G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
Fibro said
Quote:
What if?
Again I raise the question what if the Universe is eternal?
With millions of Big Bangs through out its rotating Surface.
What we see through the space telescopes is only a small fraction of the Universe. So...the local Big Bang may have existed however it is only local and therefore was not the beginning of the Universe.
|
There is no question to it that the universe is eternal, i tend to agree. Many papers that I'm reading discuss bounce and cyclic parts of the universe and not as a total.
And yet my mate emailed me this link on the Big Bang
Not that I agree with, but it is great reading, it's quite logical and yet falls short with evidence.
Evidence for the Big Bang
Evidence for the Big Bang
Quote:
a) Common misconceptions about the Big Bang
In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."
There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:
The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.
|
