What will it take to bring the Big Bang down?
That means that that the speed of light is still Constant at "c" BUT "Time" is also a Constant!!!
Ari agreed with that....so why isn't he (or anyone else) helping me here...
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80061-carryover-black-hole-thread.html
SR is totally wrong....Van Riins "invisible elf" is "light traveling ANY distance in 0 time"
That means that that the speed of light is still Constant at "c" BUT "Time" is also a Constant!!!
Ari agreed with that....so why isn't he (or anyone else) helping me here...
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80061-carryover-black-hole-thread.html
What will it take to bring the Big Bang down?
And, did anyone check this mess out???
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/80143-looking-back-into-tiny-distance.html
Do y'all think that maybe the BB lasts because it is the 'best' description/model we have at present? Faults and all?
Do y'all think that maybe the BB lasts because it is the 'best' description/model we have at present? Faults and all?
Yes. I have seen that being stated quite explicitly almost in those exact words in some BAUT forum discussions.
Lyndon...
Could you give someone not "in the know" a brief synopsis of the cause of your ban on BAUT? Enquiring minds want to know.
:-)
Regards, Mike Petersen
after much discussion with the moderators, we have decided to permanently ban lyndonashmore. There have been multiple rules violations, including not answering questions in a timely manner.
To be clear: if someone comes here and has the time to post their theory, then they have the time to stick around and answer questions. lyndonashmore has waffled, obfuscated, and delayed many times. It is clear to all of us that he won't answer many of the direct questions asked of him, and instead answers easy or older questions.
After many weeks of this, and multiple warnings, enough is enough. This thread is closed.
Looking at Ritchies post, I realized that I completely overlooked one important thing; in order to bring BB down you also need a good alternative theory, in addition to showing how the BB is wrong. It's because it seems to be common attitude that we always need a theory we can consider as "truth". I disagree with that, but it seems to be prevailing attitude, so without an alternative, we don't stand a chance.
What is the alternative?
Do we all believe that 'infinite' started nowhere? It was all around all the time?
How can 'something' ie something as small as the universe, just have been all around all the time?
You forget, I have a permanent ban there so it don't apply!!!! - Why does everyone go on about BAUT?
That said, I don't think that in itself is a reason to just converge on one alternative at random just to have a single alternative. That could easily, at least to my mind, end up committing the same sort of grave all-eggs-in-one-basket error that carried us over the decades to this point in history.
Lyndon said:
Do we all believe that 'infinite' started nowhere? It was all around all the time?
I do believe that, yes. We had a whole thread about our beliefs recently.
Then where did it all begin?
Who made it?
Lyndon,
The term "start of infinity" is an oxymoron.
Regards,
Mike
To me the beautiful part of it is that it didn't ever begin, it has always been there. Questions of origin are meaningless.
So have humans been 'there' all the time too - or did they evolve?
To say that a universe has always been 'there' is like telling a child who asks
"mummy, where do babies come from?"
" They don't, they have always been there!"
Nah, the universe came from somewhere.
I have no reason to doubt our theories about the history of the Earth, so humans have been there about 2 million years (unless I remember the number wrong), and they did evolve from some kind of apes.
It is not the same thing. We have very good body of evidence (most of it very direct) for our theories about the origin of babies, but our body of evidence for the origin of the universe is very weak. Even the prevailing mainstream theory is not capable to explain the assumed origin.
Well, I'd say that the universe comes from itself... continuously.
Technically, too, "ape" is a clade, and thus humans are apes, so you'd have to say they evolved from some other kind of apes ;) I'm just being pedantic, though; you're fine :)
I haven't really read Linde's stuff, though, so I can only speculate as to whether this scenario would be infinitely old, but it seems likely.
Parents could also just as well answer, "the stork brings them"
Infinitely old universes may defy common sense, but the math and physics behind them may work just fine.
Somebody, can't remember who, pointed out that in its favour, The BB is an 'exciting' idea. One can do computer simulations showing things whizzing here there and everywhere - and they look good on T/V or in a museum display.
You can also start your own thread here in this forum.
No problem Ari...it's just that I have noticed you (and dgruss *Dave*) on BAUT quite a bit, and Dave certainly didn't and wouldn't participate in our "What do you think is true" thread on this forum.
(which might only be several hours of time a week),
1. The Hubble Constant is ~88 km s-1 Mpc-1 using all the best currently available data for spiral galaxies.
2. MOND is a better solution to the mass discrepancies in spiral galaxies than CDM.
3. There is a lot of viable scientific evidence for non-cosmological redshifts with the most important evidence coming from bridged discordant redshift systems.
1. The Big Bang never happened and the universe is not expanding
2. There is no CDM or DE
3. Matter creation occurs in the cores of active galaxies (Seyfert ...)
Until overwhelming evidence that the CMB is not cosmic emerges, you can count on the BB being the dominant theory in astrophysics.
wow, i wish I had that much time!
Why MOND?
It seems too improbable to me.
Quite frankly, David, I'm pretty pleased that you pop in to say hi. I can hardly imagine the overhead of family, teaching and coaching; I have but one toddler, and that alone has dropped my contributions on my own blog and forum by an incredible amount, not to mention that I typically don't have the headspace to sit down and improve the quasar-counting program I put together to help Ari.
(Now mind you, I was a little worried that the unknown months-long e-mail black hole here would prevent you and others from coming back in the event of a lost password!)
BAUT forums look interesting, but exhausting. It doesn't seem to take too long before incredible incivility sets in, mostly on the part of a few who shall not be named, that really tear the discussion away from the issues.
That would put the age of the universe at a problematic 11.2 Gyr in lamdba CDM, would it not?
That does intrigue me as a possibility, but I have to ask, what prevents the universe from filling up with matter? Well, presuming that Narlikar and Arp's "m = at2" or something similar is true
My biggest frustration is that mainstreamers there never (with a few exceptions) admit when you've made a good point. So you take the time to type up a lucid explanation to their responses, and it ends up being a complete waste of your time.
Considering the huge space between galaxies and galaxy clusters I don't think this is a major issue, but that would depend upon how fast matter is being created. The variable mass hypothesis is interesting, but correct or not, I think that there enough observations hinting at ejection of matter that I'm willing to accept it while we wait for someone to explain it.
So you take the time to type up a lucid explanation to their responses, and it ends up being a complete waste of your time.
I am quite a believer of the galaxies being the recyclers of the universe (with acknowledgements to Rufus Young). We have been conditioned to think of galaxies as having collapsed out of the 'big bang'. We are told that they will eventually burn out and die as the universe dies. In my mind I always imagined it like water down a plughole. This conditioning restricts our creative thought. Suppose we stand the whole thing on its head. Galaxies are completely the opposite and the job of the galactic regenerator at the centre is to do just that. The tremendous gravitational and electromagnetic forces do the opposite of what happens in the rest of the universe, producing protons and electrons which they inject into two the spiral arms via the poles of this rotating object which rotates at 90 degrees to the rest of the galaxy and gently processes producing the spiral effect. It may therefore be more correct to think of them as double-ended pinwheels. There was an article in 1979 in Scientific American called 'The Central Parsec of the Galaxy'. They casually mentioned that "something" was rotating at the centre at 90 degrees to the plane of the galaxy and a new spiral arm appeared to be unfurling from the centre. Perhaps it was not a new spiral arm but just the beginning part of one of the existing ones.5) The matter creation will eventually stop when there is not enough energy to power it
6) There is some means of recycling matter
what prevents the universe from filling up with matter?
I believe that, if the Universe is infinite in extent, this question does not make sense. How can one fill up an infinite quantity of volume?
lyndon ashmore said:
wow, i wish I had that much time!
Sleep less! :)
So if you have an infinitely large universe, do you accept that you will also have to have an infinitely small one too?
Richie Wrote:I think I'd feel better about such things if there were a plausible description of how things such as Young's neutroid or Hoyle's near-black holes could possibly reset entropy, or otherwise violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Not saying that it can't, somehow, but what is it that would make the 2nd Law invalid under such longer-term circumstances? Some relationships or conservation laws that we presume hold under all circumstances that don't?
We have to bear in mind that Fred Hoyle believed in the expansion with the provision that a hydrogen atom was being created in empty space to maintain the status quo. However, some of us are questioning the idea of expansion all together, in that the universe may be dynamically balanced. Also, if a galaxy is in self-equilibrium then as I understand it the laws of thermodynamics are not broken.Mike wrote: I believe that, if the Universe is infinite in extent, this question does not make sense. How can one fill up an infinite quantity of volume? On the other hand, the question may be in reference to local space, in which case it would depend upon the ratio of the amount of new matter being created versus the slow(?) dispersion rate of the matter in the area being discussed.
Be careful when dealing with infinities. By way of example, given that the set of whole numbers is infinite, how many multiples of a trillion are there?
Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill