A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Big Bang Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 12th 04, 05:50 PM
Jimmie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Big Bang Question

Did the big bang propagate matter through space or did it propagate space
too. What brought this up was we were discussing Hubble's theory of an
expanding universe in High School Physics class. It occured to me that if
the entire universe was reduced to a single pont just prior to the Big Bang
that Hubbles observations may be useless as the universe could be collapsing
even though Hubbles observations would seem to indicate expansion.
On the other hand Hubbes deductions would be much more likely if the Big
Bang just scattered matter through space.


  #2  
Old October 12th 04, 06:47 PM
Benign Vanilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...
Did the big bang propagate matter through space or did it propagate space
too. What brought this up was we were discussing Hubble's theory of an
expanding universe in High School Physics class. It occured to me that if
the entire universe was reduced to a single pont just prior to the Big

Bang
that Hubbles observations may be useless as the universe could be

collapsing
even though Hubbles observations would seem to indicate expansion.
On the other hand Hubbes deductions would be much more likely if the Big
Bang just scattered matter through space.


The BB didn't occur IN space, it created it. Initially, space contained only
energy, and as it expanded and cooled, mass came to be.

BV.


  #3  
Old October 12th 04, 08:38 PM
Jimmie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...
Did the big bang propagate matter through space or did it propagate

space
too. What brought this up was we were discussing Hubble's theory of an
expanding universe in High School Physics class. It occured to me that

if
the entire universe was reduced to a single pont just prior to the Big

Bang
that Hubbles observations may be useless as the universe could be

collapsing
even though Hubbles observations would seem to indicate expansion.
On the other hand Hubbes deductions would be much more likely if the

Big
Bang just scattered matter through space.


The BB didn't occur IN space, it created it. Initially, space contained

only
energy, and as it expanded and cooled, mass came to be.

BV.


That was my thought on the subject but it seemed to be a little to abstract
for instructor and classmates. Apparently the idea of nothing before the
bigbang is inconcievable to them. Perhaps I should say nothing at the
bigbang because the universe may have well existed pretty much as it does
now before the bang.

Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.


  #4  
Old October 12th 04, 10:06 PM
Chuck Farley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Top Ten problems with the Big Bang

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...BBproblems.asp

  #5  
Old October 12th 04, 10:08 PM
Chuck Farley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/


  #6  
Old October 12th 04, 10:10 PM
Chuck Farley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Top 30 problems with the Big Bang

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V09N2tvf.PDF


  #7  
Old October 12th 04, 11:03 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Top Ten problems with the Big Bang

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...BBproblems.asp

Well, his first one is just wrong. A static universe isn't stable.

His sixth one is no longer valid. See
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...94n1/36650/sc0
..html for instance.

I'm no expert, so I'll just ask if dark matter (point 8) has anything to
do with the big bang. AIUI, it's something you need to stop galaxies
falling apart in any model.

Two (or three) out of ten is pretty good for an amateur in 5 minutes :-)
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #8  
Old October 12th 04, 11:09 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Why the Big Bang is Wrong

http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/


Slight problem - the cosmological red shift isn't a Doppler effect.
Second problem - it's independent of wavelength, so it isn't a Compton
effect.
His estimate of the age of the Universe is out of date.
And he's making the same mistake about colliding galaxies you did.
Next :-)
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #9  
Old October 12th 04, 11:15 PM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Top 30 problems with the Big Bang

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V09N2tvf.PDF


Did this guy write the article for Tom van Flandern's Meta Research
Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002, or is he just adding his own
copyright mark?
  #10  
Old October 13th 04, 12:51 AM
SunDancingGay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:03:42 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight
wrote:

In message , Chuck Farley
writes
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:38:59 GMT, "Jimmie"
wrote:


"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

"Jimmie" wrote in message
. com...

[....]
Anyway I dont think Hubble's observation were very definitive and what he
saw may have been an illusion of sorts because I believe that the universe
could be contracting even though matter in the universe may be moving
further apart. Of course he may have been absolutly correct, I just think
the data does not support the findings well enough to give it the
credability it has received.

Top Ten problems with the Big Bang

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmolog...BBproblems.asp

Well, his first one is just wrong. A static universe isn't stable.

His sixth one is no longer valid. See
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...94n1/36650/sc0
.html for instance.

I'm no expert, so I'll just ask if dark matter (point 8) has anything to
do with the big bang. AIUI, it's something you need to stop galaxies
falling apart in any model.

Two (or three) out of ten is pretty good for an amateur in 5 minutes :-)


So you feel "He's just wrong" qualifies as a rebuttal! Chuckle.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? Yoda Misc 102 August 2nd 04 02:33 AM
Big Bang deflates? nightbat Misc 15 January 18th 04 08:11 PM
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) Lord Blacklight Astronomy Misc 56 November 21st 03 03:45 PM
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 27 November 7th 03 11:38 AM
Hypothetical astrophysics question Matthew F Funke Astronomy Misc 39 August 11th 03 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.