Move over Big Bang Theory, there's a new kid in town

I shall simply have to plead ignorance on this one, but I was surprised nevertheless that I hadn't seen a competing explanation of the universe quite like this before. "How can it be that I've not heard a peep about something so ostensibly groundbreaking?" I wondered. Well, I haven't yet busied myself with reading any sort of refutation of this theory, and it's even harder yet to find follow up on the massive potential of such a description of the universe as this. As it stands, however, I can't help but predict that it was unable catch a lot of traction with cosmologists, but I'm wondering if anyone out there is/was familiar with this and can provide further information?

As an aside, what do we think about this idea, metaphorical plot holes and all? Clearly it doesn't address some of the protracted and lingering complexities that the BBT does, and yet it explains other core issues that the BBT does not. My interest has been piqued, but as much as I'd love to see big bang cosmology fall to the superfluous wayside - thus silencing men like William Lane Craig momentarily - I don't think I'll get too excited just yet.

Tags: Bang, Big, Cosmology, Theory

Views: 1843

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jerry and Mathew, there are several possibilities.

1) The BB Theory. The Milky Way galaxy is whizzing through space relative to a place we haven't located; our sun is whizzing about the MW's center, and our earth is whizzing about the sun. (The MW and Andromeda are whizzing toward each other but let's postpone consideration of this for a moment.) With all that whizzing about, instruments on earth (or whizzing in orbits about earth) find red shift, seemingly in all directions but only as far as our instruments can see. Who knows what's happening farther than our instruments can see?

Andromeda? Since it and our MW are whizzing toward each other, if our instruments are sensitive enough some of them should find some blue shift. Questions: if we both originated in the BB, what started us whizzing toward each other? Our instruments show us many collisions out there; what started these galaxy pairs moving toward each other? These momentum changes require a lot of energy. Its origin?

2) Jerry's model. Why not a succession of bangs and crunches? When does the movement resulting from a bang slow to a stop, reverse direction and start toward a crunch? What causes the momentum loss and then its gain? (The movement of our MW and Andromeda toward each other still requires explanation.) More?

3) The Hubble Universe model. We see only what Hubble's instruments can show us. They show us gamma ray explosions; are they also BBs? Does anything lie beyond what Hubble instruments show us? The colliding galaxies -- did some of them originate outside the Hubble universe? If we were able to put instruments on Andromeda, would they show us any red and blue shifts?

A bonus: the cosmic background radiation. Some say it's an echo of the BB. Does an echo continue for 13.7 billion years if its source isn't also continuing? Oh, "echo of the BB" is a metaphor, not to be taken literally.

Whatever the explanation, I'm okay with keeping a few cosmologists publicly employed. I'm not real happy with their talking as if they have a religious truth they want to share with us.

I liked Roger Penrose's Cycles of Time.  It has big gaps, but it's a beautiful and novel way to have a cyclic universe.

Any cyclic universe model has to address the question of what happens with the Second Law of thermodynamics.  You can't have a universe that has existed forever with collapse/expansion cycles, without explaining why we don't have maximal disorder now, why the Big Bang singularity had low entropy. 

Questions: if we both originated in the BB, what started us whizzing toward each other?

Galaxies formed only after the universe had expanded considerably. The oldest galaxy observed so far formed about 500 million years after the big bang. When galaxies are relatively close, gravitational attraction overcomes the effect of expansion.

When galaxies are relatively close, gravitational attraction overcomes the effect of expansion.

There they all were, for 500 million years moving at phenomenal velocities away from their mutual origin as if each was on its own spoke of a three-dimensional bicycle wheel.

How did any galaxy change direction and get so close to another that their gravitational attraction overcame the effect (their respective momenta) of expansion?

Dr. Clark, my ability to imagine such forces isn't up to the challenge. Is yours?

There they all were, for 500 million years moving at phenomenal velocities away from their mutual origin as if each was on its own spoke of a three-dimensional bicycle wheel.

No. Your imagined scenario does not fit what is known and does not present the contradiction you have devised.

Galaxies did not begin to form until 500 million years after the big bang.  The mechamisms of galaxy formation are not completely understood at this point. The early universe was quite homogeneous. Gravity acting on small fluctuations is thought to have started the formation of galaxies.

This schematic diagram may aid your imagination.

I've seen it, Dr. Clark, and concluded that Alan Guth's inflation filled one of the inconvenient gaps in a theory that's no more supportable than Genesis.

Has any BB theorist explained why the expansion wasn't omni-directional?

An attempt to illustrate it would conceal a brief inflationary period.

a theory that's no more supportable than Genesis.

That conclusion would premature based on what you have written here so far. At least now you should be able to see why your previous objection does not fit the model.

Has any BB theorist explained why the expansion wasn't omni-directional?

Who says it wasn't?

Who says [the expansion wasn't omni-directional]?

You said it wasn't with the pic you provided.

As propaganda it has some appeal.

- - - - - - - - -

A segue to a related consideration

"Follow the trail of money," say investigative reporters.

My income doesn't depend on my agreeing with the BB hypothesis, so I have a freedom that many BB supporters don't have.

If yours does, I understand.

ok ok . just 'one' kid.. not a quiver or romney clutch.. done massacred the world. yikes.. India hello

If the universe has an external gravitational force there is no need for dark matter and dark energy. For details you can watch this - http://youtu.be/t80qywmnADM

Susan Stanko, there being no reply button in your post....

My saying Plato had no control of his ideas when he'd been dead for centuries IS NOT like my saying Darwin had no control of his ideas because the Nazis used them.

First, philosophers' ideas have few if any boundaries and people use them in ways not intended by their originators. During the Inquisition, Catholicism's enforcers used the idealism that bears Plato's name to determine whether charges of witchcraft were true. In one of my posts I described the bizarre way in which, while I was in college, a committed Catholic used it.

I understand Social Darwinism to have been well outside the boundaries Darwin intended.

Second, as you know, people may join discussions here at any point.

If you will go to this one's beginning and follow it, I will appreciate your views on whether you think this one is ready for the dustbin, or even on whether you think it was ready for the dustbin a week ago.

I was saying this discussion is ready.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service