Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

revolutionary_suicide652 · 10-19-2006

origin of the universe ...bang of no big bang
can you please explain all of these theories for me not only am i new but i am young and hungry for the wealth of knowledge from the people on this site.So please share!

Harry Costas · 10-20-2006

Hello All

Hello Aerial

This link has just started. You haven't seen anything yet.

This link and any other link needs input from all and not fence sitters.

Hello revolutionary_suicide652

I do not mind sharing mate. But! self discovery is good.

I can give you links to read.

At the end of the day make your own conclusion. Darn that means I have to give you all info on both sides of the fence. If Idon't than some one else will.

So what first??????

Aireal · 10-21-2006

Revolutionary_suicide652

I don't think I could explain all of them, far too many. I currently have a list of over 30 wave theories I am compairing, and thats just one of the types of competing theories listed at the start of the thread. But I can sum it up for you.

It mostly boils down to the question of weather the universe is expanding or not. The big bang theory states that the universe started very, very small and grew very very fast. There are a number of versions of the big bang model, ans several that support an expanding universe, but is not a big bang theory. Then you have the theories that predict a non-expanding universe or static universe, of which there are even more versions.

What this means is that things are not as clear and as well understood as you are lead to believe in school and by watching T.V. So in the end I must agree with Harry, sharing is good, self discovery is better. After you have read a little on the subject, you will find people more willing to help you understand the details. It is not that people dont want to help, it is just to vast a topic.

Harry Costas

From my point of view, supporters of the big bang have not done enough to prove the universe is expanding. So in this post I will address the Hubble constant along with my complaint about web sites not giving sufficent details. When Hubble first made his discovery, he got a value that was 4 to 5 times the value we use today. This value was not in ageement with the age of the universe predicted by the big bang model. So later scientists made "adjustments" to it till it came into agreement with their beloved big bang model.

I have looked all over trying to find the logic behind these "adjustments" and all the web links I have found do not delve that deep. Indeed only a few of them even mention that adjustments have been made to the Hubble constant, much less how or why. The Hubble constant, as it is used today, is mainly due to the doppler effect. Hubble however disagreed with this interpatation of his work and opposed it till his dying day. He believed, as do I, that the doppler effect was but a part of his discovery, and a number of other factors needed to be looked at. To my knowledge, this still has not been done.

We know that gravity has an effect on light, and currently we try to ignore that effect when dealing with the Hubble constant. We do this by takeing measurments in faily open regions of space where the effects of gravity would be less. Notice I said less, but currently its effect is not taken into calculations at all. Also, how do we know there is not a black hole in that vast intervening distance that has a gravitional effect on the measerments we are not aware of.

Not only that, but gravity has a large effect on the source of the light (distant glaxies) that we are measuring. We record the red shiffting of the light as the universe spins away from us, but again this effect is taken as being completly due to the doppler shift. Yet the light from the far side of that glaxay must pass through the entire mass of its own glaxay before it even starts its trip to us. That is a lot of mass to be ignored in calculations.

The effects of gravity can not be the sourse of adjustments to the Hubble constant as the effects of gravity would cause the value to be higher instead of the lower values made in the adjustments. So when the effects of gravity are added in, the results are against the big bang model being correct.

Now if you know of a link that has the math detailing these "adjustments" to the Hubble constant, and their reasons for making them, I would gladly check them out, and it may revise my views somewhat. Until then, the current use of the Hubble constant strikes me as being closer to numerology than science.

Harry Costas · 10-21-2006

Hello Aireal

Mate keep on discovering do more research. Your on track.

On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters - a comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed CMB temperature decrement
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

The Hubble diagram extended to z>>1: the gamma-ray properties of GRBs confirm the Lambda-CDM model
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605430

The outermost gravitationally bound orbit around a mass clump in an expanding Universe: implication on rotation curves and dark matter halo sizes
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605611

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big..._Test_999.html

Aireal keep on discoverying. Do not get too emotional with any theory at this stage. Wait for a few years until deep field images go beyond 14 Gyrs and the model that is still standing with supported evidence.

I have more info. Than again you can search the net.

Aireal · 10-21-2006

Harry Costas

Thanks for the links, some of them I was familier with already, others were new to me.

I am always doing research, and try to keep an open mind. Even when I think something is true, evidence to the contrary will change my opinon.

As for not getting to attached to any one theory, I feel it may be a bit late for that. I have just been offered to be an administer for the W.S.M. forum at http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...orum/index.php

Harry Costas · 10-22-2006

Hello Aireal

Smile, well that does not mean that you have to agree.

But! in my opinion I think they are on the ball.

I'm registered with them, but have not used or posted yet.

When you want more links just let me know.

Aireal · 10-22-2006

Harry Costas

Auctually the ones I have seen you will find on our main web site. http://spaceandmotion.com/
and a large number of other links and info. I would have to ask Geoff, but I believe the main website has over 150 pages, and every page is good sized. Average time spent per page about half an hour if you look at it all, so he has a search feature to help. So I do agree with many of the links you gave.

P.S. Geoff Haselhurst is also lives in Australia and a few other members of our forum.

Harry Costas · 10-23-2006

Hello Aireal

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,going through it

ryan2006 · 10-31-2006

Harry,
My working hypothesis on what I call the Grand System that includes the solar system of universes with a universe that jumps out of orbit is consecutive with the big bang theory. When I said our universe went through a wormhole I was talking about when an entire region of dimension disappears through a vacuum. This may explain how a big bang occurs. There would be, however evidence of a pre universe and the universe we live in now. Expansion of a universe means that there is dimension outside our known universe. No I am not pigeon holing myself into this hypothesis I am simply slowly working on bringing the pieces of my theories together. I was glad to hear from you I hope you are doing well.

sincerely,

Ryan