Barf! Subtle Distortion in Universe's Oldest Light: Swirls in Remnants of Big Bang

Science Daily ^ | Dec. 13, 2013

[earglasses]

The late Doctor Tom VanFlandern added a few problems to your list in a page at his site: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

[adorno]

Rapid expansion? Or, Big Bang?

No difference, really.

Interpretations of what occurred at "the beginning" of "this" universe, could lead to different interpretations of the same thing.

For the origin of the universe, all that would be needed is one single particle, and the manipulation of time. The singular particle could be the one thing that, with the passage of time, creates all matter as we "perceive" it.

A particle that can travel in time, forward and backwards, would, by "design", create more it's "instances" in any particular point in time, thereby creating a larger "universe" of "copies" of the same particle. That "creation" particle would need to possess a lot of different properties in order for the universe as we see, or perceive it, to exist.

So, at the beginning, all that would be needed is the "one" particle to be "placed" at a number of uncountable positions, with time stopped, and voila!, instant expansion. If time is a manipulative property of the universe, then the creation of the universe as we know it, is a "no-brainer" for something or "someone" that knew how to do it. If time has the property of moving forward and backwards, then why not also the capability of being stopped? If time can be stopped, then introducing a "creation" particle into that instance where time was stopped, would make it possible to create a universe of innumerable instances of that single particle. That would be the "instantaneous" expansion that cosmologists "see", but can't seem to explain.

Now, imagine that, if the universe is composed of the one single "creation" particle, with the assistance of time manipulation, then, that would mean that we are all carrying the "same" particle in every bit of what our bodies are composed of, not to mention the rest of the universe.

That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.

[Sherman Logan]

If time can be stopped, then introducing a "creation" particle into that instance where time was stopped,

Relativity, and standard Big Bang Theory, indicates that time did not "stop" at the moment of Creation, it did not exist "before" that.

Energy, matter and time are not separate things, they are intimately entwined.

Standard Christian theology is similar, with God creating Time when he created the Universe. He Himself is outside Time.

[I want the USA back]

In order to see light from around the time of the ‘big bang’ the object emitting the light would have to be about 14 billion light-years away. Or more accurately, 14 billion light-years away, 14 billion years ago.

But according to this theory, all matter was compressed really hard in a ball the size of a pea 14 billion years ago.

(So we were about a quarter of an inch from the farthest outreaches of the universe. Why does it take 14 billion years for the light to get here?)

[GodAndCountryFirst]

The “spontaneous” big bang, evolution via natural selection, the gay agenda, feminism... It’s all part of the same godless word view.

[GodAndCountryFirst]

The “spontaneous” big bang, evolution via natural selection, the gay agenda, feminism... It’s all part of the same godless word view.

[Pikachu_Dad]

So if a year is as a thousand to God, then isn’t 10,000 years and 10,000,000,000 years pretty much the same time period!

[MeshugeMikey]

the big bang is whats happening to our economy....

the sort of sound one wheres where a tire blows at high speed

[Cboldt]

Check out "Hidden in Plain Sight 2." Easy read, very thought provoking. Resolves those issues and more.

99 cents at Amzon, if you have a Kindle (reader).

[Cboldt]

-- Let there be Light and there one heck of a big bang of light. --

Technically, the initial "light" was in an opaque soup. Light (photons) is hypothesized to exist and even dominate the universe in the first second or less, but transparency didn't exist until hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang.

[ETL]

Resolves those issues and more.

It resolves the issues of the fundamental problems with the Big Bang and/or Inflation Theory. I seriously doubt it. Unless the book came from some advanced civilization light years away.

"The Kanamits, a race of 9-foot (2.7 m)-tall aliens, land on Earth. One of them addresses the United Nations, vowing that his race's motive in coming to Earth is solely to be helpful to humanity. Initially wary of the intentions of an alien race who came "quite uninvited", even skeptical international leaders begin to be persuaded of the aliens' benevolence when the Kanamits share their advanced technology, quickly putting an end to many of Earth's greatest woes, including hunger; energy becomes very cheap, and nuclear weapons are rendered harmless. The aliens even morph deserts into big, blooming fields. Trust in the Kanamits seems to be justified when Patty, one of a staff of US government cryptographers led by Chambers, cracks the title of a Kanamit book the spokesman left behind at the UN. Its title, she reveals, is To Serve Man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29

:)

[Cboldt]

-- It resolves the issues of the fundamental problems with the Big Bang and/or Inflation Theory. I seriously doubt it. --

The author posits a modification to Einstein's theory of gravity, and the results are pretty nifty. No horizon problem, no "inflation," explains "flatness," causes astronomical observation taken as accelerating expansion to make sense without introducing dark energy, etc.

Anyway, it's a good read. He's no more a kook than those who spout off on string theory, multiverses, and various other avenues being explored by theoretical physicists.

I also enjoyed his "Hidden in Plain Sight," which aims to reconcile quantum mechanics with the theory of relativity.

Not saying his theory is correct, just that as he explains it, it resolves a few fundamental "problems" with the big bang.

[Chaguito]

Isaac Newton was pretty much a fan of God. Gravity is a non-biblical theory, too.

[ETL]

Very interesting. Thanks. What does the cosmology community think of his ideas? I’m sure he’s been around for a time.

[Cboldt]

Hidden in Plain Sight
Hidden in Plain Sight 2

Dr. Andrew H. Thomas. Pretty young guy. Has a website, you can probably pick up his gist there ... http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/.

I haven't read remarks about him by other physicists. Some of the book review remarks are highly critical, but I have yet to stumble across a substantive disproof.

[ETL]

You’d think he would have won a Nobel Prize if he had resolved all those majors problems with the Big Bang theory.

[adorno]

Relativity, and standard Big Bang Theory, indicates that time did not "stop" at the moment of Creation, it did not exist "before" that.

My theory argues against the Big Bang, and against the theory of relativity. Therefore, you can't invalidate my argument by proposing that those theories invalidate my argument. It's not logical. My theory proposes that, the universe in it's early stages, did not conform to relativity, and that the Big Bang theory is just a perception of what occurred in the "early times of the universe" as I proposed.

Energy, matter and time are not separate things, they are intimately entwined.

I'm not arguing against energy, matter and time. I'm arguing that, those "things" were not the same during creation as we know them today. What we see or witness today, might not have even existed "before" time or during the onset of "time and matter and energy". Even the laws of physics we know or understand today, might not have even existed, or behaved differently during the early beginnings of the universe.

Standard Christian theology is similar, with God creating Time when he created the Universe. He Himself is outside Time.

Again, I'm not arguing against a Creator or God. My argument is that, whatever took place, whether through a creator's hand or not, was completely different from what we understand in nature and in cosmology today.

If God was ever present, even before the Big Bang, then he had the time to "think and create" the universe which we would occupy, with our own understanding of "time and matter and energy" and all of the physical laws inherent to those things, as we perceive them today, post-Big-Bang expansion.

[GodAndCountryFirst]

Newton studied God’s world! That’s a little different than rejecting God’s explanation for creation and using MY TAX DOLLARS to help promote ideas that seek to undermine the Word of God.

Science can study the world all it wants. But the origin of the universe... we already KNOW what that is. God made it.

[sauron]

“let there be light. . .” = instantaneous creation = Big Bang.

Yup. That's the way I see it, too.

Most people don't realize that the "Big Bang Theory" (although not so-called at that time) was proposed by a Christian theologian, Georges Lemaitre.

Oh, and the irony?

Lemaitre, the Christian, the theologian, the astronomer-scientist, was soundly ridiculed by the scientific establishment for trying to propose a point in time establishing the creation of the observable universe.

They claimed the universe was perpetual, eternal, and extended backward forever in time. (You see, they hated having to accept a universe that was not eternal, for if it had an origin...it implied an Originator. The river [the universe] cannot be higher than its Source [God], so to speak.)

They coined the term "Big Bang" to ridicule Lemaitre. The term stuck. But it mutated: instead of remaining ridicule, it became accepted, and everyone forgot how that argument began.

Judeo-Christianity had always been proclaiming an origin in time for the universe. Science had proclaimed the opposite.

How quickly people forget.

[sauron]

You are naive. These are atheist scientists trying to prove that the universe is godless. I don’t want to pay for that.

Don't worry, GodAndCountryFirst. They will not be able to. God's got it all covered.

God is Truth. Nothing can disprove Truth. I would argue also that He expects us to investigate, and might be disappointed if we didn't. Like raising birds from the nest that never want to use their wings, or fish their fins, etc., if we didn't use our inquiring minds to explore His universe.

We were meant to discover Him.

Science only means "knowledge," although the term usually invokes ideas of an investigatory process, it really only means "knowledge."

Eerily...Revelation predicted 2,000 years ago that (1) travel and (2) science, er...knowledge--would "increase." EERIE! Goosebump time. Also a host of other predictions--about Israel, the world, behaviors of man and governments, world conditions...you're all well aware.

Must have been weird < 1948. Israel? Doesn't exist. Whatareyatalkingabout?!

Anyway, the point is: It's all in God's hands. It always was. He saw the end from the beginning. To fear government funding of scientific investigation (serious science, that is, not fluff stuff) should never be feared, but welcomed.