No Big Bang?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by BdS, Feb 10, 2015.

  1. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    495
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    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.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,193
    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.
     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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.
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    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.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,593
    Actually GR shows that the universe can be expanding or contracting.
     
  12. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Enter they will if they are lucky the realm of "Eden"
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    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.
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    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.
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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.
     
  16. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    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.
     
  17. Ryndanangnysen Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    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.
     
  18. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That's not what the Big Bang theory is.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    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!

     
  20. Ryndanangnysen Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38

    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!
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
  21. Ryndanangnysen Banned Banned

    Messages:
    38
    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.
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,593
    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!

     
  23. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,351
    I breathlessly await his perma-ban.
     
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page