New Big Bang hypothesis - physics-based

Look at the scientific evidence Ayo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Evidence of what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This makes absolutely no sense.

If these statements are indicative of his views, then they certainly are ridiculous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You say you've never heard of gravitational time dilation, nor event horizons? Perhaps you should read about them.

 

No I know very much about time dialation and event horizons.

I just don't understand what you are saying, which is probably indicative of you not understanding it either.

 

Now you know one of those I mentioned earlier.

 

Here's a hint Ben, black hole in reverse.

 

The below is a copy of my #58 post in the thread IAC started about the "deception"of the Big Bang.

-------------

As I've posted in other threads on this topic, the easy way to visualize the expansion of the Universe is to recognize that everywhere in the Universe is the center of the Universe, in its own reference frame.

Accordingly, since we are at the center of the Universe, we see (via telescopes) nearby galaxies with low red-shifts, which we interpret as low recessional velocities, each receding away from us in every direction. Dimmer galaxies, much farther away, and with greater red shifts, are interpreted as receding at much greater recessional velocity. We see these galaxies receding from us, as we sit in the center of the Universe in our reference frame, in every direction looking outward.

The most distant 'object' we see is actually not an object at all, but a spherical shell of hot hydrogen gas that completely surrounds us and that is receding from us at the tremendous recessional velocity of roughly 0.999999c, causing the redshift to be roughly 1,000, corresponding to the equivalent of the electromagnetic emission of a stationary black-body at a cool 2.7 degrees Kelvin (which is the same as a hot body of gas of 2,700 degrees Kelvin receding at 0.999999c). It is sometimes referred to as the 'blackbody background radiation', though in fact it is the light emitted from matter which is SEPARATE and DISTINCT from the matter of all the visible galaxies, receding from us at near light speed. It is more usually referred to as the cosmic microwave background.

If we imagine time reversed, then at the recessional velocities of all the galaxies, they would have all been on top of us here at the center of the Universe some 13.7 billion years ago. That is also true for the spherical shell of hot hydrogen gas we see, as well, which travelling at nearly the speed of light away from us, is now quite far away, and only dimly seen in the microwave frequencies, rather than visible light frequencies as for the much nearer galaxies. It too would have been on top of us 13.7 billion years ago.

Beyond that spherical shell would be more matter, at even higher temperature, and even greater recessional velocity, though we can't see it as yet, since it is beyond that spherical shell, where light travels slower (because light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum, but slower through a medium such as Hydrogen plasma). However, as time passes, we will see an ever larger Universe of matter.

Thus, the Universe is infinite in time, space and matter, though we can only see a finite portion of it, only as far away as the matter that has emitted the microwave background.

If life exists elsewhere in the Universe, that elsewhere might indeed be beyond the matter that emitted the microwave background that we see. However, we cannot see it as it now is (and indeed, we could not see it until enough time passed that it had cooled, decoupled, and emitted light that we would see as a microwave background sometime in the distant future). Indeed, we cannot see galaxies that are 10 billion light years away as they now are (or are in their own reference frame). Instead, we see those galaxies as they were billions of years ago, due to the finite speed of light.

Some people have likened the Universe to be the interior of an infinite singularity.

I personally began teaching the above theory in 1975, when I pondered on the subject and came to the realization that even the spherical-shell microwave background emitter, which is thus matter separate and distinct from the matter of the other galaxies, was once directly on top of us, as were the galaxies, at the start of the "Big Bang". It got blown away from us, just as did the matter that coalesced and formed the galaxies, but at a very high recessional velocity. It too would have continued to cool and coalesce into galaxies, if one were in its own reference frame, and not Earth's reference frame.

The Big Bang was indeed an infinite explosion of matter/energy, creating space-time and the opportunity for life to arise, and us as humans to ponder our place in the Universe and our role in society.

Hope this helps.

 

"Infinite explosion of matter/energy:" infinite, shall we say, seems a bit high, wouldn't you say?

 

Finite is a bit low.

 

Have you no humility whatsoever? Or a shred of sense? You do realize that, as a complete layman, you are just making a complete ass of yourself by flinging such embarrassingly stupid statements at Ben.

Of course, your transformation from homo sapiens to Equus asinus was complete on your second post here at sciforums.

 

What a farce..... can I get the rights to this skit?

 

You're learning disabled, aren't you?

 

Touche.

There are more than a few on Sciforums.

So it goes.

 

The matter of the universe expanded like a "white hole" (like a black hole in reverse), everthing outside of the then collapsing event horizon hyper aged, and speed of light was accelerated, outside of the collapsing event horizon, which collapsed to zero a few days after the first day of the six days of Creation, so those distant stars need not be billions or millions of years of age.

Superdim, Mr. Physics, address the issues and stop behaving like clowns.

 

I thought the big bang was caused by an assymetry with matter and anti matter?

 

Caused by? Umm... no. It would be really neat if someone knew what caused it.

The question is, why is there any matter at all? If the laws of nature were perfectly symmetrical, there should have been equal amounts of matter and antimatter, resulting in complete annihilation and no matter at all. Yet here we are. There appears to be a subtle assymmetry in the way matter and antimatter are created and behave after creation.

I'll bet Ben could elaborate on this.

The idea is that the matter the universe contains is the tiniest fraction of what was actually produced and anhilated in the first instants of the BB. Matter is just a bit of leftover fluff.

 

Well, there was no matter or anti-matter before the big bang, so I don't think this is correct.

 

I'm this close to giving you an infraction for posting this pseudoscientific religious shit in the astronomy and cosmology sub. Piss off.

 

Humphrey's correctly predicted the chemical composition of Jupiter, as later measured by Voyager I, based upon the assumption that the expansion began with a ball of water two light years in diameter, "God hovered over The Deep."