Nimblebrain Forums - Not logged in
Forum Help Search Chat Register Login
Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / What happened before the Big bang? (12963 hits)
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-10-19 19:37
I just watched a BBc programme entitled "what happened before the Big Bang"
They are the biggest questions that science can possibly ask: where did everything in our universe come from? How did it all begin? For nearly a hundred years, we thought we had the answer: a big bang some 14 billion years ago.

But now some scientists believe that was not really the beginning. Our universe may have had a life before this violent moment of creation.

Horizon takes the ultimate trip into the unknown, to explore a dizzying world of cosmic bounces, rips and multiple universes, and finds out what happened before the big bang.


Good programme, but they all still assume redshifts are velocities (wrong) and hence expansion (wrong). but they do all say the Big bang was wrong
By Jade Annand Date 2010-10-20 03:30
I hate BBC's "Not available in your area" stuff - they always have things I want to watch here from Canada.

So what on earth were they going on about in the program? Wouldn't the 'acceleration due to dark energy' essentially indicate that since this universe would expand and fade into blackness, never collapsing, that a previous iteration would be impossible?

What would make a previous iteration different enough to not succumb to eternal expansion?

I haven't seen much Big Bang-related news this side of the pond, perhaps excepting Hawking's famous 'debacle' over saying that God was not required to start the universe, and maybe the sitcom by the same name.

So was this Big Bang alternative the whole topic of the program?
By RussT Date 2010-10-20 04:20
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj

Ritchie...this should help...

BUT...all they are doing is "Starting the Universe from "Inflation"...10^-35 instead of T=0 and then keeping everything else the same.

Lyndon is correct with both of these "Wrongs"...

but they all still assume redshifts are velocities (wrong) and hence expansion (wrong).
By Jade Annand Date 2010-10-20 05:26
I don't get the video (still complains of unavailability in my area - damn you, geo IP location!), but the summary of the folks and positions involved is pretty good. Smolin and Penrose are string theory 'apostates', so I guess it's not altogether surprising that they would monkey with BBT (though it seems pretty regular for teams to come up with some weird BBT variant/alternative on a regular basis like dodecahedral universes).

Wish I knew how colliding extradimensional branes got to be mainstream science :)
By RussT Date 2010-10-20 10:27
Ritchie said:


Wish I knew how colliding extradimensional branes got to be mainstream science :)


Ritchie, colliding extradimensional branes is NOT accepted as mainstream because it is NOT testable...

and, Lee Smolin switched from "String/"M" Theory" to LQG (Loop Quantum Gravity) because of the dependance of a "Background Field"

I can give you links to all of those...BUT it doesn't really matter because they are ALL sticking to the Big Bang "Inflation" beginning with the Horizons of a "Bubble Universe"....NONE of which can even exist!!!

The "Old Galaxies" in the Far Universe tell us that!!!
By lyndonashmore Date 2010-10-20 17:06
Pay 5 pounds per month for a vpn, giving a UK IP then they think you are in Uk. You can then send your sat tv back and stream BBC/ITV and save money.
Some of the ideas/theories go back beyond the BB.
By RussT Date 2010-10-22 08:15
Lyndon is correct with both of these "Wrongs"...

Lyndon said:


but they all still assume redshifts are velocities (wrong) and hence expansion (wrong).


So I am agreeing with you Lyndon

RussT said:


IF>>> the Big Bang Never happened...

,,,was the Universe ever shrunk down to a Point/Atom? was there a T=0 for the Universe?
Did it expand to the size of a "Grapefruit" from T=10^-43 to -35...Inflation
Was the Universe ever wayyyyyyyyyyyyy smaller than it is now?

I think you guys would all agree that the answer to all of these is a definite NO.

Now...we have evidence that there is NO doppler time dilation of QSO's or GRB's and...since you guys also agree that there was NO Big Bang....NO expanding Universe full of HI, then the Horizon "Surface of Last Scattering" never existed either....that is three lines of evidence against "Stretched Photons" and shows that the concept of "Doppler Redshift" denoting the "Velocity of retreating Galaxies/Clusters" was a total sham/forced constraint that was never true/real to begin with.


That simply means that there was NO "Younger Universe" at all... ever!

And everything they have been saying is happening in that "Younger Universe" (Including ALL concepts on Galaxy Formation/Evolution) is "Forced/Constrained" to be the way they have assumed it must based on a False Negative assumption!!!

That includes their absolute denial that all the evidence for "Old Galaxies" in a supposed very early Universe is valid science....it is absolutely NOT and has become very obvious to many many professionals BUT Everyone is deathly afraid to go "Against Mainstream"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7132-red-and-dead-galaxies-surprise-astronomers.html

David Hogg, a cosmologist at New York University, who is not part of the team, agrees. "What is most impressive to me is that a significant fraction of the galaxies look 'long dead', which does suggest that some kinds of galaxies could be fully in place at very early times," he says.


Those galaxies could easily be 30 to 40 Billion years old or older!~!!~

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050310102001.htm

The team was particularly surprised to find very old, red galaxies that had stopped forming new stars altogether. They had rapidly formed massive amounts of stars out of gas much earlier in the universe's history, but then suddenly starved to death, raising the question of what caused them to die so early.[/QUOTE]
By Eduffy80911 Date 2011-03-17 05:37
There is a simple logical proof that the Big Bang, even if completely correct, could not have been the beginning. In theory, you had a super-massive something in one state, then it exploded. For the something to suddenly change it's own behavior, it would have to have been influenced by something else. Conditions in its environment changed somehow. Therefore, an environment must have existed, and an environment that was subject to change. Perhaps the object that was the precursor to our universe traveled from an environment in which it was stable and solid, to one where maintaining that state was impossible (high pressure to low pressure).

In any case, the notion that the Big Bang occurred suddenly, for no reason, with no cause sounds mystical to me.
By nickoftime Date 2011-05-24 19:44
Are you saying I'm paying my TV licence fee so Canadians can watch the BBC ?! Shame on you, chuckle. Roger Penrose claims there is a signature in the CMBR that indicates an epoch existed before the BB. A more philosophical approach is to consider cause and effect. If you believe in CnE then how can there be a beginning? If one starts with absolutely nothing, does this mean that CnE doesn't exist, or even the *potential* for CnE to exist doesn't exist (if you follow me)? In which case where did the laws come from? Perhaps we may have to admit that the human brain simply doesn't have the capability to resolve this issue.
By Jade Annand Date 2011-05-25 06:40
nickoftime said:

Are you saying I'm paying my TV licence fee so Canadians can watch the BBC ?! Shame on you, chuckle.


I'm pretty sure our cable bills go in part to paying the BBC for the privilege of watching it :)

Actually, we have a "BBC Canada" to fall within Canadian content guidelines, from what I gather, so it's not nearly as satisfying as the real thing (I'm an expat - though really young at time of emigation!).

Anyhow, one thing I haven't really seen an explanation of - I've only seen the "before the Big Bang" news items in isolation - is how and whether this is supposed to seamlessly mesh with this epoch. After all, is it not by all indications that the expansion is supposed to accelerate beyond all hope of any sort of collapse?

Have they come up with a rationalization as to how this epoch will - despite appearances - actually "crunch" again, or are we supposedly, coincidentally in the very last ever cycle?
By nickoftime Date 2011-05-25 18:07
That's a good question and I don't have an answer. I thought the mass-energy content was supposed to add up to give a forever decreasing expansion rate. The question is more interesting in light of dark energy supposedly increasing the expansion rate (forever?).
By lyndonashmore Date 2011-05-29 18:43
Sorry to ignore you all, been watching the BBc completely free of charge in the Arabian gulf. They have this superb programme 'inside the body' on. Mind you I have just flicked over to Poirot on ITV. However, I prefer corrie. I watched Fiz finding John with the body can't wait till the next episode.
Thanks nikoftime for your contributions to my viewing.
But why are you paying a licence fee in the UK?
Just get rid of the tv - use BBC/ITV iplayer with a computer and big VDU or even a projector.
If you don't have a receiver in the house you don't need a licence.
QED
Whats the point in being science savvy if you don't use it?
As per what happened before the BB? Its a crystal sphere because they know it is wrong.
Need to go now as there is a great programme on USA TV that I can tap into (just change the IP)
.
By nickoftime Date 2011-06-05 15:17

>>But why are you paying a licence fee in the UK?


Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003, ie. the law. It includes computers too.
By nickoftime Date 2011-06-05 15:37
The working out of (1) is in Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology by Hoyle and Narlikar. It's a heavy going book (I have a copy somewhere) but apparently sound according to those in the know.

As for (2), in truth the BB does rather well here and I've not seen an alternative worked out to the same level of detail. Do you know of such a reference presenting an alternative synthesis process?

However, I've never been convinced by thermalisation of starlight (3) explaining the black body curve of the CMBR. An extraodinary amount of information is contained in the CMBR (eg. the multipoles, a quick search revealed this site http://find.spa.umn.edu/~pryke/logbook/20000922/).

Cheers
By Jade Annand Date 2011-06-07 18:28
nickoftime said:

However, I've never been convinced by thermalisation of starlight (3) explaining the black body curve of the CMBR. An extraodinary amount of information is contained in the CMBR (eg. the multipoles, a quick search revealed this site http://find.spa.umn.edu/~pryke/logbook/20000922/).


Liu Hao et al came out with a paper in February strongly suggesting that multipoles are a scanning artifact.

abstract said:

After a full-sky observation scan, the accumulated deviations will be structured with a pattern closely correlated to the observation pattern with artificial anisotropies on large scales, including artificial quadrupole, octopole, etc in the final CMB map. Such scan-induced anisotropies on large scales can be predicted by the true dipole moment and observational scan scheme. Indeed, the expected scan-induced quadrupole pattern of the WMAP mission is perfectly in agreement with the published WMAP quadrupole. With the scan strategy of the Planck mission, we predict that scan-induced anisotropies will also produce an artificially aligned quadrupole. The scan-induced anisotropy is a common problem for all sweep missions and, like the foreground emissions, has to be removed from observed maps. Without removing the scan-induced effect, CMB maps from COBE, WMAP, and Planck as well, are unreliable for studying the CMB anisotropy.


There may be a rejoinder to this by now, mind you.

There was also a paper last year as well talking about how the 'horns' of the scan were unduly affected by bright sources at a particular angle (120 degrees?) away.

I'm not sure about starlight thermalization, either. I know there are a number of alt-cosmologists who expound on the possibility of "iron whiskers", but how on earth could we possibly verify that?
By lyndonashmore Date 2011-06-07 20:09
“>>But why are you paying a licence fee in the UK?

Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003, ie. the law. It includes computers too.

This is a science site - we check and get our facts right!

If you use a laptop to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV then by law you need a TV Licence. If you use a laptop to view television programmes after they are shown on TV – for example by downloading programmes or via streaming on-demand – then you don’t need a Licence.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16/
By lyndonashmore Date 2011-06-13 20:10
What is special about the
visible spectrum

Is the universe for a blind man different to one that can see?
By nickoftime Date 2011-06-14 20:52

>>we check and get our facts right


I don't disagree with the interpretation, it's the application you should worry about... chuckle.
By nickoftime Date 2011-06-14 21:07

>>Liu


That's outrageous, do you have the reference please?

The last I saw, whiskers aren't even able to produce the black-body curve, let alone the more detailed stuff. Grote Reber thought the CMBR was due to intergalactic hydrogen (I think) but I'm struggling to find his paper, I think it might be this one: "Cosmic matter and the nonexpanding universe", P.Marmet, G.Reber. IEEE Trans.Plasma Sci., 17, no.2, 264.

PS, I'm struggling with law, cosmology, the day job and replying to the right messages in the right place. 
Previous Next Up Topic Cosmology / Alternative Cosmology / What happened before the Big bang? (12963 hits)

Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill