Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by BdS, Feb 10, 2015.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Again sensationalistic headlines.
Plus I already have a thread on this.
And please note, the article itself concludes with
" So, at least for now, this work provides yet another purely theoretical result".
Thank you for sharing the link on an interesting thought and topic.
It mentions the new model considers a ''big crunch'', they are explaining the same thing as the big bang in my opinion by saying that alone.
In my opinion the ''Universe'' existed before the big bang, but in saying Universe I refer to the Universe as space and not the matter that occupies the Universe of space.
What I have learnt about Physics, a singularity in space is needed to form matter, matter can not form without it, the big bang or big crunch started from a singularity in space for a certainty.
Actually, the article doesn't say "no big bang", despite the unfortunate headline. What the work it is reporting on seems to say is "no big bang singularity", which is a bit different. It just says something along the lines that the universe was never all in one place at a single point in spacetime. At least, that's how I read it.
Indeed, one of the things that the authors seem to be relying on is that the current "Big Bang" model of cosmology is exceedingly accurate.
This is backwards. GR implies mass causing space-time to contract, not the other way around. Mass contracting space-time is easy to prove, anywhere there is gravity. The other way around is an illusion, that has never been proven in the lab to be real. It is the chicken or the egg, with GR implying the mass egg comes first.
It is not space-time contracting that makes a black hole form, with space-time magically causing dense matter to appear at a point. Matter leads the process. Math can be used to run physic game engines, with math being used to create an illusion that does not happen in the lab. We can have mass generate a space-time field; earth;s gravity, that impacts matter, clouds, but this still require mass leading at very beginning.
Actually GR shows that the universe can be expanding or contracting.
Enter they will if they are lucky the realm of "Eden"
You have not learnt much. The Singularity was OF spacetime, NOT IN spacetime.
Matter arose from spacetime as expansion took hold at and after the BB.
Folks should be reading the literature rather than incoherent journalistic reporting. The guy who thinks cosmology has something to do with his 'opinion' needs to read the literature ASAP to save this thread from illiteracy and all the bullshit that goes along with it. It's probably been awhile since any cosmologist has thought of the singular origin of the universe as anything beyond a big question mark. Below the question mark cosmologists have been building a list of possible answers to the question with inflation having the credibility of empirical data fitting theoretical predictions.
Well, it is more correct that at all points in spacetime, there is matter (of some sort) and energy. All points are after the singularity.
It is worth nothing that this is not the first time that this approach has been harnessed for cosmological purposes. It will not be the last.
Greene and others have been talking for years now about how infinitely dense singularities are little more than mathematical artifacts of general relativity with no basis in physical reality and Greene in particular is fond of speculating that the fabric of spacetime itself is essentially a sea of gravitons (or a graviton field if you prefer).
I only have a layman's perspective on this but it is certainly interesting to see more physicists arriving at similar conclusions somewhat independently of one another, and seemingly from different directions as well.
Well, I am realy convinced there never was a Biggie Bangie.
It is an exteremely stupid idea! NOTHING exploded into SOMETHING!
Come on now, folks! This is ridiculous and there are a lot of more prolems with the Big Bang bollocks.
But people cling of course religious to their views.
That's not what the Big Bang theory is.
Talk is cheap, particularly on a science forum.
So why not cease your endless chatter, and show some observational evidence invalidating the BB or some evidence supporting whatever your idea is....if you have any that is.
Oh, and you have already had one thread shifted to the cesspool...How long before another? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh really???? O no you are right ! Now it is about a singularity!!!! LOL LOL LOL
Everything came out of one little point!!!
Yeah right! But it doesn't explain where ALL the elements came from!
How life was formed! And so on and so forth!
It is ridiculous to the core!
It really is all si extremely stupid!
There is no shred of evidence for this Big Bang shite! Au contraire!
Well, well, well, I think it is the other way around!
People who cling to the Biggie Bangie religion have to show some evidence! There is none!
Nope, not the redshift, that is just a logical fallacy of course.
Gee, it is too bad the just saying "nuh-uh" isn't a good argument! How about supporting your argument with something else.
I breathlessly await your illuminating reply. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I breathlessly await his perma-ban.
Separate names with a comma.