side of the BB and even beyond the perceived singularity in BHs...see " Black holes, White Holes and Baby Universes:"
     
  19. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Cosmos Incognito

    R1D2:

    One reason some care about creation is from a sense of wonder. In view of our frailty, knowlege may never save us in Space but our machines will have been and be safe there. Maybe machines will be our "Space children" and leave us behind. Maybe most of us will never see a full Earth from the Moon. This makes our efforts seem futile, but you might as well ask a bird why it flies before you put it on a grill. Man will fly and perhaps be eaten for it, but trying serves a greater purpose just as much as does a critter from KFC...
     
  20. quarklet8 Registered Member

    Messages:
    62
    Meta-universe

    One possibility I see about Creation is that, from one singularity, two universes came: ours and an "anti-ours" (made of anti-matter). This "Meta" must have been shocked into creating its twins when the remnants of previous universes in the form of Dark Matter smashed into it, causing it to heat into a "volcano" and "erupt" into matter and anti-matter beams, whence the two universes. The original meta-verse must have been a quasar. Were we to look at these universes from their "outside", we would see a great singularity between two expanding spheres...
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2013
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The speed of light is the same in all references. Whereas, inertial or finite reference is relative. This means the speed of light is the universal reference by which we should be explaining the universe.

    The speed of light is also the ground state or zero state of the universe. This can be inferred from special relativity. Mass cannot go the speed of light or it would take infinite energy. Therefore a mass based universe has to exist at a reference less than C. If we look at the net conversion of mass to energy and energy to mass, our universe goes net mass to energy; back to C toward lower energy.

    This simple logic, implies the universe began at C reference, where time and space are irrelevant, with mass/energy condensing, which meant the local reference needed to slow to less than C. Now we have the BB singularity with plenty of mass. To go from C, to less than C, we need to put on the brakes, with the relativistic mass/energy difference the brake heat that will expand the singularity; boom!

    Since the universe has finite mass, this did not tap out the resources of the C reference, but was only a blip. With C still the continuous and universal phase and reference, the movement of the BB universe was now back to C. All the forces of nature give off energy when they lower potential; matter back to C. Gravity causes space-time to contract in the direction of C reference.
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,134
    You really need to stop posting this made up nonsense in the science section and put this in the fringe sections where it belongs.
     
  23. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,081

    (bolded for emphasis by me)

    hi kiteman;
    can you explain what you mean by that, pls? thx.

    edit to add; i'd like to believe that scientists wouldn't work to try to make a popular theory 'fit' ...rather they want to do what is right and true.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page