Great Engineers & Scientists

"New matter is created to fill any gap that arises because of the motion of a galaxy or other bodies"

What matter is it? A matter should have mass, new matter added, then universe should denser time to time.

Am I lost some thing in my mind? or miss a link? Need refreshment!

It is very interesting to know the biography of Dr. Narvekar, who is an eminent Astrophysist. According to you, the black holes are dense masses that would not allow even light to escape. However, the latest research shows that blackholes may not even exist and the matter considered to be black holes is actually dense rings with a hole in them and the rings have very high magnetism. Therefore, there is new thinking emerging in the science faculty about the existance of the balck holes. Regarding new matter filling gaps, it doesn't seemk feasible as the whole matter in the universe is a fixed qunatity and it may redistribute but can not be generated. According to the Chandogyopanishat, an ancient Hindu treatise, the universe did indeed form with a Big Bang. The sound of the bang is equated to the 'OM' which is a sacred mantra of hindus. As per this treatise, when the big bang occured, matter got thrown out and eventually formed two halves of the universe, one golden half and the other silver. The golden half has seven worlds and the silver half has seven worlds. Earth seemingly falls in the silver half of the universe. Guys, this is very intersting to know about various theories both ancient and modern. Throw in more and lets all learn something more about our own universe.

This is not the jest of the story, but it nevertheless needs to be noted: Mr. V.S.Dave wrote: "...Most scientists now believe that the universe was created when a highly dense, atom-sized body exploded with a bang. This body threw away matter which later formed the stars, galaxies, nebulae, and so on. This is called the Big Bang theory..." I'm afraid this is quite far from what "most scientists now believe ...". What most scientists believe is more like a superdense region of space that abruptly started to expand - no material bodies in there! So it did not throw out matter, the matter later formed out of the raw energy. It may be just a semantics issue, but...

Dr Narliker surely did stellar work at the time, but the steady state theory of Fred Hoyle fell out of favour long ago and Hoyle himself admitted, "we are dead". So apart from historical importance, debating the merits of the Steady State theory (like in some replies) is not a worthwhile exercise today.

Although I agree completely with your statement regarding the region of space that abruptly started to expand, I'm not convinced steady state is a dead theory. In a previous post you wrote that galaxies farther away from us in space recede faster than those that are closer and if you go far enough away the galaxy is receeding at the speed of light and cannot be viewed. Isn't it possible that our big bang could be a local event in a much larger universe? Of course, steady state theory in it's orignal form was pretty much refuted once they realized that things were moving outward, so I agree with you in that sense. Some have revised the theory in the way I mentioned above though.

For the record, I don't have an opinion on steady state since we can't prove it either way (as far as I know).

Hi Roger. I do not quite follow how you bring the Steady State theory into "...our big bang could be a local event in a much larger universe?". I am convinced that our observable universe is just a small part of a much larger universe - the presently advocated lower limit is around 10 times our observable universe. That is standard BB theory and does not require Steady State.

The "many bubble universes" type of idea is obviously not testable at present and is not taken very seriously.

The idea came from a book I read on steady state theory several years back. It modifies the theory to state that the universe is infinite in both size and age and the big bang was simply a "local event". 15 billion lightyears being described as "local".

This is not the same as the "baby universes" theory.

Hi Roger. Hmmm, let's see.... So the 'local', or observable space looks just like the std. BB model?
The std BB universe could also have been infinite in size from the start, but not infinite in age.
Did they say what the testable differences between the modified SS and the std. BB would be?

No, they didn't provide any testable differences as far as I can remember. It's been a while since I read the book. The book by the way is called "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner. I read it to hear another point of view and was left with the impression that most of the authors arguments were weak and only the Big Bang as a local event was the only plausible way that a steady state Universe could exist. This explanation was added as an afterthought in the book I think. I wish I could check but I can't seem to find it, which is odd because I never throw out books I've read. Anyway, you can take a look for yourself, if anything, hearing the weakness of the books arguments against big bang will reaffirm your belief in it as it did for me.

The big bang has some problems with the theory. The biggest one is that if all the mass was inone place at one time there is not amount of force that could seperate if from the center of the mass. So what was the force that blow the mass apart. I think I have the answer. George E. Van Hoesen george@usgreenbuilding.com

I have a theory, it is the big bang theory, long ago there was nothing, then God spoke and BANG everything was. So, in the original post, an atom sized something or other exploded creating the universe. I should believe that there is some naturally ocurring force that could attract and hold ever so briefly, the entire mass of the visible and invisible universe into a space the size of an atom. Oh please, it is impossible for an two atoms to occupy the same space at the same time, no matter the energy involved, and someone is putting forth a theory that the entire universe was once the size of an atom. It would take more faith to believe that than to believe that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, namely God.

Shooter wrote (#6903): "Oh please, it is impossible for an[y] two atoms to occupy the same space at the same time, no matter the energy involved, ..." You are misrepresenting the BB theory. So please, in such a case you are not quite at liberty to criticize it!

No current mainstream scientist says there was any form of matter cramped into the size of an atom. There was just the quantum energy of the vacuum, then inflation followed and only then the matter was formed out of some of the residual energy.

It may help if you read the engineering interpretation of the BB theory and inflation on my website and then criticize.

So, how does this work? Is the Big Bang like a shock wave of pure energy traveling at the speed of light --thus invisible--, and matter shedding from this outer wave then descelerating as time passes by due to gravity. This way older matter would be closest to the center and new matter would be closest to the speed of light, giving the effect of everything getting further appart from each other?
-----------
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Albert Einstein.

Post #6932 quote: "Is the Big Bang like a shock wave of pure energy travelling at the speed of light --thus invisible--, and matter shedding from this outer wave then decelerating as time passes by due to gravity."

The short answer is: no, this is not how the BB theory have it - there was no shock wave travelling at the speed of light! According to the theory the 'pure energy' was trapped inside a piece of space that was stretching (expanding) much faster than the speed of light (during the 'inflation' period). After a 'phase transition' the expansion rate started to slow down and matter 'condensed' out of the pure energy all over this piece of expanding space. So the older matter is not near the center, it's all over the place.

For the long answer, you have to consult cosmology texts. A particularly engineer-friendly account can be found via my website http://www.relativity-4-engineers.com/.

Two questions please: What was holding all of this energy into such a small place at t=0? Where was all of this energy just before t=0? The laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but changes form. Is the BB theory saying that at t0, there was nothing, then all of a sudden at t=0, there was an infinitely expanding universe of energy? Sounds to me like this theory violates one of the laws of thermodynamics.

One has to be a bit of a quantum physicist to answer these two questions! Strictly speaking, not part of the standard BB theory, but the inflationary scenario postulates that a quantum fluctuation occurred that created a 'false vacuum'... Thermodynamics is a classical theory - 'false vacuums' are quantum mechanical...

One must accept that these are just theoretical constructs that try to explain natural phenomena. Short of saying it was 'divine intervention' and cannot be explained, this is the best we have!

having recently farewelled my son to the other side I have thought long and hard over the reality of the universe.
a poignant fact, maybe, although no living proof is found in text from the occults (the unknow to positive science).
The religions around the world, from which positive science sprung from divided it's self from, claimed to make everything positive or disregarded it altogether and that's where the occults took a different path from religion in our modern eyes.
can it be that the only truer meaning of the universe and every thing about it is but a hologram of refraction in the form of consciousness perceived through the eyes of the sciences as waves (vibrations)?
does it really all exist and did it really become from nothing or even a minuscule part (in volume) of what it is today?

having learned meditation through my life time (53 years of age) I believe in the alpha waves of the brain that transforms the great all-ness into a kind of togetherness of every, thing* being* and/or entity, to name but a few transgressing thought matters.
Are we here to learn (scientifically) or are we here to learn of the notion of ego (the self) It can all be pondered in a smallest of continuous stream of life (albeit called chronological time).
when reading the Tibetan book of the dead a transcript meant to engage the traveler from this stage to the next in preparation of what might/or may occur at that place of transference does the universe or the ALL as we sense it suddenly disappear or are there parallel universes that are unseen to the naked eye?

we CAN rely on our feet and in so doing know where we stand, still wondering how what we are standing on got here.
I for one rely also on the insights given to me by my brain (synapses) on a state of meditation.
I have proven beyond any drought that I can get what I need (not within the fact of chronological time) and always when I need it. as apposed to when I want it.
So the universe, the wonders of our realm are divided (shared) amongst all of us, pleasure dome of antiquity's and beyond.
Yet still no true answer avails it's self on clean paper no matter of language or creed or denomination. it is there for us all to enjoy.
One thought still remains are we on the right track or did our path of depicted progress falter some what on some bygone era, I'd say around the 1300BC and 1400BC we changed our path with the advent of philosophers around the time of Aristotle, which made a shift in thought on a global scale unprecedented before and after (or maybe some others also who knows).
The point?
In science we are all vibrations, it's just the coherence of other vibrations that we note, that play on our senses the seven or so we take notice of.

for an example I will leave you wonderful people to ponder this.
when you say it's red or green or blue are your eyes seeing the exact same colour as your peers or those we are peer to?
I think not, the vibrations in all of us is of a similar nature it all rolls the same way (except for colour blind people) and there goes the proof also, colour blind is just another way of saying different to the norm, as it is most likely that there is always a small difference within each genepool.
For those with GOD, God-Speed, and with others may the force you believe in guide your safely on your journey in chronological and all other times.

If matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light and the size of the universe is 15 B light years, woundn't the original atom or mass have to be several billion years large for all the matter to create our solar system and galaxy so far from the epicenter? Otherwise, it would take the matter 15 billion years to travel here to before it can form our solar system? Did the BG occur longer than 15 billion years ago? i'm just an interested layperson.

Information given is nice .

bt there is nothing abt his invention u gave very least information abt his invention.

plz reply me on my email id