big bang flawed theory

''there is this theory about the big bang, what proof do they have to back it up? the problem I have with that assertion is that if this in fact had happened, the universe would be expanding away from point of explosion.'' !!??

This is pretty much the definition of an explosion...c'mon you must have seen plenty of slo-mo explosions on TV...

The stuff blows out..and would keep going for ever if it didnot hit something, be pulled to the earth by gravity and slowed by air resistance.

(I suggest you avoid fireworks if you don't understand this.)

A theory is an attempt to explain observations. The big bang theory seemed logical at the time it was made and was only (partially) rejected because of more observations. Stating that the big bang theory is incorrect and that the current big push theory is correct might also be reversed later

"Proven to be incorrect" – We are not even sure of our observations yet.

The last data I saw does suggest the universe is expanding. I believe the original data leading to the proposal of the "Big Bang" was background radiation. There is not, and probably won't be, any "proof"; science doesn't work that way. You get some data, propose a theory to explain it, then every post-doc in the world tries to shoot holes in the theory, it gets improved, etc., etc. The "Big Bang" has been much changed and challenged in the last 60 years.

Read Gregg Braden book " Divine Matrix". Deals with quantum theory and big bang is included as one of the topic

Hi Guest.

If you still think that the big bang "universe would be expanding away from point of explosion", you have a huge amount of reading to do.

I suggest you start with a search on the Internet and also scan my CR4 Blog: http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/browse/22/Relativity-and-Cosmology for clues. If you have to read all the books out there, it may take a long time...

Jorrie

If I recall, Paul Davies had some insight to all this that would, perhaps, offer a slightly different perspective.

As my friend Del might suggest, I reserve the right to have a foggy memory.

cr3

GoTo, Amazon.com. GoTo, Books. Type in, Big Bang.

Much has been written about this version of creation. It's not science. It's religion.

Ah, there are 10,000 questions that you didn't ask, and that there may not be any current answers to! Are you sure we are "expanding away" from an initial creation or rebound point? Is space continuously being created? What actually is expanding, if we see other galaxies, on average, moving away from us? What happens to all the matter and radiation emitted from untold numbers of earlier stars, long since "dead", and all the stars and galaxies that we can "see" ? What is the "energy" of space itself? What is dark matter and dark energy, and where did they arise? Are these phenomena still being created? Are they an "anti-gravitational" force? There are a lot of questions that are being researched and discussed today. Plus, I'm sure, there will be a lot of surprises yet to be discovered!

I think that there has been an a lack of answers to the second part of the question. Indeed, if the second part of the question is not answered first, how can one have any hope of answering the first part of the question. Surely one would need to have matter in the first place for the "Big bang" to occur in the second place !!!

Hi MOBI.

There is actually no requirement for matter before the inflationary BB happened. The best theory today is that it was pure vacuum energy, through quantum effects, that made space starting to expand - called the inflationary epoch.

After inflation there was matter and radiation and some vacuum energy left. There is obviously no direct observations of that epoch or before it, only what the situation looked like some 300 thousand years later, when the universe became transparent (the cosmic microwave background, or CMB).

What cosmologists do is to develop several candidate (or 'toy') theories, put them into mathematics, pump them into a computer simulations and see how each correspond with observation. The theory that best fits the data wins and is accepted as the 'best buy' at the time.

As new observations emerge that are in conflict with the latest 'best buy', it needs to be discarded or at least modified. As others have also stated above, that's essentially how science works. A lot of science that we as engineers use today evolved that way.

Jorrie

Hi Jorrie,

Have you seen this picture: "A supercomputer-produced cross-section of part of the universe shows galaxies as brighter dots along filaments of matter, with a sea of dark energy filling in between the galactic islands. Credit: James Wadsley/McMaster University".

I thought it was really interesting. Read more about it here.

Kinda gives one a new sense of awe when looking at the night sky.

Looks a little bit like some photos of brain tissue; dendrites, neurons, etc.

-John

Thank you Jorrie for that explanation of further theories. I am but a simple minded Marine Engineer, a bilge rat. My love or knowledge of Quantam Physics is not too great as you may gather.

I believe when I was at school I heard something like "energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another", which if I remember is the First Law of Thermodynamics, my question is from whence did this original energy originate?

Guest,

There is a sort of simple demonstration you can do to get an idea of what expansion looks like. Take a piece of paper and make a square grid of points, each 1 cm apart (the actual scale doesn't matter, so if you've got .25 inch quad paper, use that).

Label any point "a", the point immediately to the right "b", and the next one to the right "c".

Then go up a couple of rows and make "d", "e", and "f" directly above "a", "b", and "c".

So, the distance from a to b is 1 cm and the distance from a to c is 2 cm.

Every morning when you start work, go to the photocopier and enlarge your paper by a factor of 1.19 (If you can't get 1.19, use any handy number larger than 1). Be sure to keep the labeled points on the paper. Replace yesterday's paper with the new enlargement.

After 4 days, measure the distances again. You'll find that the distance from a to b is now 2 cm and the distance from a to c is now 4 cm. In other words, b moved 1 cm and c moved 2 cm relative to a. If you used an enlargement other than 1.19, the distances will be different but still in the same ratio.

Look at the paper and you will still see a square grid, just bigger in scale. This is expansion.

Since you used 1.19 enlargement every day, this is steady expansion.

Since c moved twice as far as b during the 4 days, it has twice the velocity. If you check other points, you'll see that the velocity is proportional to the distance away from a.

Notice that d,e, and f did the same thing as a, b, and c. This tells you there is no center of expansion except the one you perceive. So the grid is not expanding from anywhere but is expanding equally everywhere.

Some points of the grid will have been lost because they expanded right off the edge of the paper. They're gone from our ability to see them.

Depending on how you center the paper, any attempt to "shrink" the grid back to a starting point will move toward a different point each time. It is pointless (pardon the bad pun).

This is just a simple demo, but you can start to see how you have to view this. A good follow-up would be to read Steven Weinberg's The First Three Minutes.

draw a large number of dots on an un-inflated balloon. now, as you blow up the balloon each dot on the balloon will see all other dots moving away from it. what's more, the further dots will appear to move at a faster rate. This is the same thing we see from earth.

from these observations we can draw one of two conclusions. Either all galaxies have a similar point of origin, or YOU are in fact the center of the universe. I choose the latter.

-A-

maybe i just don't understand how you can get something from nothing. how did nothing just spontaneously combust?

Make a rabbit out of plastic explosive. Detonate it. Examine the debris field and determine the original shape was a rabbit. Come to the conclusion that there is no way of telling what the explosive looked like before it was a rabbit. Now, as you stand in the debris field with all your data, someone walks up and says that your entire theory about the origin of the explosion is based on falsehoods because you can't prove what the explosive looked like before it was a rabbit.

Fight the urge to say what you want to say, and just walk away.

-A-

-A-, i have one problem with what you said. "Make a rabbit out of plastic explosive." See the problem enlies here with the word make. if the big bang is true, you see someone or something had to make the matter before it exploded. it had to be there before, but where did it come from? i also have another question concerning life after the big bang. because i don't know much about the theory itself (i'm willing to admit that), how did life come about after the big bang? by the way this is the same guest that posted before.

Matt

Matt,

my example was intended to be light and funny to those who understood the concept to begin with.

my point was, and is, that we can study the result of an explosion and make predictions about what things looked like at the moment of detonation. However, only guesses can be made as to how or why all the pieces came together.

the nature of your question suggests that you are confusing science with religion.

science plots the evidence on a grid and makes predictions about where the pieces originated. you seem to be asking, "where did it all come from?" science says, "the evidence suggests all things came from a central location." then you ask, "but WHY did it all come from a central location?"

if you wish to pursue a scientific explanation, you need to study cosmology. i'm afraid, however, you will only find best guesses there. Highly technical, slightly contradicting, mathematical treatise riding the ragged edge of human understanding.

If that's not good enough for you, the only surer answer you are going to get is in church.

as to your second question. "how did life come about?" same thing. go to college, or go to seminary. follow whatever calls you, brother.

-A-

Hear, hear!

Often the differences of perspective, experience, knowledge and the likes allows myself to grow toward a better understanding of my own personal (spiritual) ideas. Further allowing the full development of burgeoning concepts that coexist in scientific principle.

However, this is not likely to be the case unless the exchange of ideas that takes place is done so in a manner demonstrating respect and often restraint; while further tempered by patience and tolerance.

Just as you have done here.

cr3

Hi, Matt and -A- I suppose that the exploding rabbit that you were referring to is similar to the explosion that took place in the printing shop, only this explosion created the unabridged Oxford Dictionary. I say, we do have a lot of big bangs or explosions occurring and it may have been another "big bang" that created life in all its forms we have on earth today????

I have the same questions.

cr3

Hi Guest, you want to know "how you can get something from nothing?"

The short answer is easy: "let there be light".

The alternative is to study quantum physics, because the technical answer may lurk there. My 'engineering-view'^[1] is that we will probably never know and that it does not matter at all. The future is the only thing that we may perhaps be able to influence, so maybe we should rather concentrate on that.

Jorrie

[1] You can download a chapter on Cosmic Inflation from this web page, giving an 'engineering view' of how the machinery of the inflation epoch might have worked.

Quantum physics may never render a satisfactory theory or answer either with so many particles in the soup. Some we will never know of because they disappeared during the inflationary epoch of the big bang. Therefore at the breaking of symmetry some 300 thousands years after this epoch is where we must start from and determine where we are headed. I agree Jorrie, that the future is the most important and relevant issue. Let's get "back to the future".

What about brane theory? What's your take on it?

You are correct to ask how can a "BIG BANG" happen from nothing- the scientist w2ho coined the term disparagingly was Sir Fred Hoyle, who believed in a steady state universe- quite apart from that, if there was a big expansion< it would not have been a "BANG" as there was no air to transmit sound- Oh dear, I hope that we can work out what we call gravity is- as , in my humble opinion, it holds the key to the physical universe- the whole problem we have is that animals are trying to understand things beyond their comprehension- why don,t we all just accept LIFE as it is, & like me & Stinky, drink to dull our pointless intellect, & no doubt, believe in a HIGHER POWER?.

Tried that. Didn't work for me. Damn.

So now I am faced with attempting to understand life on life's terms, as opposed to altering my perception or influencing others behavior or manipulating my reality.

I guess this makes me a physicist nolo contendre.

Whether nolo or not, the penalty is the same. Just as it is for me CR3. I guess we're doomed to question, question, question...

The universe is not expanding, it's space itself that is expanding. So, if you track that backward, space must CONTRACT to a smaller and smaller space until eventually it becomes- nothing! QED

The BIG BANG (in reverse) is the BIG VACUUM.

-John

Hey John, why don,t you resurrect your drink avatar- & have plenty yourself- then you may be able to understand this:- If space is empty, & planets etc have mass - how the pluperfect hell can an empty space expand- carrying planets etc ie- mass- with it - this just don,t work my friend- the space may? expand- but as sure as hell, it won,t carry matter with it!. The spots on a rubber balloon are completely wrong as an analogy, in my humble opinion.!.

Neil,

I didn't invent the theory Neil, I just try to follow various developments. You said "then you may be able to understand this:- If space is empty, & planets etc have mass - how the pluperfect hell can an empty space expand".

I believe there are plenty of qualified folks in the abstract physics and cosmology community that share a belief that the fabric of space is indeed expanding. Even though this may cause you much consternation Neil, theories that defy what you may consider logical get proposed, tested, fall by the wayside then get replaced by other theories, etc.

"One version, the "cosmological constant," says empty space has an unchanging energy that makes it swell. As it grows, more of the energy appears, propelling the growth more rapidly. Space expands forever; meanwhile, the stars finish out their life cycles, biological life dies out and nothing ever replaces it.

Fortunately, there are some mathematical and physical problems with this theory. It also requires an odd coincidence to have happened -- that is, the acceleration started right about the time humans came along to view and measure it. Before then, the universe would have been compact enough so that matter's gravity would hold back the expansion".

Even though you may have a hard time with the balloon analogy, it does present a somewhat easy way to visualize the expansion of space fabric. Here's one:

The "explosion" at the Big Bang does NOT mean that a clump of matter exploded and expanded in some pre-existing space. The space itself was probably created at the Big Bang and has been expanding in volume since then, just like the surface area of an inflating balloon. In this analogy, we must imagine that the 3-dimensional volume of space is represented by the surface of the balloon and it's expanding (stretching) with time, not into some pre-existing space, but along some other dimension orthogonal (perpendicular) to the 3 dimensions of space. The "membrane" or the "fabric" of space is stretching, but that doesn't mean that you or any other matter is also stretching in size (just as a bug or a dust particle on the balloon doesn't get stretched as you inflate the balloon!).

Incidentally, my avatar, past or present, has no opinion so let's leave it out of any discussions.

Regards,

-John

John, thanks for your reasoned response- I would say that it reflects the mainstream view- however, I don,t believe - I would love to find a simple answer (such as God created the heavens & the earth, & is still around to be prayed to)- in the meantime, I imbibe alcoholic drinks, praying for the truth etc (scuseme- glug-glug- glug- burp) Now, wot was I shaying?.

Hi Neil,

Thanks for the drink.

Personally, I'm firmly ensconced in the absolute belief in reason. Natural theology, which includes Deism, works for me. It worked for many great men of reason- Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Voltaire, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, and many others. May not work for you, but, for me, natural theology allows me see and appreciate God in all things, without having to deal with many of the absurdities of "revealed scripture". It gives me the freedom NOT to be required to adore what is not understandable. Rather, I can use the reasoning ability I was born with, along with the pursuit of scientific knowledge, to try to make sense of the world around me.

That's all I will say regarding religion.

Perhaps this post is a little off topic, but considering the title, "flawed big bang theory" I guess it belongs as well as many other comments so far.

-John

john,

What absolute poppycock! Never in my life have I been exposed to such an absolute disregard for decency! Not only do you offend my core beliefs, but you have reached down into the soul of my being and slapped the memory of my ancestors!

May not work for you, but, for me, natural theology allows me see and appreciate God in all things, without having to deal with many of the absurdities of "revealed scripture".

Never before in my life have I seen such blatant abuse of commas! You Sir, should be ashamed of yourself.

As to your belief system. . . I am glad that you have a system that works for you. I support your freedom to believe as you choose, and i will support you in defence of that freedom.

Have a nice day!

-A-

Amen,,,,,,,,,

I knew something was wrong with him! How very sad. He didn't seem like an over-punctuator.

Goes to show one can never tell.

I gotta stick a word in on the -R- sub topic. I am not so sure about the statement prior regarding absurdities. I often feel as though it (the language in scripture and the likes) is spoken as I would speak to my 3 year old. At age 16 (or 38) it may not sound as appealing. I then think of all I thought I knew at 16 and it feels that society might be just a bit adolescent and less than eager to see the true meaning in our Fathers lectures and accounts regarding life while rather rebelling. I suspect at some point society will be like me. Surprised that dad was right.

cr3

Hi John- so you were born with reasoning ability- you must have been a very smart baby!. Everyone else (human) that I know of have to be educated to a high enough standard to be accepted by previously educated hb,s-ie, the whole system is flawed, but seems to be the best that exists, at an Earthly level, as far as we know!.(I,ve just hooked up a keg of HBB to my cp- you should be able to tap into it- cheers!).

Hi Neil,

Incidentally, much of my comments were meant tongue-in-cheek. No offense was meant to you or anyone else.

Also, reasoning ability is separate and distinct from education as I'm sure you're aware.

The sentence that follows contains misused commas, can you identify the offending one(s)?

"Most of us are all smart, educated, opinionated, handsome, people."

-John

The only thing I agree with in your statement is that most of us(HB,s) are people-there are some exceptions- as to where commas are placed - this must be one of the most futile exercises I have ever seen- Would an uneducated person know any different?- surely, the underlying truth is what matters in the reality of life?- you have again driven me to drink!( I don,t need much driving).

(off topic)

Here I proclaim my ignorance. What part of the world does one come from where "don't," is written "don,t?" I see this allot, but only on this forum.

-A-

I don,t know either. I ain,t about to do that down here in TX. That,d be too weird.

I don't know about the USA but in Australia it is almost unknown for an engineer to correct or criticise someone else's spelling and grammar. The English language is too inconsistent for the engineering mind to cope with except by memory alone.

Yes I've put mined a few times for mind, seems enginers dig deeper for answers. regards JD

BlueAussieBoy,

Yes, you're right. I myself am terrible at spelling. My post about the commas was meant to be funny. My question about "don,t" was genuine, as I KNOW I don't know all the rules in all the english speaking countries around the world.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you out there but, I would rather someone tell me I am doing something wrong rather than letting me continue to roll along in my ignorance. As I have said before, "I would rather be FOUND wrong, than continue to BE wrong."

But that's just me.

-A-

-A-

I agree with your comments.

However let's not get too (e.g. to, two) carried away especially with grammatical construction of sentences, paragraphs, etc., and punctuation. I suppose one can always use spell check for spelling.

You should have a comma after "However."

-A-

You are not wrong there, I did forget that comma. Thank you.

Dang! You beat me to it.

And after "away."

cr3

I've been married 29 years, 7 months and 28 days. I don't mind being told I got it wrong.

The English language rules are so inconsistent. I suspect the printing press is to blame. The Tudors didn't mind how you spelt it. They were, however, very fussy about grammar and spelling in Greek and Latin. These were nice reliable consistent languages. But once the language had been printed in metal type face it was set and we are stuck with it.

It must be hell for some non English speakers to figure out the writing side of the language. Having said that I recall a Japanese engineer who thought it was amazing that you could use the letters as sounds and construct the words. He thought this was easy compared to Japanese where you just had to memorise a character for every word and build up your written vocabulary. His notes to us were always phonetic and easy to understand but would not have amused my wife who is a teacher.

I should add that her spelling is not as good as it use to be. I'm gradually having a bad effect on her but it has taken some time. I guess I'm just not as irresistible as I thought I was.

BlueAussieBoy,

Are you sure your friend wasn't Chinese? My wife is Japanese and while they do use kanji (characters representing words the same as the Chinese), they also utilize two syllabic scripts, hiragana and katakana. One is used for writing words of Japanese orign, the other is used for writing words of foreign origin. It's neat and confusing at the same time. My wife's computer allows her to type the phonetic word and when it recognizes a word it will display a list of kanjis which have that sound.

So it surprises me that your friend (being Japanese) was amazed at using characters for sounds to form words as the Japanese that I know are able to deal with both phonetic and graphic forms of writing quite well.

Cheers,
John

so what does a Japanese keyboard look like?

cr3

Like this:

-John

Hi -A-,

Okay' let,s clear up this "," thing once and for all. I created this little tool a long time ago (English 101).

-John

i leveieb, het dinm acn phronceend twah si tenriwt, neev nweh sit ton lstep trecrolcy.

spelt?

-A-

your right, written

no wuckin furries mate!

-A-

I see you got round it alright, have a good one.

- JD -

I love that experiment!. I wish I had a link to post. But that is a favorite.

cr3

Hey, JohnJohn. Are you sure that there should not be a comma after "happy" in your comma triangle theory?

Absotively, posolutely not!

I don't believe a linguist would probably slap your hand with a ruler if you put a "," after "happy", however, technically there should not be one there.

-John

This has GOT to stop. Engineers are terrible grammarians. But at the same time, Engineers are famous for nerding out over small and obscure details.

Please let us not forget that this topic was originally about. . . you know, there should be a period after "happy." Not a comma. AND the punctuation belongs INSIDE the quotation mar. . . ARG!

Someone, please make it stop!

-A-

Is that "full stop?"

perhaps an EMO?

Can't take the credit for the experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typoglycemia

Regards JD.

-A-, I know it is wrong, but I don,t know how to put it where it should be( I am self taught in this complicated game).

.......and of course, a punctuation mark in an incortrect place, can alter the entire meaning of what is being said.

Not well up on the subject, but my understanding is, that relativity is a problem of the relationship between the observed and the observer? for example the expanding balloon, if the observer moves back from the balloon as it expands them it would appear to remain the same size, this assumes no other object to reference too. And if you take two balloons and expand them while retreating they would appear to be attracted to each other, an invisable force? are forces a hint of other dimensions we do not understand?

Just a few thoughts, regards JD.

It is always easy to point out some topic and be controversial and earn some fame (as guest). Instead of just pointing out what the problem is One could have formulated a formal question. A question which one could have taken little seriously, say, by quoting some reliable source on what generates such question!

Nabkim,

I think this is the reply you were looking for...

Huh?

Guest

knowledge = 1/beliefs

beliefs = 1/knowledge

It may not be true for all people, but it sure is true for some. Sad.

-A-