I'm the same Percy who promoted your thread, and I have a question that I could have asked before promotion, but I decided to promote first.
Something about your journey of understanding about the Big Bang from the sixties until now didn't add up. You say you're a science buff and that you've read a great deal about cosmology and the Big Bang, but the problems you describe are not anything believed by cosmologists, e.g.:
Or was it that since I had heard the theory some things had been bothering me about it. Like;
If something was infinitely small and infinitley dense and there was NOTHING ELSE besides "it", (not even SPACE).
And you presume it exploded into that NOTHINGNESS.
You would have to also presume;
1.) It would be a uniform point.
2.) The "explosion" would also be uniform.
3.) Whether energy or matter it would ever expand from some infinite or near infinite density along straight lines. Ever thinning.
You say these things sound wrong to you, and I expect cosmologists would say they sound wrong to them, too. Why, after all you're reading, are you criticizing Big Bang theory for positions it doesn't hold?
I guess what I'm wondering is why, after all you're reading, you're unaware that as cosmologists project the expansion of the universe backward in time toward T=0 that they see the looming infinities as an indication that general relativity has broken down and can no longer be applied. I don't think the details of what happens near T=0 is a settled issue within cosmology, but it's probably safe to say that there's a pretty strong consensus that infinity density isn't one of the possibilities.
I realize that words like "infinitely small" or "infinitely dense" seem absurdities. Both to me and most people. They also seem absurdities when such values arise in Mathematical equations. It must mean that somewhere an assumption, the math, or both are wrong.
Yes, that's correct. As I already said in my previous message, cosmologists take the looming infinities as an indication that the laws of general relativity break down and no longer apply. I don't think there's a consensus within cosmology at the present time about what actually happens as T approaches 0, but an infinite density singularity is considered unlikely.
But even without such terms we can use many others that suggest the absurd. And I would say that absurdities abound when scientists make fantatsic assumptions for fantastic objects like "Singularities" or "Black Holes" that can "bend" space for example.
Again, cosmologists aren't big on singularities, but any mass alters the shape of space/time, not just black holes. Are you sure you're a science buff? It's okay to have read something and rejected it, but you don't appear to have read anything at all because your comments reflect no familiarity with popular science writings about cosmology over the last 20 years or so.
When scientists saw starlight being refracted around a massive object like our sun to confirm Einstien's GR Theory that "Space" itself is being bent; It leads to "fantastic theories" that if an object is small enough and massive enough it could so distort the supposed Space Time Continum that it would produce a never seen object like a "Black Hole". Not even a confirmed event horizon. Even if gravity does indeed bend space one has to admit a "Black Hole" is a suspiciously handy object to explain away all sorts of inconvienent astronomical observations and cosmological test data; which don't fit the Big Bang Theory.
Are you rejecting that mass can bend space/time? That's one of the most verified findings of GR.
Anyway, you say that "inconvenient astronomical observations and test data" don't fit the big bang unless black holes exist, and you provide quasars and galaxy formation as examples, but they have nothing to do with the big bang. So either you're not making sense or there's something missing from your explanation.
In fact I have read lately that one scientist is even using a Black Hole now to postulate that the entire Universe came from a "Black Hole".
If for the sake of discussion we say that this proposal is totally insane, what has the proposal of one scientist to do with consensus views within cosmology. If your only point is that some scientists have some crazy ideas I think most here would agree with you.
This is not even to mention the Doppler Interpretation for the observed Cosmological Redshift. If a "Tired Light Model" fits the data better as even Hubble contended then the Big Bang falls apart.
Can I guess that this reading material you've mentioned is by creationists, not cosmologists? Now you're not only arguing against views cosmologists don't hold, indeed even seem unaware of, you're advocating views cosmologists reject because no research has revealed how these proposals are consistent with the evidence.
Since I first heard the Big Bang Theory explained I have heard more and more "fantastic" explanations for the nature of the Universe as our observations become more sophisticated.
The more and more fantastic proposals like singularities and infinite densities and doppler-only and tired light are coming from you, not from cosmologists.
But rather than ask me a layman what I've missed...
I didn't ask what writings you as a layman missed. I asked how you, a self-proclaimed science and big bang buff, could be so ignorant of mainstream views in cosmology. The answer has become obvious. You're not a science buff. You're a creationist, someone whose views are driven by religious sensibilities rather than evidence.
How did so-called scientists "miss" that Hubble and Tolman publishing in 1935 stated that the "Tired Light Model," rather than the Doppler Interpretation, fit the Cosmological Redshift data better than the "Expanding Universe" Model?
As Jon pointed out, the Hubble/Tolman paper made no such claim, but that's irrelevant. Even if the Hubble/Tolman paper said just what you say it did, the tired light model did not stand the test of time. Accumulating evidence provided less and less support for tired light and more and more for the big bang.
I think I already stated I am a layman. Just someone who is interested in science and has a scientific turn of mind.
Oh, come on, quit the bullshit. You're a creationist.
I recent years however I have been disturbed by what I see as an ideological "group think" as invulnerable to new information as any fundamentalist wackjob.
And this "new information" is from a paper written in 1935 by people who have been dead for over half a century?
In response to what I've seen as disturbing eveidence of this I've recently read a number of books and articles by scientists who themselves are protesting everything from the mainstream tenets of modern Big Bang cosmology which ignores evidence to the contrary of their cherished "beliefs;" to the referee process where so-called peers reject any new ideas, (or data), that don't fit the worshiped paradigm.
Ah, now it's the Expelled conspiracy theory. And this new evidence comes from over half a century ago. Would you like to give some names to these scientists and books and articles?
Gravity doesn't bend space. Mass distorts space/time, and this affects the trajectory that objects follow within space/time. We call our perception of this effect gravity.
Nikola Tesla thought so too so you may place me in the same catagory of "what"?
And Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman disagreed with Tesla's take on general relativity. However should we settle this? Should we have a long discussion about the relative merits of Tesla, Einstein and Feynman as both scientists and people? Or should we perhaps assess the evidence and see which model fits best? The latter is what scientists do, creationists not so much.
Even further, I believe several well known scietists also published around the time of the starlight refraction event predicted by Einstien that jumping to the conclusion that space itself was bent by gravity was a bridge too far when the light itself being bent could just as easily be the explanation. Do you want me to cite those publications?
Sure, go ahead, cite them. Can I assume they were published in the 1920's and 1930's?
In case you're as ignorant as me, Catholic Scientist's "low wut" phrase apparently has this meaning:
low wut: used to express a combination of confusion, amusement and/or disbelief, usually in response to something bizarre or outrageous.
And the image is called The Biting Pear of Salamanca, whatever that is, and the combination is called the LOL WUT pear, which is now an Internet meme. Good grief!
Anyway, I'm not sure why Catholic Scientist had this response. When the Big Bang was first considered as a viable explanation for the origin of the universe, some quarters of the scientific community were distressed at the obvious correspondences with Genesis.
I didn't realize Penzias eventually became a VP at Bell Labs. We have some former Bell Labs people in our organization, our company acquired the EDA portion of Bell Labs back in 1993.
We all know last year's Nobel price in physics was about accelerating expansion of the universe. In fact, the observation was done around 13 years ago. But the result was very unpopular. It really takes while for the community to digest it.
Actually, rather than being unpopular it was embraced. The result was produced from two independent teams, and it helped explain some phenomena that had previously been in conflict, such as the universe containing stars older than the universe itself.
So it not only makes no sense to say the results were unpopular and difficult to digest, it's dead wrong. There's no doubt that some scientific findings are accepted only with difficulty by the scientific community at large, but this is not one of them.
Before then, most preferred scenario is that the total mass of the universe will be heavy enough and the expansion will slow down and eventually everything will come back to a singular point.
Actually, there was no preferred scenario. There were efforts to try to settle the issue, such as totaling the mass of the universe to see if it was sufficient to overcome the rate of expansion, but sufficient evidence never accumulated for there to be a preferred scenario. It was believed that either the mass would overcome expansion or it wouldn't, but neither position had any wide acceptance.
Life has no meaning... ... This new understand will influence philosophy and philosophy will change. Eventually it will get to Hollywood. You will see movies of final generation creatures looking for energy or creating new suns for them to survive.
Statements like these might lead people to wonder if your focus is really on cosmology.
In the process of coming back, the second law of thermal dynamics will change and entropy will only decrease instead of increase.
While the role of 2LOT in a cyclic universe in reestablishing the entropic arrow was considered a significant stumbling block, what you've said here doesn't look like anything I remember ever being proposed.
Back to the possibility of great crunch, assume everything will come back to a singular point can you tell me where the point is located in the universe? The answer is that - everywhere.
Yes, you're absolutely right. The collapse of the universe wouldn't take place within the universe. It would be a collapse of the universe itself, and it would presumably take place everywhere throughout the universe.
Since everywhere will be getting back into that singular point. Ok. Here we have something important to say. The meaning of the answer represents an understanding of big bang. If I tell you that we spread a clothe on the table and put a lot of objects on top of the clothe. When I say collect all the objects back is different from when I say wrap up the clothe and collect ecerything back. We have no experience what means even the space is not exist. Here wrapping up the clothe is trying to explain to you what happen I big bang. Before big bang there is no time and no space.. I hope now you will understand what means no space. More exactly when the universe is expanding just as it is happening now, the forefront edge is expanding away from us over the speed of light. And right the that interface, the other side has no space existing there.
In summary, the universe is truly coming out of no where. 13.7 B years ago, it comes from a large amount of energy and following E=mc**2 to be created. This is big bang and that is the beginning and now we know there is end. What is the meaning of all of these..I leave it to you to think about..
I wasn't able to extract any meaningful point out of this. Could you explain a little more clearly, or maybe someone else understood what you were saying and can explain.
Also, the topic of this thread is genic energy. It's okay if you want to take a little time getting around to how your ideas relate to the topic, but at some point soon you should tell us what your ideas have to do with genic energy.
There are no "forbidden areas". If there's something you want to discuss that you can't find an existing thread for then just propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics. I'm also a moderator, and I'll probably be checking in a couple times today, so if I see a proposal from you I'll give it a look as quickly as I can.
I'm just going to assume that explaining to you again that the Big Bang doesn't include T=0 or the origin of the universe would do as little good as it did the last seventeen times, so I'll just say that the topic is genic energy, not the Big Bang.
Your ability to be wrong is exceeded only by your ability to be off-topic. Why don't you find a topic about the Big Bang and be wrong there? Or if you want to contribute to this thread you could be wrong about genic energy. But please stop being wrong and off-topic all at the same time. If you're going to be wrong, at least be wrong about the topic.