Big Bang - Where's the hole?

In 1987 OSU was teaching the big bang theory in astronomy 101. They also said alien life was a very large number and large possibility even at the smallest calculations. What if space is like a lava lamp? Energy is never destroyed, or created, it is constantly transforming and moving around. If this is the case why can't we get off the fossil fuels and find a way to use a free clean energy source?

reply to post by bjarneorn


So if I don't understand something and need someone smarter than I to explain it I should just go look at something else?

No matter where you are in the universe, you will see all the other galaxies moving away from you. This is because space is expanding. There is no "center". Your question is common but I'm afraid not entirely well-intentioned in this case.

The Big Bang THEORY is utter nonsense. The term itself was coined by Hubble (famous astronomer, telescope named after him, more big time than anyone else on this forum) to MAKE FUN OF IT and make it sound idiotic, because he determined it to be nonsense. Since most people are idiots, this just made it catch on even more.

It is all based on the "redshift equals distance" which is nonsense as well, and has been PROVEN totally wrong many times over. Hundreds of cosmic objects demonstrating higher redshift than objects that are definitely BEHIND them abound. Nobel laureate Halton Arp (once again, way more bigtime than any smartypants on this forum) pointed this out in hundreds of cases. The solution? He was banned from any more telescope time. Essentially, all the "scientists" put their fingers in their ears and said, "Lalalalala, we can't hear you".

The ASSUMPTION that you can have a Doppler effect in light is the first wrong turn. It is not yet understood whether light is a wave or a particle, therefore it is unknown whether there even COULD be any type of Doppler shift. The "scientists" get around this by claiming that light is both a wave and a particle at the same time, which is even more obviously nonsense. They can't stand to admit that they don't know.

Extrapolating all this redshift backwards in time is where you arrive at the Big Bang. Yet, every time they point the Hubble telescope in a new direction, "scientists are baffled". EVERY TIME. They then must invent magic fairy dust, which is magically invisible, yet influencing everything, to make their totally wrong equations now add up. They call this dark matter. Now they had to invent magic fairy dust version II. They call this dark energy. Now the equations add up. More "thought experiments" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and computer models PROVE it, right?

Furthermore, there is redshift in every direction, thus implying that WE ARE AT THE EXACT CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. We must be right in the spot where the big bang occurred. This is just danced around and accepted. Apparently I am one of the few who finds this to indicate NONSENSE.

In the entire history of mankind as we know it, EVERYTHING that everyone KNEW has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong. It is the height of hubris to think that everyone was wrong about everything all through the past, but NOW we've got it all figured out.

Pointing out that this is all nonsense does not mean I believe in the other fairy tale book that so many believe. There are not just two options, yet most people are blind to even that possibility. Who says there is not some third possibility? In fact an infinite number of possibilities?

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by Kryties

 

Lol. Sure, call yourself "rational" and "logical" all you want. Doesn't make it so. I call your beliefs a religion, because it requires faith.

Actually, since this picture of the universe is based on evidence and observation, it isn't taken on faith.

What evidence is there, exactly, of the Big Bang?

Existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, expansion of space, and the relative abundances of elements are all the (observed) facts which can be explained by a "big bang" cosmology. Do you have another explanation for them?

For one, you should know that static universe models fit observational data better than the expanding universe models, as they match most observations with no adjustable parameters.

A static universe is observationally ruled out. Just look at literally any object in the sky that isn't our galaxy or Andromeda- it will have a redshift proportional to its distance. How can you say a static universe "fits the data"?

The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but ONLY with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. This essentially falsifies the theory. Hell, even if the discrepancies could be explained (though, that does require a problem for you), Occam's razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters.

Just because we can adjust our model to fit what we observe does not mean it's false. In fact this is the strength of the model. If it couldn't fit the facts, we would throw it out.

Secondly, our most distant galaxies visible (using the Hubble Deep Field) reveal insufficient evidence/proof of evolution, with some of them having higher Red shifts (z=6-7) than the highest Red Shift QSOs.

Essentially, with the Big Bang theory, all stars/quasars/galaxies/celestial bodies should be "primitive", meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. Except, latest evidence suggests lots of metal are found in the (supposedly) earliest QSOs, there's a full review of that here.

So you've uncovered an interesting scientific question! Maybe our cosmological models do need to be adjusted. This is the strength of the scientific method. It proceeds by examination and questioning of the established models. It is possible, but unlikely, that this line of inquiry could overturn the established standard cosmology, but I wouldn't bet on it. For one thing, at redshift 6 there was likely already a solid percentage of population II stars, and therefore metals.

On the other hand, if we do need to postulate a new model to explain this, it will have to convincingly explain the cosmic microwave background, isotropic expansion of space and chemical abundances. In other words, it would likely resemble the "big bang" model more than it wouldn't.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The Big Bang THEORY is utter nonsense. The term itself was coined by Hubble (famous astronomer, telescope named after him, more big time than anyone else on this forum) to MAKE FUN OF IT and make it sound idiotic, because he determined it to be nonsense. Since most people are idiots, this just made it catch on even more.

You're right, it did face ridicule early on from the scientific community, but was eventually adopted as standard because it fits the data.

It is all based on the "redshift equals distance" which is nonsense as well, and has been PROVEN totally wrong many times over. Hundreds of cosmic objects demonstrating higher redshift than objects that are definitely BEHIND them abound.

How so? Pecular motion will create redshift in addition to that caused by the hubble flow. There is dramatically more evidence to support the notion that redshift is linear with distance, which we can calibrate through redshift-independent distance estimates.

The ASSUMPTION that you can have a Doppler effect in light is the first wrong turn. It is not yet understood whether light is a wave or a particle, therefore it is unknown whether there even COULD be any type of Doppler shift.

I have no idea where you get this idea. Light can behave as both a wave and a particle, and this is well-understood. The doppler effect in light can be observed right here on earth, in laboratories.

Extrapolating all this redshift backwards in time is where you arrive at the Big Bang. Yet, every time they point the Hubble telescope in a new direction, "scientists are baffled". EVERY TIME.

Yes, scientists aren't afraid to say when they don't understand something, although I would say your statement is extremely hyperbolic. Every time?

They then must invent magic fairy dust, which is magically invisible, yet influencing everything, to make their totally wrong equations now add up. They call this dark matter. Now they had to invent magic fairy dust version II. They call this dark energy. Now the equations add up. More "thought experiments" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) and computer models PROVE it, right?

Nope, it's not "proven" by "thought experiments" but by observation. Perhaps you have a better explanation for the gravitational lensing of the bullet cluster merger? If so, you should probably publish.

Furthermore, there is redshift in every direction, thus implying that WE ARE AT THE EXACT CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE.

Not at all. The "cosmological principle" is that we should not assume that we're in any special place within the universe. No matter where you are in the universe, you will see all the other galaxies moving away from you- this has more to do with relativity and the expansion of space.

In the entire history of mankind as we know it, EVERYTHING that everyone KNEW has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong. It is the height of hubris to think that everyone was wrong about everything all through the past, but NOW we've got it all figured out.

I don't know a single scientist who would claim to have "everything figured out." We're approximating toward the truth. Isn't this better than declaring all of everything to be fundamentally unknowable? Look at the computer you're using- do you think that got here despite us being wrong about every single thing we ever knew?

Pointing out that this is all nonsense does not mean I believe in the other fairy tale book that so many believe. There are not just two options, yet most people are blind to even that possibility. Who says there is not some third possibility? In fact an infinite number of possibilities?

Well then by all means, state a cosmological model that better fits the observed data. This is how science proceeds.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The Big Bang THEORY is utter nonsense. The term itself was coined by Hubble (famous astronomer, telescope named after him, more big time than anyone else on this forum) to MAKE FUN OF IT and make it sound idiotic, because he determined it to be nonsense. Since most people are idiots, this just made it catch on even more.

It is all based on the "redshift equals distance" which is nonsense as well, and has been PROVEN totally wrong many times over. Hundreds of cosmic objects demonstrating higher redshift than objects that are definitely BEHIND them abound. Nobel laureate Halton Arp (once again, way more bigtime than any smartypants on this forum) pointed this out in hundreds of cases. The solution? He was banned from any more telescope time. Essentially, all the "scientists" put their fingers in their ears and said, "Lalalalala, we can't hear you".

Arp is just wrong. People have been looking this data for decades.

The ASSUMPTION that you can have a Doppler effect in light is the first wrong turn. It is not yet understood whether light is a wave or a particle, therefore it is unknown whether there even COULD be any type of Doppler shift. The "scientists" get around this by claiming that light is both a wave and a particle at the same time, which is even more obviously nonsense. They can't stand to admit that they don't know.

This is a total load of complete and total cognitive and scientific BS.

Electromagnetic radiation behaves "like" a wave and a particle in some regimes, because that's what it does. It doesn't matter that understanding this is hard for poor humans, but it's the truth. (In reality, if you want to really understand what it means you need to know the full theory of quantum optics, what it means to mix quantum mechanics and electromagnetic fields properly. It's not easy but it is 100% experimentally verified to be true).

And of course the Doppler effect in light has been experimentally observed.

And there are now astrophysical observations which require dark matter for explanation and modified gravity does not work.

The scientists aren't stupid, there are very very good experimental and theoretical reasons why they believe what they believe.

reply to post by CaptChaos


Can we see your proof? Since you are taking a strongly opposing view of an accepted theory please give us data to back it up.

reply to post by jiggerj


This is only my perspective on the "standard" model of the big bang. I have no idea what I am talking about.

Lets start with a step-by-step (truncated and simplified).

1: Singularity
2: Singularity expands
3: Expansion results in creation of different "types" of matter
3a: Result is the creation of space and its derivatives (specifically time, for this post)
4: This matter repels and attracts in a variety of ways, and over time, creates the universe we see today
5: Space and matter, over time, "return back" to the singularity.

Time is not relevant to the singularity itself, as it (time) is something which is based on matter. This would mean, that from the 3d arena that we know, there would simply not be a "single point" where a hole would be created, as per the original post. Such a point would have to exist within the constraints of time and space, and if it went down like this, then time and space would be contained in the singularity. Not the other way around.

In this way, it is important to note that when time is removed from the equation (as well as matter), the implications are not minor.

Now, this would also imply (as someone else in this thread said), that we are the singularity. Well, at least along with every-thing else in the physical universe. We also might see processes of a certain scale that are able to break down the process of entropy (step 5, essentially) due to a finite universe giving it reference. This might be what we are seeing with something like a black hole. I am of the mind that in an infinite physical universe, any process of any scale could produce a stable black hole. However, we do not see this to be true, which implies a scale reference to the processes which can break down the process of matter-derived time. I am unsure as to how such a reference would exist in infinite space.

Take a configuration of three points, A B and C:




Now scale the image up:





Now whether you were standing on A, B or C, you'd have seen the other two points move away from you- hence they would appear redshifted from your point of view.

I am no scientist, but the big bang theory has always bothered me. We are told there are 200 billion galaxies, each containing over 100 billion stars, and untold numbers of planets, moons, asteroids etc.

Now imagine the earth compressed into the area of a single atom. Hard to imagine, isn't it?

Now try to imagine the entire universe compressed into an area of a single atom.

Sorry, I don't buy this theory for a second.

The big bang theory is just that, a theory.

Originally posted by zeta55

The big bang theory is just that, a theory.

Just as the theory of gravity is just that, a theory!

reply to post by zeta55


The Big Bang theory is as full of holes as the Bible. As long as we admit that we're just trying to figure it out, and that we don't have any really solid answer, we'll be fine.

It's okay to admit you don't know, and it's okay to say you're working on it.

reply to post by sinohptik


Kind of like a solution? You dump powder in, it mixes and plays a little, and when it finally bonds, POOF! You've got koolaid or whatever.

reply to post by jiggerj


To answer the original question, I don't know if there should be hole,at the point of the "theorized" big bang,but common sense tells me, there would be a central point, where everything is moving away from.

Throw a rock into a pond. There is a central point, and then there are the rings that go out from the center.

If there was a big bang, and everything is moving away from each other, then there would have to be a central point. How could there not be?

I could possibly buy the big bang theory, if scientists told us that all the matter of the universe was compressed into the area of maybe one galaxie. For all the matter of the universe to be compressed into an area smaller than a single atom, to me, is laughable.

I predict, one day, the current theory of the big bang will be laughed at.

I laugh every time I hear it. Just my opinion, but there is absolutely no logic in the current theory.

Where did all the matter in the universe come from? It was all just squished together in a space smaller than a single atom.

Whoever came up with this theory, must have had their pipe tobacco switched, to something with lets say, a little more hallucinagencic property.

reply to post by sinohptik

1: Singularity
2: Singularity expands
3: Expansion results in creation of different "types" of matter
3a: Result is the creation of space and its derivatives (specifically time, for this post)
4: This matter repels and attracts in a variety of ways, and over time, creates the universe we see today
5: Space and matter, over time, "return back" to the singularity.

I think you did pretty good until you got to stage 5.

If you think matter will go back to a singularity. You haven't understood any of the other stages.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by sinohptik

 

Kind of like a solution? You dump powder in, it mixes and plays a little, and when it finally bonds, POOF! You've got koolaid or whatever.

Sort of. I do like kool-aid.. Said mixing will occur according to what we explore in the laws of nature, so in this way it is very similar. Though, I have to admit, Im not so sure what part of my post you are referring to!

Originally posted by spy66
I think you did pretty good until you got to stage 5.

If you think matter will go back to a singularity. You haven't understood any of the other stages.

Note the quotations around "return back." And also, where I said all matter would be contained within said singularity (so how could it return back in the basic sense of the words?). For the purpose of this thread, I see no need to go further in-depth.

ETA: I see a distinct difference between "a" singularity and "the" singularity as well.

reply to post by spy66


Scientists say that there's a possibility the universe will get sucked back in eventually. So where are you saying he's wrong?

And how do you know? Do you have a degree?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by spy66

 

Scientists say that there's a possibility the universe will get sucked back in eventually. So where are you saying he's wrong?

And how do you know? Do you have a degree?

Care to explain why i am wrong. Will there be some kind of vacuum pooling our universe back? Is that what they are saying?

Well they are wrong. Don't believe everything you read in science. Its not a religion you should have faith in.