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

[enorbet2]

Well Pluto a "boilermaker salut" would be a shot of whiskey with beer chaser followed by a (Nit!,Nit!) Toast to yer health.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by enorbet2

Well Pluto a "boilermaker salut" would be a shot of whiskey with beer chaser followed by a (Nit!,Nit!) Toast to yer health.

The way I remember that in college (@ Purdue) was you would drop the "chaser" of whiskey
in your beer. Since I never wanted to taint my Guinness I only tried this once. Yechh!



maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Smile, I do not drink.

Tried it, does not make it happen for me.

I thought a boilermaker salut maybe from the sweat of a metalworker.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Just sharing this link, I may have posted it before.


Problems of Practical cosmology
International Conference.

Problems of Practical Cosmology 2008 - Text of Proceedings

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Slowly slowly I'm reading through topics using the search via

NASA ADS
SAO/NASA ADS: ADS Home Page

I was asked to read on this topic

Star formation from jets 2009
SAO/NASA ADS Abstract Service

THis a most exciting topic, I think I'm lost in transit. I have read a few of the papers and feel that I know very little.

[modest]

Continued from Re: Eternal Generation Cosmology?

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day Modest

The posts on the Big Bang were not posts in providing evidence they were opinions from others.

I totally disagree with the BIG Bang and the formation of singularities that only exist in theory.

I said



Modest it seems you make statements yourself without supporting evidence.

Am I to understand that you think that the universe originated from one singularity?

as your words state that its only a theory.

Yes, Pluto, I'm saying that big bang theory claims that the universe came from ONE singularity rather than many. "Singularity" is not a good word to use, as it leads to confusion. But, the thing I'm trying to get across is that BBT does not claim that there were multiple singularity points throughout the universe from which the mass of the universe exploded.

The best way to think of it is like this:

Consider any two points in the universe that are sufficiently far away from one another. Currently they are expanding away from one another. This means that they used to be closer together, and the further and further you look back in time the closer and closer these two points were.

If you 'rewind' the 'film' of the universe back far enough then these two points and all other points of the universe used to be touching. This is T=0 (Time=beginning), the singularity, where everything was infinitely close to everything else—the moment of the big bang.

I believe you are perhaps confusing this 'big bang singularity' with the singularities that are theorized to exist in black holes throughout the universe today. These are not the same thing. They have theoretical and physical similarities, but they are theoretically and physically different. Notice any page describing the big bang:

Big Bang Theory

Talks about "a singularity" and "the singularity".

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day Modest

I know of and read

Big Bang Theory

The question is this:

Do you know what evidence is and what hear say is?

The link talks around the BIG Bang Theory and uses information to support the theory.

Not one part is evidence.

[Boerseun]

The Hubble Flow is evidence.
Redshift is evidence.
Expanding space is evidence.

Now take the above and run it backwards in your mind.

[Pluto]

G'day Boerseun

I have read all the links provided by this forum and a list from others.


You said

The Hubble Flow is evidence.
Redshift is evidence.
Expanding space is evidence.

Now take the above and run it backwards in your mind.

Think about it for a second, is it evidence?

The question: is Redshift reliable.

Redshift is taken from supernova candles. Do we know enough of the intrinsic properties causing the Redshift.

Secondly is it not funny that the redshift is occuring from a centre point called Earth.

This is interesting reading
[0806.4085] A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics

A review of redshift and its interpretation in cosmology and astrophysics

Authors: R. Gray, J. Dunning-Davies
(Submitted on 25 Jun 2008)

Abstract: The interpretation of redshift in cosmology and astronomy yields a great deal of information about the universe in which we live, but much controversy surrounds the correct interpretation of the phenomenon. This article discusses the history of the redshift, and how its interpretation varies between different cosmological theories, including the Big Bang theory and some of its most famous rivals, the Steady State theory and Tired Light theory, and aims to highlight a few of the problems still existing. Some notions not normally associated with astronomy and astrophysics are mentioned also in the hope that a somewhat broader view of this important topic may be investigated.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Redshift is taken from supernova candles. Do we know enough of the intrinsic properties causing the Redshift.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Secondly is it not funny that the redshift is occuring from a centre point called Earth.

This is a common misconception. If you were to visit any other point in space, the Hubble Flow would seem as if it originated there. It's because every point is moving away from every other point, simultaneously, in all directions.