|
Published by EWright 09-05-2006
| ||
| ||
| | ||
|
#2
By
Mercedes Benzene
on
09-05-2006
|
| Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test Awww... and just when the Big Band theory got interesting.... |
|
#4
By
infamous
on
09-05-2006
|
| Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test Could it be that we are seeing the afterglow of more than one BANG? Consider this Hypothesis: The Universe is infinite and eternal with an infinite number of smaller bangs, for lack of a better word. Viewing the universe from our point in time, we would see different shapes and ranges of shadows with the overall effect being a rather homogenous cosmic background radiation. My own personal suspicion is that black holes have a limit on how massive they can grow. Sometime in our distant past, an enormous black hole exploded giving us the impression that it was a universal event when in fact, it was only local. When one defines the universe as infinite, 13.7 billion light years can then be understood as only local..............Infy |
|
Last edited by infamous; 09-13-2006 at 10:59 AM.
|
|
#5
By
Jay-qu
on
09-05-2006
|
| Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test interesting thoughts infy, I was thinking along a slightly different line.. but I would need more info about the data from the experiment to bring it all together. I need more info than "Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not" just that.. |
|
#7
By
EWright
on
09-05-2006
| |
| Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test Quote:
| |
|
#8
By
learnin to learn
on
09-06-2006
|
| Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test that is astronomical! nice hypothesis infy! what if it were true? |
|
#9
By
cwes99_03
on
09-07-2006
|
| Re: Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test OK, I can think of a couple of more reasons than just the cluster itself produces a near identical amount of radiation as is seen everywhere else. 1) the radiation's origin is so far beyond the cluster that the cluster does not act like an obstruction to it (like a large light source and a tiny fly hovering half way between it and your eye, you won't see the fly or any shadow it might cast. 2) has anyone taken gravitational lensing into account for these things? They are after all pretty massive. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Article Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Article | Article Starter | Category | Comments | Last Post |
| Intergalactic Spores | orbsycli | Space | 28 | 06-24-2007 12:43 AM |
| Does a shadow have mass? | Zohaar818 | Astronomy and Cosmology | 8 | 05-25-2005 06:00 PM |
| Einstein's Special Relativity Fails? | Mac | Physics and Mathematics | 264 | 05-20-2005 08:11 PM |
| test | orbsycli | Test forum | 1 | 03-03-2005 11:41 AM |
| Test 3 | James Putnam | Test forum | 12 | 02-24-2005 10:18 PM |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:58 PM.













