You don't have a theory river, not a scientific theory anyway. Apologies for my bluntness, all you have is an unsupported thought, like so so many of your other unsupported thoughts. But thoughts are no good, until they are supported mathematical validity and then by some observational and/or experimental evidence, and then repeat of that again and again...You know, like Einstein's GR...a thought first with regards to SR, then supported and clarified by mathematics, and finally a decade latter, observational evidence came to light......and of course plenty more since those heady times a century ago, eg: Frame dragging verification, gravitational lensing verification, BH verification, and gravitational waves. All involving spacetime geometry and the emergence of what we call gravity. ps: Oh I forgot, an electron is a duel nature entity, that is either wave or particle, with plenty of evidence supporting that quantum nature.
It does not look like the maps that I have seen...my only concern is that you have attached your good name to something that appears to be incorrect there by threatening to destroy your credibility. Further you cant cant avoid responsibility this way...you are really not in a position to claim immunity by virtue of being a messenger in so far as it would seem reasonable to conclude your presented material could be classed as your research. I was almost prepar d to accept your position on maths as valid but now I am not sure. Alex
I am surprised that you have not heard of this huge problem ..all I can conclude is there must be some movement to keep it quiet. Well unfortunately science is not as casual as say you and I may be and so it seems the matter is treated as such indeed rather crucial. Scientific models depend upon making testable predictions and failure of such predictions really does cause the model to fail. I am surprised again you are not familar with this matter..it has been largely ignored although there was one paper that sort to tell how the lithium was there as predicted but due to a process outlined in that paper the lithium that was there is now gone...to me it seem d rather odd that given the initial prediction was for lithium that such prediction did not cover this later process that now sees it well below the initial prediction. I do not think I have got a thing wrong in the way I have presented it for you here. I agree but given the context the failure of a prediction can not be dismissed lightly. Further it is clear that in all matters the theory is presented in some considerable attention to detail..pareticularly timing for example so are we at liberty to be so casual when it suits us? I do not think this is the situation and perhaps it is the huge failure in the lithium prediction that has taken away focus that the others fail to fit the prediction although to some lesser degree. I have not looked at this for a long time but mention it for you specifically given your interest. It is not our opinions that count, science has clear requirements which certainly does not accept close enough is good enough. As you know I dont like the model because it sort to shore up an already preconceived notion, that of a cosmic egg or cosmic atom, and the person highly involved had a background that really should have excluded him from working on such a thing ... We are talking cosmology however which will see the best of science enlisted to support the notion where the journey did begin. You can only admit observations are made fit the theory somehow and I really do not believe that is how science should be done. I would much prefer that day the CBR was observed first and then a theory arrived at to fit it in not the way it was done..cart before the horse in my humble view. Mmmmm seems that this glosses over the numbers in the prediction and the numbers in the observation. Anyways I have lost interest and wait for the day that science will catch up with where I am and similarly conclude that the universe is eternal. GR originally supported my position as did its inventor and I feel his roll over was far too hasty....what do you think? Alex
This is why I deferred to you. I do not claim in-depth expertise sufficient to determine if a scientific picture is not an accurate representation. I thought that the site was reliable as to content. I did notice that the coloring of the map was different from say Wiki, but then again, I don't know if the map in Wiki has the correct coloring......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would think it's a minor point. I am heartened to hear that you do find some merit in my position and I promise to be more dilligent in my selection of "acceptable" data....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Minor point!!!! The CBR is the most necessary pillar of support on the current preferred model of cosmology...these are not small potatoes. I just think you have been sold the wrong map..if I had to guess I would say your map may be xrays...but thats without looking and certainly it would not be the latest xray map...which is really something to look at... Have a great day. Alex
I agree all points are worthwhile matching the theory, some though more then others [the four pillars for example.] And I dare say that plenty of young up and comers will be racking their brains to explain that anomaly, and still testing the theory everyday....that's science. Even GR is being continually tested...the latest of course being gravitational radiation, something that was just a prediction without any observational data until a few years ago...Bh verification is another, with the gravitational waves matching the required templates for a wide range of BH's. But getting back to the BB, the final nitty gritty, is that it still is the best we have...if that changes over time, all well and good.
Absolutely. And I suppose it may sound odd that I agree there..but it is and that is the way it works. Finding problems is one thing presenting a new model is quite another matter. Anyways no one seems much interested in cosmology these days...I wish I understood it better ... I did make I big jump forward on my understanding of GR ... still mostly ignorant but I don't suppose many laymen have much of an idea how it works... I had three large kangaroos here earlier which is very odd ..the wallabies are normal but the big fellas you just don't see...maybe they know they will be safe here. Do you know if there is a paper that consolidates the BB theory...you know like something self contained in one spot? It just seems to me it's now like say common law which is made of from stuff from all over the place...I believe there are countless papers on inflation for example...it needs to be codified Sortta if I am correct. Alex
Now this I find unbelievable Our Expanding Universe: Age, History & Other Facts Related: What Is Big Bang Theory? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!The universe was born with the Big Bang as an unimaginably hot, dense point. When the universe was just 10-34 of a second or so old — that is, a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second in age — it experienced an incredible burst of expansion known as inflation, in which space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. During this period, the universe doubled in size at least 90 times, going from subatomic-sized to golf-ball-sized almost instantaneously. Related: What Is Big Bang Theory? https://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html# If this is an expanding universe what are all the stars in the background doing there? They should not exist yet, no?
OK, is this a better image of the (Milky Way) galactic magnetic field? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A representation of how our Galaxy would look in the sky if we could see magnetic fields. The plane of the Galaxy runs horizontally through the middle, and the Galactic centre direction is the middle of the map. Red–pink colours show increasing Galactic magnetic field strengths where the direction is pointing towards the Earth. Blue–purple colours show increasing Galactic magnetic field strengths where the direction is pointing away from the Earth. The background shows the signal reconstructed using sources outside our Galaxy. The points show the current measurements for pulsars. The squares show the measurements from this work using LOFAR pulsar observations. Credit: Freshscience https://phys.org/news/2019-11-galaxy-magnetic-field.html
Never trust an artist impression and do not expect that a journalist always gets it right... I like the term "almost instantly" .... for my money I am happy to say " in an instant". Why inflation is accepted so readily by folk really gets to me .... it's so easy to imagine the universe doubling in size at such a rate really just seems so very normal if deep down you are a creationist I expect... Alex
Even science journalists? If BB inflation actually happened at FTL, in my non-creationist inflationary model, FTL is permitted during that time frame. An instant later that permission is no longer available.
As to BH....that's the most curious phenomenon I can think of. But it's real! Chandra X-ray Feb. 27, 2020 Record-breaking Explosion by Black Hole Spotted Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Evidence for the biggest explosion seen in the Universe comes from a combination of X-ray data from Chandra and XMM-Newton, and the Murchison Widefield Array and Giant Metrewave Telescope, as shown here. The eruption is generated by a black hole located in the cluster's central galaxy, which has blasted out jets and carved a large cavity in the surrounding hot gas. Researchers estimate this explosion released five times more energy than the previous record holder and hundreds of thousands of times more than a typical galaxy cluster. Credits: X-ray: Chandra: NASA/CXC/NRL/S. Giacintucci, et al., XMM-Newton: ESA/XMM-Newton; Radio: NCRA/TIFR/GMRT; Infrared: 2MASS/UMass/IPAC-Caltech/NASA/NSF Is there any reason why the BB was not a result of an exploding pre-universe BH https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/record-breaking-explosion-by-black-hole-spotted.html This "hard fact" is the foundation for my (speculative) proposition that the BB was the result of a naturally ordered imperative self-implosion of "the prior state" until a threshold singularity formed and the singularity exploded in a mega-quantum event, releasing all sequestered energy into the mathematically/physically expanding universe (@ FTL), and with it the emergence of the Laws of Nature and their mathematical permissions and restrictions, including the speed limit of "c"...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because it works?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/how-well-has-cosmic-inflation-been-verified.163534/ My summing up of an excellent article on Inflation, that you may find interesting.
All those that see BH's as some astrophysical imagination, need to do, is explain the effects that we observe by any other means then a BH....And of course in recent times, [surprise!!] we have found many gravitational waves from those beasts we call BH's. No reason at all. In fact as good as any other speculative scenario. Our universe may well have been created from the arse end [out pouring] of a BH!!
They do a great job of course but sometimes in an effort to make material interesting I feel they wander a little from the point... Do not forget that important qualification ...if...Just putting it at the start and proceeding as it was only there as a conversation starter just won't do. We are dealing with if and having dealt with "if" for some little time we can not move onto the detail that looks back and only see if spelt as "fact"... Look it's all very nice to speculate but it's wrong to speculate and having convinced oneself that it is the best speculation out there it does not achieve a status of fact...getting carried away by the beauty of one's ideas is not the pathway to enlightenment in my view. So folk jump on the obvious..that this breaks the faster than light thing...well no it does not because that applies to matter and here we are talking about space so having satisfied your only objection we can now agree that inflation happened can we...well for me no..no we can not..and in any event can we call this space..I expect we don't but I still think it is a stretch to have the entire universe somehow getting past the ftp rule on a technicality as it were...just sounds contrived.....never convicted fails to mention the arrest. I don't care that it explains away the problems it was enlisted to fix ..I would reasonably like a little more...and maths that says..here we go if we just double things up over the fastest possible time that Mr Plank will allow that should fix it...hmmmm no. But what would I know and I am not that interested given my belief that cosmology is not really science further I am a layman so teaching me is like teaching a mule table manners. Prove it! Or at least go through how you see inflation working ... how we get what you start with given we got that before inflation was in the picture...seriously my ignorance is my frustration and you have such a good way of explaining things maybe you can present it so it makes sense to me.. first how do we get to the singularity going backwards presumably to get there without going thru inflation..we go thru inflation after we have determined a singularity...do you see what I mean..I must have something wrong and I really want to know what the model actually says not what I have cobbled together from scientific articles and artist impressions. Anyways I really am not interested in pointing out things that could be obvious ...if you think you know how the universe started and have no doubts about your determinations ...please explain it to me if you care to take the time. Alex
Thanks I had a look and need to look again to concentrate on the specific detail on inflation as opposed to expansion..but later I need to do stuff to put food on the table...yes going shopping. Alex
The first post sums up expansion and the BB, the second Inflation...just my brief summary on a good article you should read. I'm looking for a "reputable" article that is more critical of it as balance.
Not convinced . Highlighted So gravity waves move outward from the source .( BH in this case ) ; why do outward waves from the source produce gravity waves ? What is gravitational about these waves ? I don't find anything about these waves , " gravitational " .
You are stretching the size of the "entire expanding universe", but consider the scale of the universe at that time! It all started very, very small. I posited the "if" to present a logical argument that "if this, then that" may be deduced. I am relying on the latest proposal that the universe did in fact go through an "Inflationary epoch" Inflationary epoch [quote]The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of space. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.[/quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch# Inflaton Field That is not a fair demand. No one knows for sure, but does that mean no one can present possibilities and if/then propositions? Consistent with my perspective of a mathematically ordered universe, my view stipulates a dynamic pre-universal state or condition, where the Universal Laws are not present, there was no universe yet. In a permittive (hard fact) pre-universal condition where Universal Laws are not present, there is no mathematical speed limit restriction. The pre-universal condition may well have consisted of "virtual" particles, which must go at FTL. Thus when all this "imploded" or "collapsed" into itself, forming the "singularity" consisting of virtual particles going at FTL, then a threshold event may have caused a mega-quantum event where all compressed universal energy is released at once, at the same time , at the same place, at FTL, it seems entirely logical that this model may fall in the middle of the various proposed solutions.
Write4U , from post#159 Your not making any Sense Write4U . And is Not Even Possible in a Physical Universe . There is always a Universe . There is Always Energy and Always Matter . Which Recycles , therefore both change into the other .
