[Harry Costas]

Hello All

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide.

Without me influencing?

What do you think?

Was there a Big Bang?

Was there a M- theory ?

Was there a String Theory?

Was there a steady state theory?

Was there a wave theory?

Was there a Plasma Theory?

Was there a Recycle theory?

Was there a GOD theory?

Did I miss any out?

If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them

Or is there a combination theory?

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

[Tormod]

Was there a Big Bang? Who knows.

Was there a theory about ...? Yes.

Is your post completely pointless? I may be right yet I may be wrong about that.

[LJP07]

I think it has already been discussed to some extent of what you ask, so maybe you should search for Big Bang and see what comes up.

[Jay-qu]

These are all valid topics of discussion, but perhaps targer them more specifically. To just ask 'what do you think..' is fine to talk about, but most of these things are at the moment un-provable, hence these discussions tend to go round in circles. I would suggest targeting just one of these, and a few of them already have topics hear at hypo.. just do a search.

[Aireal]

W.S.M. or the Wave Structure of Matter

I have not heard much about it outside of their own sites and have been trying to get some feedback on it from those outside of its supporters. You can find links to information about it in my paper on this site. http://hypography.com/forums/science...-expanded.html
The paper is a basic model of the atom based on it, and may need refinement as I learn more details about the theory.

So what catorgory does it fall under? It is a Wave Theory, has elements of String Theory and Quantum Field Theory, does not seem to exclude some other theories or God for that matter, and suggests a steady state universe that evolves over time from a quantum level begining, so no single big bang.

A Combination Theory is what I would call it, despite the name.

From what I have learned of it so far, it seems to at least have potential, but who knows which, if any of the current theories may be right.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

I understand the above comments.

The problem is that, what ever point or theory you want to use others will bring their own ideas.

================================================== =

I read tis link
Big bang: NASA gets to the heart of all matter
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/b...582522240.html

SCIENTISTS examining the oldest light in the universe say they have found evidence that matter expanded at an almost inconceivable rate after the big bang, creating conditions that led to the formation of the first stars.

*remainder of copyrighted material deleted by Tormod*

The people that wrote this need to be shot, even using the name NASA.
This is not science. Its yahoo stuff.

In order to make the theory work they add comments to make it work.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

The people that wrote this need to be shot, even using the name NASA.
This is not science. Its yahoo stuff.

In order to make the theory work they add comments to make it work.

You're confusing scientific journals with newspapers. What you have quoted is a journalistic report on scientific results, in a regular newspaper. If you are so opposed to the freedom of press that you want to shoot the journalist, you're in the wrong place, Harry.

By the way, that article is copyrighted and therefore I have removed it from your post.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Tomod

Sorry!

---------------------------------

But! what do you think of his comment

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

What do you think of this?


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

Intersting reading.

Given the assumption that the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic (The Cosmological Principle) it can be shown that the corresponding distortion of space-time (due to the gravitational effects of this matter) can only have one of three forms, as shown schematically in the picture at left. It can be "positively" curved like the surface of a ball and finite in extent; it can be "negatively" curved like a saddle and infinite in extent; or it can be "flat" and infinite in extent - our "ordinary" conception of space. A key limitation of the picture shown here is that we can only portray the curvature of a 2-dimensional plane of an actual 3-dimensional space! Note that in a closed universe you could start a journey off in one direction and, if allowed enough time, ultimately return to your starting point; in an infinite universe, you would never return.

Matter plays a central role in cosmology. It turns out that the average density of matter uniquely determines the geometry of the universe (up to the limitations noted above). If the density of matter is less than the so-called critical density, the universe is open and infinite. If the density is greater than the critical density the universe is closed and finite. If the density just equals the critical density, the universe is flat, but still presumably infinite. The value of the critical density is very small: it corresponds to roughly 6 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, an astonishingly good vacuum by terrestrial standards! One of the key scientific questions in cosmology today is: what is the average density of matter in our universe? While the answer is not yet known for certain, it appears to be tantalizingly close to the critical density.

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.
By definition, the universe encompasses all of space and time as we know it, so it is beyond the realm of the Big Bang model to postulate what the universe is expanding into. In either the open or closed universe, the only "edge" to space-time occurs at the Big Bang (and perhaps its counterpart the Big Crunch), so it is not logically necessary (or sensible) to consider this question.
It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.

One of the central challenges in cosmology today is to determine the relative and total densities (energy per unit volume) in each of these forms of matter, since this is essential to understanding the evolution and ultimate fate of our universe

That is Radiation, baryonic matter, dark amtter and dark energy.

[Aireal]

Harry Costas

Nice link and it is put together well. But like many web sites, its just basic physics. it gives a nice overview without providing much detail.

This is common on web sites, and is getting to be a problem. A web search will flood you with responses like this. Most results will be general in content only, the more detail you want, the harder it is to find a site that delves that deep.

Yet on other forums when I have used book referances in a post, people complained that I did not have a web link for it.