Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
32 online now:
jar, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey, xongsmith (5 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,010 Year: 22,046/19,786 Month: 609/1,834 Week: 109/500 Day: 6/61 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big bang cycles
tubi417
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 37 (121687)
07-03-2004 11:15 PM


Many people believe that the universe goes through "big bang cycles" and that it has been doing so forever- is there any way that we would be able to verify this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-04-2004 12:51 PM tubi417 has not yet responded
 Message 5 by redwolf, posted 07-10-2004 10:23 AM tubi417 has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-12-2004 12:01 AM tubi417 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Lammy, posted 07-12-2004 1:00 AM tubi417 has not yet responded
 Message 18 by john hunter, posted 10-15-2004 6:18 AM tubi417 has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 10-15-2004 7:08 AM tubi417 has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 37 (121773)
07-04-2004 3:29 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 2714 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 3 of 37 (121836)
07-04-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
07-03-2004 11:15 PM


Reply
No!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 07-03-2004 11:15 PM tubi417 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 07-10-2004 10:41 AM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 37 (121843)
07-04-2004 1:54 PM


Isn't this what Dr. Kaku says? He uses the analogy of water boiling creating many universes (ie: each bubble)

  
redwolf
Member (Idle past 4130 days)
Posts: 185
From: alexandria va usa
Joined: 04-13-2004


Message 5 of 37 (123581)
07-10-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
07-03-2004 11:15 PM


It's hard to picture any way of verifying more than one "big bang".

Moreover, the basic idea of a big bang is ridiculous. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

The big bang idea is based on a wrong interpretation of redshift data:

http://www.electric-universe.org
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html
http://www.electric-cosmos.org
http://www.dragonscience.com
http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmology.html
http://www.haltonarp.com/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 07-03-2004 11:15 PM tubi417 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-12-2004 12:02 AM redwolf has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-12-2004 5:51 PM redwolf has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Jack, posted 10-15-2004 7:06 AM redwolf has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 6 of 37 (123584)
07-10-2004 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Eta_Carinae
07-04-2004 12:51 PM


ekpyrotic branes
I thought one of the predictions of the ekpyrotic theory was that there would not be the gravity waves that the standard model predicts, and that this could test between the two theories.

the standard model currently is not supposed to collapse (and rebirth?) but the ekpyrotic model allows recurring universes.

just curious.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-04-2004 12:51 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 7 of 37 (123851)
07-12-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
07-03-2004 11:15 PM


If you interpret the red-shift data to mean velocities of galaxies, then the universe actually has begun accelerating outward after a period of initial gravitational deceleration, so by this interpretation it looks like the answer is that there are no cycles.

But this is an odd way of looking at it especially since quantum mechanics has discovered that space is a sea of energy in the form of planck particle pairs. So if space itself were expanding and the zero point energy were becoming less dense, the light would actually experience a blue shift en route.

But the doppler shift interpretation of red-shift data has run into more and more problems, so other interpretations should be sought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 07-03-2004 11:15 PM tubi417 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RingoKid, posted 07-14-2004 6:28 AM Hangdawg13 has responded

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 8 of 37 (123852)
07-12-2004 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by redwolf
07-10-2004 10:23 AM


The big bang idea is based on a wrong interpretation of redshift data:

Amen to that. Thanks for the websites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by redwolf, posted 07-10-2004 10:23 AM redwolf has not yet responded

  
Lammy
Member
Posts: 3616
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 37 (123864)
07-12-2004 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by tubi417
07-03-2004 11:15 PM


There has never been any valid evidence to support such a theory, if people even recognize it as a theory. It is as much a work of fiction as X-Men.


The Laminator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tubi417, posted 07-03-2004 11:15 PM tubi417 has not yet responded

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 2714 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 10 of 37 (124065)
07-12-2004 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by redwolf
07-10-2004 10:23 AM


Arrrrrrrrrrgh!
The old bogus argument that the Big Bang singularity must have been a black hole nonsense.

By the way - a nice list of bad science websites.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by redwolf, posted 07-10-2004 10:23 AM redwolf has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-13-2004 10:47 PM Eta_Carinae has responded

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 11 of 37 (124317)
07-13-2004 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Eta_Carinae
07-12-2004 5:51 PM


Re: Arrrrrrrrrrgh!
Are they bad because they are not mainstream or do you actually have reasons for calling them bad?

And... Do you think big bang cycles exist? If so, why? If not, why the big bang?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-12-2004 5:51 PM Eta_Carinae has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-13-2004 11:14 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 2714 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 12 of 37 (124325)
07-13-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hangdawg13
07-13-2004 10:47 PM


Re: Arrrrrrrrrrgh!
No they are bad because plasma cosmology has been falsified for decades.

Check it out - there is info about this out there.

I don't know if cycles occur or not - though it seems an added structure to spacetime that is not required by observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-13-2004 10:47 PM Hangdawg13 has not yet responded

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 37 (124419)
07-14-2004 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hangdawg13
07-12-2004 12:01 AM


Hangdawg
space is a sea of energy in the form of planck particle pairs...

Is that what strings are supposed to be ???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-12-2004 12:01 AM Hangdawg13 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-15-2004 11:01 PM RingoKid has not yet responded

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 37 (124490)
07-14-2004 2:13 PM


Proponents of plasma cosmology are a funny group. They complain the big bang theory is bad science. They claim it requires too many ad hoc assumptions even though it has made numerous successful predictions about the universe, making it a good scientific theory. They seek to replace it with a model that a. makes many ad hoc assumptions of it's own and b. has not made successful testible predictions, leaving it as a mere model while the big bang is a theory. It's even hard to get proponents of plasma cosmology to reveal any prediction the model makes at all, bringing us to the question of whether or not the model is even scientific.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-14-2004 2:46 PM Beercules has not yet responded

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 2714 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 15 of 37 (124498)
07-14-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Beercules
07-14-2004 2:13 PM


Exactly
Name one prediction of plasma cosmology?

It's like QSSC cosmology - no predicitions just after the fact ad hoc explanations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Beercules, posted 07-14-2004 2:13 PM Beercules has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019