|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big bang cycles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tubi417 Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
No!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mission for Truth Inactive Member |
Isn't this what Dr. Kaku says? He uses the analogy of water boiling creating many universes (ie: each bubble)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5821 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
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: holoscience.com | The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE – A sound cosmology for the 21st centuryService Unavailable http://www.electric-cosmos.org http://www.dragonscience.com http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/cosmology.html Halton Arp's official website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
The big bang idea is based on a wrong interpretation of redshift data: Amen to that. Thanks for the websites.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 781 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RingoKid Inactive Member |
space is a sea of energy in the form of planck particle pairs...
Is that what strings are supposed to be ???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beercules Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4405 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
Name one prediction of plasma cosmology?
It's like QSSC cosmology - no predicitions just after the fact ad hoc explanations.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024