Thanks ETL. Halton Arp ping.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 04/24/2018 10:57:04 AM PDT by ETL
What is a year?
If it’s expanding, what’s it expanding into? Absolute nothingness? The whole idea is horseshit.
i find much of the BB model very interesting. It could be correct. HOWEVER, 1/ the Inflation theory is not credible imho, no matter if the rest of the model might be 100 percent accurate...... and 2/ “something from nothing” is still unexplained by Science... even if God used the BB Model, the initial creation of something from nothing remains in His department (since Science can’t yet provide an alternate explanation). In short, I personally find the BBM a fascinating theory ... and if anything it helps “prove” the existence of the Creator God
My problem with the Big Bang is this: If all the matter in our universe were brought into a very small volume of space, then it would collapse in on itself and form the black hole of all black holes. Nothing can escape from a black hole, especially one so big as to contain everything. Therefore, there could not have been a Big Bang.
I saw a Unicorn ! Just can’t prove it except by story telling....
Well, there are black holes in the centers of galaxies including our own Now then, we know that matter can fall
Into black holes. But perhaps, by some mechanism yet to be elaborated, black holes are / we’re also “sources” of matter? ??
That was flat out fascinating, as difficult as it was for me to try to understand it.
OK, at time T=0, there is a big bang from a dense ball of matter.
So my question is, at time T=-1, did the matter create itself from nothing, or was the matter everlasting for an infinite amount of time before T=0?
If the matter created itself from nothing, how does big bang theory explain this instantaneous creation of matter from the empty vacuum of nothingness?
If the matter is everlasting, what suddenly caused a ball of dense matter going on for an almost infinite amount of time to suddenly explode and radiate outward?
I have never heard big bang theory address these paradoxes. I am sure they do, in incomprehensible language designed so
Scientists consider the Universe to be 14 billion years old.
Scientists believe the Universe to be 156 billion light years wide.
Assuming a relatively constant rate of travel, the outlying mass of galaxies took 14 billion years to travel 78 billion light years. So those galaxies traveled over 5 light years through space each earth year of time.
So the matter was traveling 5 times the speed of light.
And none of the big bang believing scientists see a problem with this? Really?
The BBT only addresses what happened afterwards. Other theories attempt to explain what happened prior. One such theory is called ™vacuum genesis™. It is based on the fact that space actually is not empty, but rather filled with quantum energy and weird short lived particles that appear spontaneously out of the so-called "nothingess" of spoce.
“Vacuum genesis (zero-energy universe) is a scientific hypothesis about the Big Bang that questions whether the universe began as a single particle arising from an absolute vacuum, similar to how virtual particles come into existence and then fall back into non-existence.[1]
The concept of vacuum genesis was first proposed in 1969 during a seminar being conducted by cosmologist Dennis Sciama. Edward Tryon, in the audience, was seized by an idea and blurted “Maybe the universe is a vacuum fluctuation.”
This was treated as a joke at the time, but Tryon had not been joking. In a 1984 interview, Tryon recalled that three years later, sitting at home, he had a further revelation; “I visualized the universe erupting out of nothing as a quantum fluctuation and I realized that it was possible that it explained the critical density of the universe.”[2]
The critical density of the universe is dependent upon the rate at which the universe is still expanding. The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, but was originally thought to be slowing down.
Furthermore, the rate at which this is changing gives the overall mass density of the universe which is denoted by the Greek letter omega. If omega is less than one, the mass density would be insufficient to stop the universe’s expansion and it would go on expanding forever.
If omega is more than one, the universe will eventually stop expanding and will thus collapse in on itself to again form another fireball not unlike the one from which it came. If omega is exactly 1, the universe’s expansion will continuously slow, but never quite halt.
Tryon’s theory requires that omega be equal to or less than one. Through calculations it has been found that omega is 1 as far as instruments are able to determine. However, the universe could be so vast that its curvature is undetectable.
The universe’s rate of expansion is accelerating and is projected to continue accelerating due to dark energy, thus omega must be lower than 1.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis
Ummmmm - maybe the author didn't see the story where they pointed Hubble at an "empty" part of the sky and ended up detecting galaxies upon galaxies......
My problem with the Big Bang is this: If all the matter in our universe were brought into a very small volume of space, then it would collapse in on itself and form the black hole of all black holes. Nothing can escape from a black hole, especially one so big as to contain everything. Therefore, there could not have been a Big Bang.
It could be, I suppose, that when a big enough black hole collapses, that it turns inside out and forms a gusher of matter/energy into a different space/time. We don’t notice that happening with “ordinary” black holes in our universe. Although we can’t see them directly, we can detect their enormous masses by the effects they have on nearby matter that we can see. But maybe a big enough black hole would do the inside-out trick, and the black hole’s mass would disappear from our universe. There is no evidence for this inside-out stuff, but it does solve the problem of how we got out of the biggest of black holes.
Another speculation some have resorted to is the idea that our universe is inside a black hole, so nothing actually got out in the Big Bang.
It is a bit hard to believe that it would blow up.
It is also a bit hard to believe any reason that it would have existed in the first place.
When I was a heathen I believed it all.
How is the distance of background radiation determined?
Exactly, though some theoretical physicist can probably show you an equation that "proves" that it would blow up at a certain mass.
LOL!
Consider the growing latent energy of the expanding Universe. HINT: think stretching a rubber band.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.