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

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

We know what mainstream thinks.
You say "NO NEED"

I said that to your earlier comment -->
Than we can research into the recyling process without the need for the BBT or expansion or dark matter and so on.
There is "no need" of research as Big Bang is the prevailing theory.
Your article by Narlikar, Burbidge, etc is interesting yet is based upon earlier
work of Hoyle which is a Steady State Model. I respect their opinion, just
don't agree based upon what evidence I am aware. So do most other
Cosmologists that are in the field.

Originally Posted by Pluto

This limits research to explain the workings of star formation and galaxy evolution where we do have a cyclic process. Matter been sucked in and ejected and reforming not only matter but reforming stars and galaxies.

Maybe I was mistaken I thought the "recycling" you were referring to was
on a universal scale not Galactic or Stellar. I admit to not always staying up
with the most recent reserch.

Originally Posted by Pluto

You can always read up on star formation and the varies stages.

I graduated from Purdue in Physics (BS), though my original major Astrophysics at IU.

Originally Posted by Pluto

For many years we have had a restriction because of main stream thinking.
The idea was that we had a standard model, why do other research.

I wasn't even implying this. It may very well work out that Steady State
may be valid in the end. More evidence lies with Big Bang as far as I am
aware of. Dark Matter has strong implication as well. Take, missing mass,
gravitational lensing issues, etc. Don't take my word -- look up author
Lawrence Krauss of Case Western University. He has a book "Quintessance".

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog

This may be of interest, If you are interested in reading.

Trapping Horizons
arXiv.org Search

From the link above I picked some links.

[0802.3422] Black Holes without Event Horizons
Black Holes without Event Horizons

[astro-ph/0408323] A new proof for non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and information paradox
A new proof for non-occurrence of trapped surfaces and information paradox

[gr-qc/0404022] Simulation of gravitational objects in Bose-Einstein condensates
Simulation of gravitational objects in Bose-Einstein condensates

[astro-ph/0307438] Do Black Hole Candidates Have Magnetic Moments Instead of Event Horizons?
Do Black Hole Candidates Have Magnetic Moments Instead of Event Horizons?


[astro-ph/0111421] Does The Principle Of Equivalence Prevent Trapped Surfaces From Being Formed In The General Relativistic Collapse Process?
Does The Principle Of Equivalence Prevent Trapped Surfaces From Being Formed In The General Relativistic Collapse Process?


[gr-qc/0005119] Modified Black Hole with Polar Jet and Vortex
Modified Black Hole with Polar Jet and Vortex

The key issue here is that the core of the black hole can take part in the recyling process.

[Pluto]

G'day Maddog


You said

There is "no need" of research as Big Bang is the prevailing theory.
Your article by Narlikar, Burbidge, etc is interesting yet is based upon earlier
work of Hoyle which is a Steady State Model. I respect their opinion, just
don't agree based upon what evidence I am aware. So do most other
Cosmologists that are in the field.

I thought this maybe of interest to you.

[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.
The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.
In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma
(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

You are repeating yourself. I said I already read this (from first comment the other day). This is based upon a Steady State Model (not Big Bang).

It is now my feeling this topic has been beaten to death many times over so
I will not comment nor reply here further. If you wish to discuss this topic, I
nead (for my own clarity) a new thread with a new and clear topic to discuss.

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Mad Dog

ooops must have been a late night and mixed the forums.

[Pluto]

G'day

Maddog said

It is now my feeling this topic has been beaten to death many times over so
I will not comment nor reply here further. If you wish to discuss this topic, I
nead (for my own clarity) a new thread with a new and clear topic to discuss.

Thinking what you said, reminds me of what is actually happening out there with all the scientists. The subject has been beaten to death and you would think that they would have resolved many issues and yet many issues will not be resolved for another 10 years or so if we are lucky.

In the last 2 years very important information has be observed and the minute we think we are close, we find that we know less.

Two important issues are the workings of our Sun and ultra dense cores such as Neutron stars and black holes.

[FRIPRO]

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.

[modest]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

What if?
Again I raise the question what if the Universe is eternal?

By eternal do you mean infinitely old or that it will never end?

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

With millions of Big Bangs through out its rotating Surface.

Why rotating?

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

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.

It is possible that the big bang is both:

1. Only locally observable
2. Represents something that was the beginning of the entire (visible and beyond-visible) universe

But, the big bang theory itself currently makes no predictions of the shape, content, or beginning of areas beyond our visible universe as is said here:

• Because the universe has a finite age (~13.7 billion years) we can only see a finite distance out into space: ~13.7 billion light years. This is our so-called horizon. The Big Bang Model does not attempt to describe that region of space significantly beyond our horizon - space-time could well be quite different out there.
• It is possible that the universe has a more complicated global topology than that which is portrayed here, while still having the same local curvature. For example it could have the shape of a torus (doughnut). There may be some ways to test this idea, but most of the following discussion is unaffected.

WMAP Big Bang Concepts

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Fibro said

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

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.

[FRIPRO]

The below coment is by FRIPRO not fibro, an I mostly agree with Pluto.