Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?

[paddoboy]

See below:

Thanks tashja...Actually there was never any doubt about it, as the person claiming he did not accept the BB, was never able to actually point to where he said anything resembling that, not offer any reference.
This is the way of some of our alternative cranks though, in the vane hope they can convert anyone to there fairy tail interpretations. Thanks again.

 

[Futilitist]

The title of this thread is:

"Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?"

It is a speculative idea, posed as a question. But it cannot even be discussed on this forum without constant useless interruptions to remind everyone that the idea is speculative. Thanks again for the redundant distraction (Trolling).



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

The title of this thread is:

"Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?"

It is a speculative idea, posed as a question. But it cannot even be discussed on this forum without constant useless interruptions to remind everyone that the idea is speculative. Thanks again for the redundant distraction (Trolling).



---Futilitist

Yep sure, and just as sure is the facts that all speculative ideas will run the gauntlet, including any lies perpetrated] . Thanks for your baseless arrogant comment on the matter.

 

[quantum_wave]

...

The only way to judge the merit of an idea is by considering the idea itself, regardless of where it came from. ...

It is often a trade off between the bother of evaluating the new idea, and the pleasure and comfort of being part of the group think.

I don't consider my ideas to be deep alternate stuff. I am just open minded with respect to various cosmologies because the actual evidence for all of them are pretty speculative at this point. I am not a bandwagon guy, and I think we are just getting started as far as understanding the universe is concerned.

True, speculation abounds about the as-yet unknowns. There is some merit to having departure points in generally accepted science, like the redshift data, CMB, etc., and then jump off into speculation about what the scientific community doesn't yet have generally accepted answers. Next comes applying a methodology that 1) the speculations and hypotheses are reasonable and responsible, and you are ready to defend them, 2) the resulting model and mechanisms are internally consistent, and 3) the model is not inconsistent with scientific observations and data that are well understood.

Even so, there is a potentially infinite number of scenarios to explain the universe as we see it today. That is why I make it a hobby, referring to myself as a layman science enthusiast, and not claiming my model is science, but just ideas for discussion. The model evolves as one pursues the hobby.

Zwicky's tired light concept lacks a physical mechanism. That is why the big bang theory got so much initial traction since there is no other way to account for the perceived red shift.

I'll give you some leeway there, though tired light got plenty of play, and there were physical explanations offered for it, I understand it was dropped due to the preponderance of evidence for expansion and the consistency of the raw redshift data.

There are more recent ideas concerning the physics of light that might actually result in an energy fall off over time.

That is true, and the fact that the medium through which light passes governs its local velocity is well known observation. As light enters a high density medium it slows down (some argue it is absorbed and reemitted guiding it through a zig zap and thus slowing its forward progress, but they don't quantify it mathematically), and as it emerges back out of the dense medium it speeds back up. An early universe would have been quite energy-dense relative to the density of a mature arena that has expanded for billions of years. As the density declined, the velocity of light would increase relative to the past. If you add to the mix the concept that space contains gravitational wave energy density, the gradient of energy in space takes on another layer of complexity.

The interesting thing that Gavin Wince proposes is that the apparent red shift results from applying the concept of three dimensional time to General Relativity. I realize this is a highly speculative idea, but if something like it was true, we would be left with a universe that is not expanding.

It being speculative doesn't necessarily count against it, and it would be a huge prize to some steady staters if 3D Time falsified expansion, and yet was consistent with GR. I doubt if I will be on board though, until the scientific community sees it as a Eureka concept.

My steady state model is quite comfortable with expanding Big Bang arenas, as long as they can overlap to form new Big Crunch/bangs and new arenas, and of course, as long as the universe is infinite and eternal in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle.

So you are a multiverse guy. That is cool. The concept might not be falsifiable, though. If it turns out that the Hubble red shift really means the universe is expanding, I would think the multiverse concept makes way more sense than a single big bang.

If I may test my understand of those two sentences, I take it to mean that you get my idea of a multiple Big Bang universe; a greater universe where the process of arena action that I described, takes place to defeat entropy and to perpetuate the ever-changing landscape, while maintaining the homogeneity and isotropy on a grand scale?

As far as falsifying it, you may be right, but there are predictions that might be observable. If parent arenas converge, there may be evidence of that as anomalies in the directional temperatures of the CMB that are consistent with such a prediction.

An infinite non-expanding space with continuous physical laws would lead to the somewhat paradoxical condition of an infinite amount of energy and matter.

That is true. You seem to have identified a dilemma that begs to be solved.
My solution is to speculate an infinite and eternal universe filled with the medium of space, and an infinite amount of matter/energy. I think of it as an open universe where there are invariant natural laws that "enforce" natural thresholds and limits of energy density, and where wave energy in the medium expands (much like you say below that energy radiates outward) and matter "clumps" via the opposing forces of energy density equalization and gravity.

I am more okay with this paradox than with the many paradoxes produced by a big bang and an expanding universe.

I agree with you, but I think the paradox can be solved, as I suggested. Never-the-less, there are always going to be difficult problems. I characterize it by saying that the current consensus cosmology is incomplete, seemingly has inconsistencies among various parts, and incompatibilities with quantum mechanics.

No. There is no expansion, so there is no contraction. It is a continuously cycling thermodynamic model. In one direction, matter is converted to energy. This energy radiates outward and cools, producing entropy in the process. Energy becomes matter by gaining mass in the BEC. Then gravity takes over, eventually reheating the matter. This creates the other half of a continuous thermodynamic loop by producing negative entropy.

Correct. That would be a thermodynamic problem. But in a non-expanding, steady state model there really isn't a way for energy to escape. In "empty" space areas, energy would convert back to matter and simply coalesce due to gravity toward the nearest higher gravity area, eventually becoming a part of a star, galaxy, black hole, etc. From there it would be converted back to energy and re-radiated out to "empty" space. This version of a steady state universe would have constantly evolving structures surrounded by large voids. This cosmological model is totally consistent with all observed phenomena except for Hubble's apparent red shift.

Sounds like you have been working on it awhile. I have come across some similar ideas in various forms, and wouldn't reject it off hand. Yours does seem to pull together various, more or less speculative solutions to some of the questions and problems of BBT. It would take some time to understand it all, I'm sure, but there is some appeal there. Do I understand you to be invoking 3D Time to get there?

Can I assume that you have an explanation for the fairly constant 2.7 K background temperature, with its small range of variance directionally? Have you considered the "cold spot" and can you explain it? How do you explain the dipole anisotropy where one hemisphere of the observable universe is slightly cooler that the other? Have you watched my YouTube video which addresses those questions and explains the macro level of my model? Why not, lol.

Why not?

All in all, I'm just a layman science enthusiast, and it takes me ungodly amounts of time to wade through equations and multiple dimensional theories.

 

[Futilitist]

It is often a trade off between the bother of evaluating the new idea, and the pleasure and comfort of being part of the group think.

Groupthink is a real problem. Especially on this forum.

True, speculation abounds about the as-yet unknowns. There is some merit to having departure points in generally accepted science, like the redshift data, CMB, etc., and then jump off into speculation about what the scientific community doesn't yet have generally accepted answers. Next comes applying a methodology that 1) the speculations and hypotheses are reasonable and responsible, and you are ready to defend them, 2) the resulting model and mechanisms are internally consistent, and 3) the model is not inconsistent with scientific observations and data that are well understood.
Even so, there is a potentially infinite number of scenarios to explain the universe as we see it today. That is why I make it a hobby, referring to myself as a layman science enthusiast, and not claiming my model is science, but just ideas for discussion. The model evolves as one pursues the hobby.

It is a new hobby for me.

I'll give you some leeway there, though tired light got plenty of play, and there were physical explanations offered for it, I understand it was dropped due to the preponderance of evidence for expansion and the consistency of the raw redshift data.

This is false, but I'll give you some leeway and assume your view as expressed is genuine. There were physical explanations offered, but tired light theory was dropped because those physical explanations turned out not to be plausible. But if some effect like tired light can eventually be proven that could fully account for the apparent red shift, then a steady state universe would have to be reconsidered, since there would be no evidence for expansion, and thus, no big bang. Besides the Hubble red shift based expansion, all of the other observed effects that supposedly support the big bang would also be consistent with a steady state universe.

That is true, and the fact that the medium through which light passes governs its local velocity is well known observation. As light enters a high density medium it slows down (some argue it is absorbed and reemitted guiding it through a zig zap and thus slowing its forward progress, but they don't quantify it mathematically), and as it emerges back out of the dense medium it speeds back up. An early universe would have been quite energy-dense relative to the density of a mature arena that has expanded for billions of years. As the density declined, the velocity of light would increase relative to the past. If you add to the mix the concept that space contains gravitational wave energy density, the gradient of energy in space takes on another layer of complexity.

1) Gravity waves have yet to be confirmed. The big bang theory predicts gravity waves and so do various multiverse theories that include big bangs. So if gravity waves are detected, it would not conclusively prove the conventional big bang theory.
2) Most physicists do not question the notion that the speed of light has always been constant. Ideas concerning a possible change in the speed of light over the history of the universe are considered much more highly speculative than the idea that the Hubble red shift might be explained by something other than expansion. The inflation period is generally seen as expanding space faster than the light that traveled through it.

It being speculative doesn't necessarily count against it, and it would be a huge prize to some steady staters if 3D Time falsified expansion, and yet was consistent with GR. I doubt if I will be on board though, until the scientific community sees it as a Eureka concept.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is the correct and sensible way to approach this, as opposed to the ultra closed minded way paddoboy does. He doesn't even really understand the big bang theory he is so in love with. He does not care about science, he only cares about not being seen as wrong about anything. He is afraid of embarrassment and he wants everyone else to be, as well.

My steady state model is quite comfortable with expanding Big Bang arenas, as long as they can overlap to form new Big Crunch/bangs and new arenas, and of course, as long as the universe is infinite and eternal in accord with the Perfect Cosmological Principle.

Your steady state model sounds a lot like Roger Penrose's. He is looking for a slightly different version of gravity waves (from multiple bangs) to be found that would tend to validate his model over the single big bang model. Check out this amazing lecture:

If I may test my understand of those two sentences, I take it to mean that you get my idea of a multiple Big Bang universe; a greater universe where the process of arena action that I described, takes place to defeat entropy and to perpetuate the ever-changing landscape, while maintaining the homogeneity and isotropy on a grand scale?

Yes. I think the idea is much more elegant that a single big bang.

As far as falsifying it, you may be right, but there are predictions that might be observable. If parent arenas converge, there may be evidence of that as anomalies in the directional temperatures of the CMB that are consistent with such a prediction.

I agree.

That is true. You seem to have identified a dilemma that begs to be solved.
My solution is to speculate an infinite and eternal universe filled with the medium of space, and an infinite amount of matter/energy. I think of it as an open universe where there are invariant natural laws that "enforce" natural thresholds and limits of energy density, and where wave energy in the medium expands (much like you say below that energy radiates outward) and matter "clumps" via the opposing forces of energy density equalization and gravity.

This is very similar to what I am saying. The only difference is the need for any big bangs. If the Hubble red shift turns out to be real, multiple big bangs makes more sense that a single big bang with all of the extra baggage of inflation, anti-matter destruction, dark matter, and dark energy.

I agree with you, but I think the paradox can be solved, as I suggested. Never-the-less, there are always going to be difficult problems. I characterize it by saying that the current consensus cosmology is incomplete, seemingly has inconsistencies among various parts, and incompatibilities with quantum mechanics.

I agree. That is why said it was "somewhat" paradoxical. The paradox is not physical, only philosophical.

Sounds like you have been working on it awhile.

Not really. I just started looking into the matter a few weeks ago. I hadn't been very interested in cosmology or astrophysics until then. But now that I have started paying attention to this area, I do find it fascinating. Since so many folks here seem to have such strong opinions, I thought I might as well weigh in.

I have come across some similar ideas in various forms, and wouldn't reject it off hand. Yours does seem to pull together various, more or less speculative solutions to some of the questions and problems of BBT. It would take some time to understand it all, I'm sure, but there is some appeal there. Do I understand you to be invoking 3D Time to get there?

Not necessarily. Like I said, there are other possible physical explanations for the Hubble red shift. If none of these end up dispensing with expansion, I would accept a multiverse model.

Can I assume that you have an explanation for the fairly constant 2.7 K background temperature, with its small range of variance directionally? Have you considered the "cold spot" and can you explain it? How do you explain the dipole anisotropy where one hemisphere of the observable universe is slightly cooler that the other?

Your earlier explanation of these observations appears to match Penrose's. Gavin Wince has a non big bang explanation for the constant 2.7 K background temperature. I don't know if it would account for dipole anisotropy.

Have you watched my YouTube video which addresses those questions and explains the macro level of my model? Why not, lol.

I have not seen your videos. For some reason, I was unaware of their existence.

All in all, I'm just a layman science enthusiast, and it takes me ungodly amounts of time to wade through equations and multiple dimensional theories.

The concept of three dimensional time makes so much sense that it becomes intuitive after a while. It is a missing piece of a puzzle that simplifies and explains many long standing mysteries.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

1) Gravity waves have yet to be confirmed.

Gravity waves are well supported by mainstream cosmology and also are firmly evidenced with the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar data.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is the correct and sensible way to approach this, as opposed to the ultra closed minded way paddoboy does. He doesn't even really understand the big bang theory he is so in love with. He does not care about science, he only cares about not being seen as wrong about anything. He is afraid of embarrassment and he wants everyone else to be, as well.

C'mon now my boy, you have already lied about Professor Krauss doubting the BB model, and from your chosen doomsday thread nonsense, now you continue your nonsense here. Evidence, we need evidence, not cheap talk and hope that others may think you have any credibility.

Your steady state model sounds a lot like Roger Penrose's. He is looking for a slightly different version of gravity waves (from multiple bangs) to be found that would tend to validate his model over the single big bang model. Check out this amazing lecture:

Are you now also claiming that Roger penrose has forgone the BB theory?
Another long video, are you able to give us a time on the video where he disowns the BB theory? Or is this destined to be another Professor Krauss claim fiasco and your economic doomsday schermozle.

Yes. I think the idea is much more elegant that a single big bang.

Nothing wrong in speculating, but that's all it is...no evidence at all prior to anything before t=10_43 seconds.

Not really. I just started looking into the matter a few weeks ago. I hadn't been very interested in cosmology or astrophysics until then. But now that I have started paying attention to this area, I do find it fascinating. Since so many folks here seem to have such strong opinions, I thought I might as well weigh in.

Opinions only matter with speculation. Scientific theories are based on observational and experimental evidence. Mainstream scientific theories become mainstream scientific theories simply because in the opinion of the vast majority of experts, the relevant model best fits that picture due to the observational and experimental evidence available.
Besides the four pillars of cosmology supporting the BB, the other incredible aspect is how it fits in hand in glove with SR/GR and the particle physics model.

Not necessarily. Like I said, there are other possible physical explanations for the Hubble red shift.

Only one that I know of and that has been totally debunked.That was the tired light hypothesis.
Redshift comes in three types for your information, Doppler, gravitational and Cosmological.
But don't get to upset, Like I said earlier, all alternative hypothesis, including all yours, will need to run the gauntlet....even on a science forum such as this.

Take it easy!

 

[Futilitist]

You are an ignorant jerk. IMHO of course.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

You are an ignorant jerk. IMHO of course.
---Futilitist

Perhaps you are looking into a mirror?
Actually the evidence shows you are the one with a problem.
You claimed Professor Krauss disowned the BB, and I asked you for a time on the video to support that...you ignored my request. So I showed other videos where Krauss obviously does support the BB as do most mainstream astronomers and cosmologists. Then tashja E-Mailed him and we got a reply confirming that. Still no recognition from you. You went all silent on us on the matter.

 

[Futilitist]

Perhaps you are looking into a mirror?
Actually the evidence shows you are the one with a problem.
You claimed Professor Krauss disowned the BB, and I asked you for a time on the video to support that...you ignored my request. So I showed other videos where Krauss obviously does support the BB as do most mainstream astronomers and cosmologists. Then tashja E-Mailed him and we got a reply confirming that. Still no recognition from you. You went all silent on us on the matter.

Perhaps you are arguing with yourself!

I gave you a quote from Lawrence Krauss in which he clearly talks about his uncertainty. That is all. I did not ever suggest that "Professor Krauss disowned the BB". Those are your words. So, straw man.

Do you consider putting words in my mouth to constitute some sort of victory?

You are so lame.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

All in all, I'm just a layman science enthusiast, and it takes me ungodly amounts of time to wade through equations and multiple dimensional theories.

Join the club, as are most of us.
Let me though say it again, we all speculate. The BB is not a theory of how the Universe came to be. It is a model, based on evidence from t+10-43 seconds.
Now that may leave some of us cold and wondering why the BB banged, or how it banged. We don't know...we have no evidence to answer those questions, so we speculate.
Mine? I speculate that our BB is the arse end of a White Hole, from another Universe. I also speculate that BH's lead via ERB's to other outpourings/White Holes in other spacetimes.
The trick is to keep it as speculative, see where a future validated QGT leads us and than see if our speculation was correct.
The other problem of course with forums such as this, is that being open to all comers, we have anti mainstream pushers, those with delusions of grandeur and would be's if they could be's, all claiming to have TOE's and with the knowledge to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology.
eg: In my time here, we have had four forumites all claiming to have certain validated TOES.

 

[paddoboy]

I gave you a quote from Lawrence Krauss in which he clearly talks about his uncertainty. That is all. I did not ever suggest that "Professor Krauss disowned the BB". Those are your words. Straw man.

Do you consider putting words in my mouth to constitute some sort of victory?



---Futilitist

[1] The quote was obviously out of context as he firmly accepts the BB as evidenced.
[2] I'm not here for victories, I'm here to discuss science to the best of my ability. This silly "victory" notion or whatever way you seem to view things is half your problem i suggest. :shrug:

 

[Futilitist]

[1] The quote was obviously out of context as he firmly accepts the BB as evidenced.

The quote was about certainty in science, so it was not out of context. My point was that you seem more sure of the big bang than Krauss does, since he at least admits some level of uncertainty. Understand?

[2] I'm not here for victories, I'm here to discuss science to the best of my ability.

I don't think you have much ability. I just said you had constructed a straw man. You don't acknowledge that you did. You just backpedal and change the subject by now claiming the quote was somehow out of context. That is disingenuous.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

The quote was about certainty in science,

There never has been any certainty in science.

so it was not out of context.

Of course it was! Stop trying to get out from under. You inferred he doubted the BB. Evidence was then forthcoming that he does not doubt the BB.

My point was that you seem more sure of the big bang than Krauss does, since he at least admits some level of uncertainty. Understand?

Perhaps its you who needs to understand. I have never said the BB was certain...I said it is overwhelmingly supported, and it most certainly is.
I have also said, it will be added to and refined in detail as state of the art equipment gives us more accurate data.

I don't think you have much ability. I just said you had constructed a straw man. You don't acknowledge that you did.

What you think is neither here nor there and does not change the fact that the BB is overwhelmingly supported, and the fact that you are now trying to wriggle your way out of claiming that Krauss casted doubts on it.

You just backpedal and change the subject by now claiming the quote was somehow out of context. That is disingenuous.

Not at all. Since it is certain that Krauss supports the BB as the most likely scenario, the quote was either a lie or out of context...simple deduction, my friend.

 

[Daecon]

The title of this thread is:

"Is The Big Bang Just a Temporal Illusion?"

It is a speculative idea, posed as a question. But it cannot even be discussed on this forum without constant useless interruptions to remind everyone that the idea is speculative. Thanks again for the redundant distraction (Trolling).



---Futilitist

I think Betteridge's law of headlines is in full effect here.

 

[paddoboy]

That is true, and the fact that the medium through which light passes governs its local velocity is well known observation. As light enters a high density medium it slows down (some argue it is absorbed and reemitted guiding it through a zig zap and thus slowing its forward progress, but they don't quantify it mathematically), and as it emerges back out of the dense medium it speeds back up. An early universe would have been quite energy-dense relative to the density of a mature arena that has expanded for billions of years. As the density declined, the velocity of light would increase relative to the past. If you add to the mix the concept that space contains gravitational wave energy density, the gradient of energy in space takes on another layer of complexity.

http://www.space.com/13368-universe-dark-ages-survival-cosmos-evolution.html

First light, then darkness, then light again

Before the dark ages of the universe, the cosmos was so hot that all the atoms that existed were split into positively charged nuclei and negatively charged electrons. These electrically charged ions blocked all light from traveling freely.

Approximately 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe cooled down enough for these ions to recombine into atoms, enabling the first light in the cosmos, that from the Big Bang, to finally shine. However, what came next were the dark ages of the universe — there was no other light, as the stars were not born yet.[Infographic Tour: History & Structure of the Universe]

Current models of the universe suggest the first galaxies began forming about 100 million years after the Big Bang, marking the beginning of the end of the dark ages. This process of star and galaxy formation gradually continued until virtually all the hydrogen and helium that make up most of the universe was once again ionized, this time by starlight, about 500 million years after the Big Bang.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[paddoboy]

I think Betteridge's law of headlines is in full effect here.

I had to check that one out Daecon. Quite relevant I might add.

 

[Futilitist]

There never has been any certainty in science.
Of course it was! Stop trying to get out from under. You inferred he doubted the BB. Evidence was then forthcoming that he does not doubt the BB.

Perhaps its you who needs to understand. I have never said the BB was certain...I said it is overwhelmingly supported, and it most certainly is.
I have also said, it will be added to and refined in detail as state of the art equipment gives us more accurate data.

What you think is neither here nor there and does not change the fact that the BB is overwhelmingly supported, and the fact that you are now trying to wriggle your way out of claiming that Krauss casted doubts on it.

Not at all. Since it is certain that Krauss supports the BB as the most likely scenario, the quote was either a lie or out of context...simple deduction, my friend.

Whatever. Just for the record, here is the quote in question:

"The point is we don't have any evidence, absolutely that the universe began. The Big Bang is based on General Relativity which we know breaks down as a Quantum Theory. And, in fact, those presuppositions that there must be a singularity, or a beginning...there are many theories that, in fact, produce an eternal universe that contracts and expands forever and has been around forever, that is consistent with the known laws. We don't know the answer.
And we are excited that we don't know the answer. Because we have something to learn."
~Lawrence Krauss

The Krauss quote begins at 1:46:58.

I know what you will say about the context. But I think the context is quite fitting. Lawrence Krauss is confronting a dogmatic, absolutist interpretation of the big bang theory.

I think there is some irony in all of this, my friend.



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

We don't know the answer.
And we are excited that we don't know the answer. Because we have something to learn."
~Lawrence Krauss
I know what you will say about the context. But I think the context is quite fitting. Lawrence Krauss is confronting a dogmatic, absolutist interpretation of the big bang theory.

I think there is some irony in all of this, my friend.

No, Professor Krauss is addressing a Fundamentalist religious nut, and gives the correct answer that we do not know the details of the actual BB and that the BB says nothing about the actual BB, but a description of the evolution of spacetime/Universe from 10-43 seconds after the event.
You're reading into it, whatever you believe that can give your alternative hypothesis some credibility.
Again a direct reply via E-Mail from Krauss.

All evidence points to a Big Bang origin but physics doesn't allow us to go to t=0. We can argue about what is plausible at that time as I did in my last book. But we can follow the Big Bang back to about a millionth of a millionth of a second after t=0 and speak with great authority.

Lawrence M. Krauss
Director, The Origins Project at ASU
Foundation Professor
School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics Department
Arizona State University

 

[Futilitist]

No, Professor Krauss is addressing a Fundamentalist religious nut, and gives the correct answer that we do not know the details of the actual BB and that the BB says nothing about the actual BB, but a description of the evolution of spacetime/Universe from 10-43 seconds after the event.
You're reading into it...

No. You are the one reading into it, liar.

Here is what Krauss said:

"The point is we don't have any evidence, absolutely that the universe began. The Big Bang is based on General Relativity which we know breaks down as a Quantum Theory. And, in fact, those presuppositions that there must be a singularity, or a beginning...there are many theories that, in fact, produce an eternal universe that contracts and expands forever and has been around forever, that is consistent with the known laws. We don't know the answer.
And we are excited that we don't know the answer. Because we have something to learn."
~Lawrence Krauss

Where exactly did he tell the religious nut that "we do not know the details of the actual BB and that the BB says nothing about the actual BB, but a description of the evolution of spacetime/Universe from 10-43 seconds after the event."??? He doesn't say anything like that!

So Krauss wasn't saying anything like what you just paraphrased, was he? What a disingenuous trick. You are such a liar. You are trying to put words into Lawrence Krauss' mouth! Or maybe you can't read.

Again a direct reply via E-Mail from Krauss.

Ha ha. Bullshit. A direct reply to what? Certainly not anything that is happening in this conversation. Everything you say is some kind of trick.

You are lame.



---Futilitist

 

[quantum_wave]

Groupthink is a real problem. Especially on this forum.

It is a new hobby for me.

This is false, but I'll give you some leeway and assume your view as expressed is genuine. There were physical explanations offered, but tired light theory was dropped because those physical explanations turned out not to be plausible. But if some effect like tired light can eventually be proven that could fully account for the apparent red shift, then a steady state universe would have to be reconsidered, since there would be no evidence for expansion, and thus, no big bang. Besides the Hubble red shift based expansion, all of the other observed effects that supposedly support the big bang would also be consistent with a steady state universe.

1) Gravity waves have yet to be confirmed. The big bang theory predicts gravity waves and so do various multiverse theories that include big bangs. So if gravity waves are detected, it would not conclusively prove the conventional big bang theory.
2) Most physicists do not question the notion that the speed of light has always been constant. Ideas concerning a possible change in the speed of light over the history of the universe are considered much more highly speculative than the idea that the Hubble red shift might be explained by something other than expansion. The inflation period is generally seen as expanding space faster than the light that traveled through it.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is the correct and sensible way to approach this, as opposed to the ultra closed minded way paddoboy does. He doesn't even really understand the big bang theory he is so in love with. He does not care about science, he only cares about not being seen as wrong about anything. He is afraid of embarrassment and he wants everyone else to be, as well.

Your steady state model sounds a lot like Roger Penrose's. He is looking for a slightly different version of gravity waves (from multiple bangs) to be found that would tend to validate his model over the single big bang model. Check out this amazing lecture:

Yes. I think the idea is much more elegant that a single big bang.

I agree.

This is very similar to what I am saying. The only difference is the need for any big bangs. If the Hubble red shift turns out to be real, multiple big bangs makes more sense that a single big bang with all of the extra baggage of inflation, anti-matter destruction, dark matter, and dark energy.

I agree. That is why said it was "somewhat" paradoxical. The paradox is not physical, only philosophical.

Not really. I just started looking into the matter a few weeks ago. I hadn't been very interested in cosmology or astrophysics until then. But now that I have started paying attention to this area, I do find it fascinating. Since so many folks here seem to have such strong opinions, I thought I might as well weigh in.

Not necessarily. Like I said, there are other possible physical explanations for the Hubble red shift. If none of these end up dispensing with expansion, I would accept a multiverse model.

Your earlier explanation of these observations appears to match Penrose's. Gavin Wince has a non big bang explanation for the constant 2.7 K background temperature. I don't know if it would account for dipole anisotropy.

I have not seen your videos. For some reason, I was unaware of their existence.

The concept of three dimensional time makes so much sense that it becomes intuitive after a while. It is a missing piece of a puzzle that simplifies and explains many long standing mysteries.



---Futilitist

There are some interesting ideas, and clarifications in your post, and a great link to Penrose. I have viewed several Penrose videos and have his book "Road to Reality" which I use for reference from time to time. He has an interesting view on cosmology, and I think he does predict that a history of multiple big bangs should appear in the cosmos in the form of gravitational waves. I'll have to watch the video and review his thinking before I comment.

Let me say that my model isn't someone elses ideas specifically, but a combination of ideas that I borrow shamelessly from all over the cosmological community. It is a bottom up, step by step process, based on generally accepted physics, using my own methodology of reasonable and responsible speculation and hypothesis when science does not yet have the answers. It evolves from comments from members, as well as my own research, and so threads like this keep me going.

I have found that by using a processs and methodology to try to formulate my own answers to as yet open questions has lead me deep into alternative views where sometimes the generally accepted views don't work with the direction my model goes. For example I don't invoke the curvature of spacetime, I consider the speed of light and gravity to vary as the energy density of the medium it traverses changes, including the presence of a gravitational wave energy gradient in the medium of space that is absorbed and emitted by all particles and objects, and still I agree that the speed of light in vacuum is c; go figure.

When I view your thread and ideas, it is natural for me to compare them to mine, and comment on the differences, but that by no means means I don't find merit in your ideas. I'll take some time to watch the video and do some well called for research on the comments so far, and post later when I get something more related to your topic than to my model.