Big Bang, Erroneous?

[PhysBang]

Originally Posted by Mike C

Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but Einstein was not the only physicist of the early 20th century. Many other physicists worked on relativity (even published textbooks on it) before the discovery of redshift.

Do you know that the CMBR has a redshift of 1000?
How do you explain that?

Ummm... the expansion of spacetime over a long period of time. It's very straighforward if you know the equations.

Indeed, what's to explain?

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by PhysBang

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but Einstein was not the only physicist of the early 20th century. Many other physicists worked on relativity (even published textbooks on it) before the discovery of redshift.

Ummm... the expansion of spacetime over a long period of time. It's very straighforward if you know the equations.

Indeed, what's to explain?

The age of the BBT is promoted as being 13.7 billion years.

So divide that figure by 1000 and you get 13.7 'million' years.
That means that a redshift of 'one' would occur every 13.7^6 years.
That does not happen! So, does that make sense?

Lets transform the time element into distance such as a lightyear.
That would mean that a redshift of one should occur every 13.7^6 lightyears.
The Virgo Cluster is determined to be at a distance of about 16.7 mega/parsecs or about 54^6 lys. The measrements of the redshift of this cluster is determinee to be slightly less than ,004 that is the RS of M87, the near central galaxy.
So this cluster has just a fractional RS of one for a distabce of 54^6 lys.

Divide one by .oo4 and you get 250. Mutiply that by 54^6 lys and you get 13.5^9 lys distance for a redshift of one. Wow!
The HDFN has been detected to have RS's of up tp 7.
That means it is probing deep space at a distance of 96^9 lys deep.
Using Euclidean geometry of course.

Mike C

[PhysBang]

Originally Posted by Mike C

The age of the BBT is promoted as being 13.7 billion years.

So divide that figure by 1000 and you get 13.7 'million' years.
That means that a redshift of 'one' would occur every 13.7^6 years.
That does not happen! So, does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense, since nobody who knows any relativistic theory would simply divide the age of the universe by the redshift to get a mean. In actuality, greater amounts of redshift were accrued, as it were, in the early history of the CMB. This is pretty standard Freidmannology.

Lets transform the time element into distance such as a lightyear.
That would mean that a redshift of one should occur every 13.7^6 lightyears.
The Virgo Cluster is determined to be at a distance of about 16.7 mega/parsecs or about 54^6 lys. The measrements of the redshift of this cluster is determinee to be slightly less than ,004 that is the RS of M87, the near central galaxy.
So this cluster has just a fractional RS of one for a distabce of 54^6 lys.

Sure. And what realtionship does this have to the actual mathematics of General Relativity?

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by PhysBang

It doesn't make sense, since nobody who knows any relativistic theory would simply divide the age of the universe by the redshift to get a mean. In actuality, greater amounts of redshift were accrued, as it were, in the early history of the CMB. This is pretty standard Freidmannology.

Sure. And what realtionship does this have to the actual mathematics of General Relativity?

Since I give no credibility to the BBT, I would obviously do the same to its supporting data.

I think Freidman may have gotten his idea from the 'slicing' of a 'cone' where it would represent the various orbital possibilities such as the 'open, closed and flat' orbits as applied to the universe..

Einsteins GR was calculated to be applied to a static universe where his .
universe would collapse. So in a SSU, GR is not needed because it would be a flat universe that is not expanding or contracting and without curvature, would not collape.

Also, the BBT says there was no explosion and the expansion is uniform, So there would be no variation in the redshifts except for its 'additive' effect relative to distance.

Mike C



Mike C

[PhysBang]

Originally Posted by Mike C

Since I give no credibility to the BBT, I would obviously do the same to its supporting data.

I see. So your answer is: you don't like the theory, so you aren't going to learn anything about it, or the currently available data, and you're going to continue to find things that you find confusing and try to confuse other people with these examples.

Is this right?

I think Freidman may have gotten his idea from the 'slicing' of a 'cone' where it would represent the various orbital possibilities such as the 'open, closed and flat' orbits as applied to the universe..

This is doubtful, given the mathematics involved.

Einsteins GR was calculated to be applied to a static universe where his .
universe would collapse. So in a SSU, GR is not needed because it would be a flat universe that is not expanding or contracting and without curvature, would not collape.

Hunh?

Also, the BBT says there was no explosion and the expansion is uniform, So there would be no variation in the redshifts except for its 'additive' effect relative to distance.

The Big Bang theory says that the universe is general to a great deal of approximation, but not entirely.



Mike C[/quote]

[LaurieAG]

Hi PhysBang,

Maybe you can enlighten us about the relative discrepancies between the BB model and the Black Hole model.

(1) The big bang point is not a part of a contiguous mathematical model that encompases what happens before and what happens after. It is an infinitely dense point of matter where maths breaks down, everything else in the universe is ignored, regardless of the fact that such an infinite area with no mass is the ideal medium for photon travel, let alone exotic pro and anti particles appearing on its borders.

(2) The theoretical black hole singularity points have our universe surrounding them along with all the mass contained in the universe.

How do you reconcile these relative discrepancies of the same phenomena in the same physical universe?

[PhysBang]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Hi PhysBang,

Maybe you can enlighten us about the relative discrepancies between the BB model and the Black Hole model.

I'm guessing you mean the singularities in the Big Bang models and the singularities that are supposed to be in black holes.

(1) The big bang point is not a part of a contiguous mathematical model that encompases what happens before and what happens after. It is an infinitely dense point of matter where maths breaks down, everything else in the universe is ignored, regardless of the fact that such an infinite area with no mass is the ideal medium for photon travel, let alone exotic pro and anti particles appearing on its borders.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

There is a singularity at the "beginning" of almost all Big Bang models. However, most Big Bang theorists don't believe in the singularity. That is, they know that the energies near this singularity are so high that it makes accurate descriptions of this period difficult if not impossible. The real Big Bang theory is a theory about the history of the universe, but not a complete history.

But the singularity of the Big Bang theory is a singularity with everything. There is no outside space without mass. All space takes part in the singularity and the era immedieately after the singularity.

(2) The theoretical black hole singularity points have our universe surrounding them along with all the mass contained in the universe.

The black holes themselves don't have all the mass of the universe within them. I don't understand black hole theory very well, but according to the claims of the theory, black holes do not have more mass than they formed with and that they gain over time.

In a black hole, there is an increase in density within the universe. The singularity of the Big Bang is a singularity of the entire universe. It may have no beginning as we know it.

How do you reconcile these relative discrepancies of the same phenomena in the same physical universe?

Singularities are not descriptions of phenomena. They are, by definitions, places in the mathematical framework of a theory where description of physical phenomena is impossible.

[LaurieAG]

Hi PhysBang,

Originally Posted by PhysBang

There is a singularity at the "beginning" of almost all Big Bang models. However, most Big Bang theorists don't believe in the singularity. That is, they know that the energies near this singularity are so high that it makes accurate descriptions of this period difficult if not impossible.

So most Big Bang theorists don't believe in the singularity because at the singularity point infinite density and zero volume causes maths to fall apart i.e. infinity becomes equivalent to zero 1/0 = 1/infinity.

That's a pretty huge leap of faith for the believers of singularities.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Mike C

Einstein did not predict an expanding space. His formulas involved a 'static' universe.

Do you know that the CMBR has a redshift of 1000?
How do you explain that?

Mike C

I just recently discovered that the CMBR's redshift is really not a RS but more appropriately defined as a 'temperature' shift.

The reason for this is that light is a 'one dimensional' source of energy, while the CMBR RS is a 3 dimensional expansion to conform to the BB expansion of space.
So the 2nd statement above can be ignored.
Thank you.

Mike C

[Majeston]

What a surprise to find this area

Would anyone care to tackle some of the Urantia material on this topic? It seems this might be the place to discuss it.

I am not a scientist by trade, but am very familiar with the material in the book and quite familiar with what has been published by "Urantians" with degrees in Physics; Astronomy and Mathematics which is what I can bring to the table. I recently posted The Big Bang Never Happened and got some very nasty feedback.


The Urantia papers state the following :

12:4.14 Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star. Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions.

12:4.15 But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space in the realms next to the domains of the seven superuniverses, seem to be revolving in a direction opposite to that of the grand universe. That is, these myriads of nebulae and their accompanying suns and spheres are at the present time revolving clockwise about the central creation. The seven superuniverses revolve about Paradise in a counterclockwise direction. It appears that the second outer universe of galaxies, like the seven superuniverses, revolves counterclockwise about Paradise. And the astronomic observers of Uversa think they detect evidence of revolutionary movements in a third outer belt of far-distant space which are beginning to exhibit directional tendencies of a clockwise nature.


>>>>>>>


15:3.3 Observation of the so-called Milky Way discloses the comparative increase in Orvonton stellar density when the heavens are viewed in one direction, while on either side the density diminishes; the number of stars and other spheres decreases away from the chief plane of our material superuniverse. When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.

15:3.4 Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers. The other two are difficult of separate recognition because you are obliged to view these phenomena from the inside. If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors of the seventh galaxy.

15:3.5 The rotational center of your minor sector is situated far away in the enormous and dense star cloud of Sagittarius, around which your local universe and its associated creations all move, and from opposite sides of the vast Sagittarius subgalactic system you may observe two great streams of star clouds emerging in stupendous stellar coils.

15:3.6 The nucleus of the physical system to which your sun and its associated planets belong is the center of the onetime Andronover nebula. This former spiral nebula was slightly distorted by the gravity disruptions associated with the events which were attendant upon the birth of your solar system, and which were occasioned by the near approach of a large neighboring nebula. This near collision changed Andronover into a somewhat globular aggregation but did not wholly destroy the two-way procession of the suns and their associated physical groups. Your solar system now occupies a fairly central position in one of the arms of this distorted spiral, situated about halfway from the center out towards the edge of the star stream.

15:3.7 The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa, and some of the confusion of Urantian star observers arises out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the following multiple revolutionary movements:

1. The revolution of Urantia around its sun.
2. The circuit of your solar system about the nucleus of the former Andronover nebula.
3. The rotation of the Andronover stellar family and the associated clusters about the composite rotation-gravity center of the star cloud of Nebadon.
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.
7. The movement of Orvonton and six associated superuniverses around Paradise and Havona, the counterclockwise processional of the superuniverse space level.

15:3.8 These multiple motions are of several orders: The space paths of your planet and your solar system are genetic, inherent in origin. The absolute counterclockwise motion of Orvonton is also genetic, inherent in the architectural plans of the master universe. But the intervening motions are of composite origin, being derived in part from the constitutive segmentation of matter-energy into the superuniverses and in part produced by the intelligent and purposeful action of the Paradise force organizers.

15:3.9 The local universes are in closer proximity as they approach Havona; the circuits are greater in number, and there is increased superimposition, layer upon layer. But farther out from the eternal center there are fewer and fewer systems, layers, circuits, and universes.


............

To begin with:......
#

*

# The Big Bang Never Happened

* by Michael Wisenbaker (Illustrated) here for discussion

The Urantia Book