The Big Bang is Busted

[SpheresOfBalance]

[e

My opinion is the bang must have been a large black hole ,
black holes are constructed over time with motion ,
Actually I've understood that black holes are due to the collapse of extremely large stars due to an extremely massive core, well beyond that of a simple supernova.

i

[/quote]
There is a problem with that idea ,,,
There are very large galaxies at the edge of the known universe they have massive black holes some as big as 18 billion suns worth .
So calculate how long would it take for 18 billion suns to go through that process .
Taking in to consideration , the fact that the image we are looking at is 13 billion years old,
That only leaves them half a billion years to do aaall of that.
it sounds impossible ,
So they are suggesting the bang spat out large hunks of black hole ,
thus forming a galaxy quicker ,
But there a problem with that .
Thats then assuming the bang was a big black hole .
And we are now back to time and motion before the BB,
I got them stuffed either way ,LOL[/quote]
If in fact there was nothing or just empty space. It could not be called big as there was nothing to compare it to. But seeing the amount of matter that's strewn around the known universe I would imagine that it was extremely large such that it could have instantly spawned humongous stars.

But you never know!

[Godfree]

There are many things we will never be able to do ,
things we will never be able to see ,
Like the rest of the universe ,
even at the speed of light it will take us billions of years to get out of the known universe .
But that will not stop us from knowing a lot of things about what we can't see .
We can't see black holes but calculate their presence by the way things move near them,
we can't see planets in other solar systems but can work out the big ones exist by the swing of their sun .
We can't see the rest of the universe .
But the sheer size of what we can see ,
"could " be taken as a sufficiently large sample to predict the rest of the universe .

[Godfree]

I'v been thinking about this red shift ,
if it was based on movement there is a way we could test this theory .
A wide angle photo of the bb site should reveal more red at the edges of view ,
because the galaxies at 90 deg to us are moving away faster than the ones in line with us ,
So the image should be red edged and less red in the middle .
I will have to google that one .

[SpheresOfBalance]

I've been thinking about this red shift,
if it was based on movement there is a way we could test this theory .
A wide angle photo of the bb site should reveal more red at the edges of view ,
because the galaxies at 90 deg to us are moving away faster than the ones in line with us ,
So the image should be red edged and less red in the middle .
I will have to google that one .

I guess you didn't see my post that called into question the red shift. How could you possibly tell if the red shift wasn't in fact just the red associated with the stars temperature, as opposed to a shift. Because a shift implies a visual variance and at those great distances a variance would require you to either know the stars true static color (temperature related); we'd had to have once been on the same relative trajectory and speed to be capable of observing it's static color, then compare that to what we observe now, at our current positions, which is impossible, or it would require witnessing a perpendicular (line of sight to star trajectory) CPA which could take thousands of years of only the very close stars. My point is that it would be virtually impossible to see a shift associated at those distances, as far as I'm aware.

[Godfree]

The red shift SOB ,
Like anything in life it can get down to interpretation .
wether it's the bible the bbt or science data .
I think it's hard not to arrive with an agenda .
and I would certainly see the likes of Hubble as a prime example of a christian science missionary .
Trying to find the science of god .
There are many logical assumptions about an infinite universe .
I'v yet to hear a logical finite model ,???
In an infinite universe we don't have to create matter , it's already here .
We don't have to start time with our little bang ,
it's already started .
The birth and rebirth of the galaxies .
A cycle .
Like anything else we see in nature . it has a cycle .

[SpheresOfBalance]

The red shift SOB ,
Like anything in life it can get down to interpretation .
wether it's the bible the bbt or science data .
I think it's hard not to arrive with an agenda .
and I would certainly see the likes of Hubble as a prime example of a christian science missionary .
Trying to find the science of god .
There are many logical assumptions about an infinite universe .
I'v yet to hear a logical finite model ,???
In an infinite universe we don't have to create matter , it's already here .
We don't have to start time with our little bang ,
it's already started .
The birth and rebirth of the galaxies .
A cycle .
Like anything else we see in nature . it has a cycle .

Still, I see your need to see an infinite universe in terms of time as related to your fear of death. Everything around us is limited by time (change). Even stars die! It might be infinite in terms of recycling the matter. That's possible, but the form may change. The present form may simply be one of many in an ongoing ever changing metamorphosis.

[Godfree]

[q
Still, I see your need to see an infinite universe in terms of time as related to your fear of death.

You assume I fear death ,??? your wrong ,
I'm an Atheist , there is nothing to fear ,
god isn't waiting to judge me ,
the devil won't drag me down to hell .
what is there to fear in death ,
surely life is to be feared .
Death is the end of worry.
I have been checking out a few sites and there are many out there saying most of what I'm saying .
"Static universe model fits the observational data better than the BBT"
"the universe has too many large scale structures ,would take 100 billion yrs"
these are claims from websites I'm looking at .
Off the top Of my head I have been saying many of these things .
I havn't noticed a lot of agreement .
are we a bit scared to step out of line ,???

[Godfree]

Chaz seems to think I should publish my wisdom .
So ,
Godfree's first law of physics ,
"If in the universes past there was ever nothing,then nothing is all there ever would be"
if you can't get your brain around that .
then your just not as good at this thinking thing , as you think you are .!!!

[Arising_uk]

I think before you do that you should become a physicist and justify and prove your theories with maths and experimentation.

[Godfree]

I think before you do that you should become a physicist and justify and prove your theories with maths and experimentation.

Arising,???
So you don't get or understand that statement ,???
really ,???
you can't see the logic ,???
your actually telling you can't grasp or accept that ,???
it appears my expectations of the intellect of the people in here has been far too high .!!!
seems I'm flogging a dead horse ,probably the one who wouldn't drink .!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think before you do that you should become a physicist and justify and prove your theories with maths and experimentation.

Arising,???
So you don't get or understand that statement ,???
really ,???
you can't see the logic ,???
your actually telling you can't grasp or accept that ,???
it appears my expectations of the intellect of the people in here has been far too high .!!!
seems I'm flogging a dead horse ,probably the one who wouldn't drink .!!!

The logic is flawed as it fails to account for that which is unknown. One cannot possibly 'know' that something could not exist where nothing once did. There could be a creating force involved for all we know. Your so called logic doesn't necessarily point to your abilities as much as it could point to your inabilities. There is a big difference between a closed and an open mind.

[Godfree]

[
The logic is flawed as it fails to account for that which is unknown. One cannot possibly 'know' that something could not exist where nothing once did. There could be a creating force involved for all we know. Your so called logic doesn't necessarily point to your abilities as much as it could point to your inabilities. There is a big difference between a closed and an open mind.[/quote]
SOB ,
a fairly typical response , counters my claims with , confusion ,
so lets break it down ,"if there was ever nothing"
not unknown ,I don't need to "know" there is was nothing ,
IF there ever was NOTHING ,
no creating force exists in nothing ,
you do know what the word nothing means don't you .
so from nothing , we can only get nothing ,
if your going to say but there was something in the nothing ,
then thats not nothing , it's something ,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Arising_uk]

Arising,???
So you don't get or understand that statement ,???
really ,???
you can't see the logic ,???
your actually telling you can't grasp or accept that ,???
it appears my expectations of the intellect of the people in here has been far too high .!!!
seems I'm flogging a dead horse ,probably the one who wouldn't drink .!!!

I understand what you are saying, its just that the physicists aren't saying what you think. They just say there were no things as we understand them before the BB and we can't talk about it. What they can talk about is what there is and currently the BBT is the best explanation so far. Why best? Because it works with the rest of the observations they can make. I think you are flogging an imaginary horse with this idea that the BBT is a religious conspiracy. That the Christian church is coming to accept it is just par for what the Church does and its just dawning upon them that they can always say, " 'God' started that.", as physics is in no way concerned with proving or disproving a 'god/s' existence, just explaining what we perceive and its maths, in the main, that they use. So if you think you have some ideas that'd disprove the current theory then learn maths and physics and go get 'em, otherwise its just metaphysics and I think the philosophers have already lost that argument, hence all the physicists.

[SpheresOfBalance]

[
The logic is flawed as it fails to account for that which is unknown. One cannot possibly 'know' that something could not exist where nothing once did. There could be a creating force involved for all we know. Your so called logic doesn't necessarily point to your abilities as much as it could point to your inabilities. There is a big difference between a closed and an open mind.

SOB ,
a fairly typical response , counters my claims with , confusion ,
so lets break it down ,"if there was ever nothing"
not unknown ,I don't need to "know" there is was nothing ,
IF there ever was NOTHING ,
no creating force exists in nothing ,
you do know what the word nothing means don't you .
so from nothing , we can only get nothing ,
if your going to say but there was something in the nothing ,
then thats not nothing , it's something ,!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]
You said, "no creating force exists in nothing." You're assuming that the creating force was ever 'here' where 'nothing' was. 'Nothing' relates to this universe 'only.' You assume that existence can only exist 'here' where our universe now is. What if 'here' where our universe now is, there was 'nothing' and that a force somewhere else caused this universe to exist 'here' where the 'nothing' was. Ever heard of the theory of parallel universes? How about the one where black holes are portals between parallel universes. How do you know that in fact a 'super duper,' mega (the likes never to be imagined before) massive black hole didn't gather up all or most of the matter/space/time from another 'dieing' universe and compress it into an extremely small singularity 'here' where 'nothing' was, that then spontaneously created a Big Bang that was so large that it disengaged the connection between the, now two, parallel universes, causing this universe to exist in a massive explosion and then sudden expansion, where there once was nothing while simultaneously ending the old parallel universe, leaving 'nothing.' You didn't know that it might be true because you hadn't considered it before just now, as I said it. And I wouldn't expect you to accept it immediately. But it would potentially connect your black hole theory with the BBT and 'nothing' very neatly, wouldn't it. Which is my point, we can only speculate.

Now that I've created this new model, will someone go and do the math to provide proof that it's probable or not? Because anything is possible! And that is Arising_uk's point

[Godfree]

[
SOB ,
a fairly typical response , counters my claims with , confusion ,
so ,you want to have something over there , but nothing here ,??
is there a wall inbetween , or what stops the nothing from being invaded by the something,???