A Big Bang conundrum

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Friday, April 12, 2013 8:48:20 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic,
instead of scratching off the idea, the patch-up
work was done, resulting in a new inflationary model.

The model *was* made to fit the observations. That is how Science works.

In this version, the numbers for the workings of
this system grew to the level of imaginary events,
well beyond logical comprehension.

Since it plumbs a solution space we can never observe, what can you expect?

Back to the original model, I am still skeptical
about the initial expansion process. In the
materialistic world, where behaviors of matter in
most forms of application are well experimented
and documented for future applications.

Expansion is well documented. We have 13+ billion years of it displayed. We even observe that objects in the early Universe appear to be larger than they are today... because they subtend a larger angle in a smaller Universe.

However, when it comes to applying this knowledge
to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.

Again, had you studied, you would realize this was not the case.

For the universe that existed as a small entity,
that was set to expanding motion by extremely fast
explosive force.

No. Wrong. Uninformed. Blatantly uninformed. Acceleration of expansion, expansion, and inflation require NO force. The Big Bang was not an explosion in pre-existing space. The past is in every direction we look, and we are not moving anywhere fast enough to reach it (again).

During the first fraction from the second of this
event, there is bound to be a change in order of
the density and set the direction for matter to
expand.

Density, yes. Hence the global "time rate" will accelerate. "Direction for matter", no.

Interlock the fingers of your two hands, and move your palms together so the fingers wrap around the outside of the opposing hand. As tight as you can get. Now move your hands apart, allowing your fingers to stay interlocked as long as possible. The matter that was moving "left" stayed moving left. The contents of the galaxies today, was moving in roughly the same direction, or they would not have ended up together.

The following may be a most suitable illustration:
The imaginary picture of the big-bang universe
should [resemble] a Galaxy, having the hollow
center and the density of the matter is
distributed unevenly, being denser close to the
hallow and thinning toward the edge.

Because you have no interest in actually thinking about the Universe displayed, why do you think this fantasy is even close? The Universe *HAS NO EDGE*. Nothing expanded into pre-existing space.

This is a perfect example for the foot print
of the motion set by an explosive action.

Says a self-limited mind, about the toy model of the Big Bang that Jaakko set up, so Jakkoo is competent to tear down. Fortunately, cosmology never used such a model, because they were not interested in masturbatory exercises.

Please understand that this forum is archived for years. Your insistence to stay uninformed will be on record for years. I provided these links before, so you can find out about the *actual* Big Bang model, and it is clear you did not read them. Let us try this again:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...q.html#bestfit

David A. Smith

Originally Posted by Yousuf Khan[_2_]

On 12/04/2013 11:48 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:

'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original

Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What

the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds
the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary
energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB.

The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe
out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by

the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded
*faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out
to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is

224 times the speed of light!

When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic, instead of
scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a new
inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of
this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond logical
comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about
the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where
behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well experimented
and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to
applying this knowledge to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored.

The reason that the expansion can happen faster than the speed of light
is because it is space itself that is expanding, not the stuff in it.
The stuff in it just gets carried along with it. The speed of light
limit only applies to particles travelling from one point in space to
another point, however if the points of space itself are moving there's
no such speed limit.

The reason the original Big Bang model didn't get scrapped was because
it did explain most of the unanswered questions about the observations
seen in the universe. For example it explained the leftover Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and its current temperature of
about 2.7 Kelvin. The only thing that it didn't explain perfectly was
why the Universe was lumpy. In other words, if the Big Bang happened at
or below the speed of light, then the Universe would be just a
collection of evenly distributed gas, and there would be no
conglomerations of stars and galaxies, because everything would be too
even. When they added Inflation into the Big Bang, they could make
individual quantum fluctuations in the gas stretch out to large knots
and gaps, which can then become stars and galaxies and voids.

For the universe that existed as a small entity, that was set to
expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first
fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a change
in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand. The
following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture of
the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow
center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being
denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a
perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive
action.

The shape of a spiral galaxy forms over the course of millions of years,
which is pretty fast, but still not fast enough. You won't see that kind
of shape form in a split second, the amount of time that the Big Bang
happened.

Yousuf Khan

“The space itself that is expanding.” - It never occurred to me that the inflating big-bang event included creation of the water and the bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles of matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has no dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the part of an inflating universe?

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this concept seems to carry a lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may be the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction. However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever evolving universe.

How does the galaxies form should be debatable question. In the environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for cumulation and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is needed for commutative action.

Jaakko Kurhi

On 17/04/2013 11:19 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
“The space itself that is expanding.” - It never occurred to me that
the inflating big-bang event included creation of the water and the
bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the
three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles of
matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has no
dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the part
of an inflating universe?

Yes, the bucket and the water both got created by the Big Bang.
Actually, you can even say that the Big Bang also created water-ice
floating on top of the water.

If you consider space to be like flowing water, then matter would be
little bits of crushed ice floating on top of the water, made of the
same material as the water, but just appearing in a different state
(solid rather than liquid). Most next generation physics theories (such
as Superstring theory, or Loop-Quantum Gravity) are zeroing in on the
idea that space itself as made of a substance. And that matter is simply
made up of the same substance that makes up space, but organized into
knots. So every little particle of matter (from quarks all of the way
upto galaxies) would be solidified bits of space, just like ice is
solidified bits of water.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this concept seems to carry a
lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not
be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may be
the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction.
However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever
evolving universe.

So if you believe in an "ever evolving universe", then that
automatically means that you don't believe in the Static Universe, by
definition. So any universe that is ever evolving will show signs of a
CMBR. If for example the universe were flowing through a tube, rather
than expanding in every direction, then we'd see a CMBR in the starting
direction of the tube, and ending direction of the tube, but not towards
the sides. If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it
started in a single point and is expanding out in all directions. You
will always see some form of CMBR in an evolving universe, but not in a
static universe.

How does the galaxies form should be debatable question. In the
environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from
each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for cumulation
and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is needed
for commutative action.

The secret of Inflation is to have it stop at a certain point in time.
If Inflation started, but never stopped, then the Universe would simply
expand out beyond the ability to any matter to accumulate together
again. All matter would be carried away from each other beyond their
ability to send force signals to each other (since Inflation happens
faster than lightspeed). So what happened is that Inflation happened,
and then it stopped. There was just enough Inflation to separate out the
particles just enough, such that they can't simply refill the container
evenly in all directions in a timely fashion, so instead they form
clumps with each of their nearest neighbours. It's kind of even, yet
uneven at the same time. The clumps are evenly distributed throughout
the universe, but between the clumps you have voids, which are also
evenly distributed throughout the universe.

Yousuf Khan

Originally Posted by Yousuf Khan[_2_]

On 17/04/2013 11:19 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
“The space itself that is expanding.” - It never occurred to me that
the inflating big-bang event included creation of the water and the
bucket. The space is the place where events happen. In the
three-dimensional sense, the space in between four or more particles of
matter is just a space, nothing else. So, how is this space that has no
dimensions and does not exist as an entity is required to play the part
of an inflating universe?

Yes, the bucket and the water both got created by the Big Bang.
Actually, you can even say that the Big Bang also created water-ice
floating on top of the water.

If you consider space to be like flowing water, then matter would be
little bits of crushed ice floating on top of the water, made of the
same material as the water, but just appearing in a different state
(solid rather than liquid). Most next generation physics theories (such
as Superstring theory, or Loop-Quantum Gravity) are zeroing in on the
idea that space itself as made of a substance. And that matter is simply
made up of the same substance that makes up space, but organized into
knots. So every little particle of matter (from quarks all of the way
upto galaxies) would be solidified bits of space, just like ice is
solidified bits of water.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, this concept seems to carry a
lot of support for the big-bang model. However, the CMBR data may not
be an exclusive property of the big-bang model. The obtained data may be
the result of the general radiated noise coming from every direction.
However, not necessarily from the edge or beginning of the ever
evolving universe.

So if you believe in an "ever evolving universe", then that
automatically means that you don't believe in the Static Universe, by
definition. So any universe that is ever evolving will show signs of a
CMBR. If for example the universe were flowing through a tube, rather
than expanding in every direction, then we'd see a CMBR in the starting
direction of the tube, and ending direction of the tube, but not towards
the sides. If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it
started in a single point and is expanding out in all directions. You
will always see some form of CMBR in an evolving universe, but not in a
static universe.

How does the galaxies form should be debatable question. In the
environment of fast inflating universe, the matter is moving away from
each other. Therefore, making it practically impossible for cumulation
and clumping. Faster the expansion speed more force of gravity is needed
for commutative action.

The secret of Inflation is to have it stop at a certain point in time.
If Inflation started, but never stopped, then the Universe would simply
expand out beyond the ability to any matter to accumulate together
again. All matter would be carried away from each other beyond their
ability to send force signals to each other (since Inflation happens
faster than lightspeed). So what happened is that Inflation happened,
and then it stopped. There was just enough Inflation to separate out the
particles just enough, such that they can't simply refill the container
evenly in all directions in a timely fashion, so instead they form
clumps with each of their nearest neighbours. It's kind of even, yet
uneven at the same time. The clumps are evenly distributed throughout
the universe, but between the clumps you have voids, which are also
evenly distributed throughout the universe.

Yousuf Khan

If the space was created by the inflating big-bang, then where the space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a controlled entity somewhere in the border-less place.
The nature has a tendency to evolve in the simplest and most suitable ways. The explained model of the inflating universe is not even close to the simplicity, suggesting that only human mind can construct a possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form of expanding and inflating motion should show signs of uniformity. In the deep field images, the galaxies are rather disoriented, suggesting that the linear motion of the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding motion.
In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am merely suggesting to go back and see how much the current observation data will fit to the original models and what modification has to be made to make it work in the other formats of the universe, vs. one point beginning. Obviously, in the steady-state model, the motion factor created by the gravity has to be added, which may lead to the recycling concept of the universe.

“If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it started in a single point and is expanding out in all directions.“ When you observe the CMBR in every direction, how it’s decided that all radiations originated from the same point and are of the same age.

Jaakko Kurhi

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:45:26 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
If the space was created by the inflating big-bang,
then where the space is inflating into

If 1 "inflates" into 2, 2 must have inflated into 4 and so on. The Universe fills all space, and makes more. It displaces nothing.

and what was the space before the inflation?

Nothing. Space is a persistent illusion.

I seem what you are saying is: the space,
including the universe, is a controlled entity
somewhere in the border-less place.

The nature has a tendency to evolve in the
simplest and most suitable ways. The explained
model of the inflating universe is not even close
to the simplicity,

It fits observation. Because you cannot yet understand it, is not a failing of Big Bang theory.

suggesting that only human mind can construct a
possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form
of expanding and inflating motion should show signs
of uniformity.

And it does.
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/cmb.html
.... "due to its near perfect uniformity" ...

In the deep field images, the galaxies are rather
disoriented, suggesting that the linear motion of
the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
motion.

No, this is clearly not true, not what deep surveys show. Galaxies, no matter when their light originated, are being received from galaxies with proper motion similar to our own.

In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am
merely suggesting to go back and see how much the
current observation data will fit to the original
models

What "original models"? Original steady state? They simply fail to describe this Universe, as already stated. Not enough iron. No way to have uniform recession, at speeds of greater than c (a z greater than 1 means this in a static Universe), in every direction.

and what modification has to be made to make it
work in the other formats of the universe, vs.
one point beginning.

You will have to do the work. And when doing it, you will see trivially why steady state is dead.

Obviously, in the steady-state model, the motion
factor created by the gravity has to be added,
which may lead to the recycling concept of the
universe.

No.

"If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that
means it started in a single point and is expanding
out in all directions."

When you observe the CMBR in every direction, how
it's decided that all radiations originated from the
same point and are of the same age.

They are emitted from the same age. They are emitted from an ancient Universe that we are departing (in a steady state Universe) at more than 1000 times the speed of light.

Please, please stop demanding others do your (trivial) work for you. You hold this religious belief. Only you can either stop asking that it be analyzed by others (acceptance by faith), or you can kill it yourself.

Pick one.

David A. Smith

Originally Posted by dlzc

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:45:26 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
If the space was created by the inflating big-bang,
then where the space is inflating into

If 1 "inflates" into 2, 2 must have inflated into 4 and so on. The Universe fills all space, and makes more. It displaces nothing.

and what was the space before the inflation?

Nothing. Space is a persistent illusion.

I seem what you are saying is: the space,
including the universe, is a controlled entity
somewhere in the border-less place.

The nature has a tendency to evolve in the
simplest and most suitable ways. The explained
model of the inflating universe is not even close
to the simplicity,

It fits observation. Because you cannot yet understand it, is not a failing of Big Bang theory.

suggesting that only human mind can construct a
possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form
of expanding and inflating motion should show signs
of uniformity.

And it does.
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/cmb.html
.... "due to its near perfect uniformity" ...

In the deep field images, the galaxies are rather
disoriented, suggesting that the linear motion of
the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
motion.

No, this is clearly not true, not what deep surveys show. Galaxies, no matter when their light originated, are being received from galaxies with proper motion similar to our own.

In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am
merely suggesting to go back and see how much the
current observation data will fit to the original
models

What "original models"? Original steady state? They simply fail to describe this Universe, as already stated. Not enough iron. No way to have uniform recession, at speeds of greater than c (a z greater than 1 means this in a static Universe), in every direction.

and what modification has to be made to make it
work in the other formats of the universe, vs.
one point beginning.

You will have to do the work. And when doing it, you will see trivially why steady state is dead.

Obviously, in the steady-state model, the motion
factor created by the gravity has to be added,
which may lead to the recycling concept of the
universe.

No.

"If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that
means it started in a single point and is expanding
out in all directions."

When you observe the CMBR in every direction, how
it's decided that all radiations originated from the
same point and are of the same age.

They are emitted from the same age. They are emitted from an ancient Universe that we are departing (in a steady state Universe) at more than 1000 times the speed of light.

Please, please stop demanding others do your (trivial) work for you. You hold this religious belief. Only you can either stop asking that it be analyzed by others (acceptance by faith), or you can kill it yourself.

Pick one.

David A. Smith

David, you seem to be fascinated with the small talk, that gets this subject nowhere. Perhaps, it would be more advance in the science, if you could consider the fact, that all models concerning the origin to the universe are based on interpretations of the obtained data. Hence, none of the theories have reached the final and confirmed state. Incidentally, you presented a good example for the miss-interpretation, “You hold this religious belief.” In fact, quite the contrary is true. This topic is all about seeking the answers for the questions that arise from the text books, but are not included.
Your comments, concerning the main items presented in this post seem very evasive. Suggesting that seeking the true about functions of the universe, is not your main motivation.
As suggested, I have read the link to CMWR and again, found no link other than the big-bang model is logically connected with CMWR. Therefore, I think it’s safe to say that the science has no confirmed link in between CMWR and the big-bang event.
Next important item, how about the reliability in the red-shift data, so far no elaborated comment there.

Jaakko Kurhi

Dear JAAKKO KURHI:

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:24:52 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
....
David, you seem to be fascinated with the small talk,
that gets this subject nowhere.

I responded with facts, about points you raised. NOT small talk.

Perhaps, it would be more advance in the science,
if you could consider the fact, that all models
concerning the origin to the universe are based on
interpretations of the obtained data.

Correct. Which is why I responded with data that obviate any steady state model.

Hence, none of the theories have reached the final
and confirmed state.

.... and never will. However some theories lay dead and bleeding, and no current scientist pays more than lip service to its mention. Such as steady state.

Incidentally, you presented a good example for the
miss-interpretation, "You hold this religious belief."
In fact, quite the contrary is true. This topic is
all about seeking the answers for the questions that
arise from the text books, but are not included.

Cite the textbook please.

Science is about disproof. You hold up a theory or model, and see where it fails. It is *your* responsibility to do this, not ours to tear it down. You seem to hold that theories (such as your clear preference towards steady state) need support, and must not be challenged. Nothing is further from the truth.

Your comments, concerning the main items presented
in this post seem very evasive.

Perhaps English is not your first language, and you actually do not know what that word "evasive" means? I have spoken directly to the problems the steady state model has.

Suggesting that seeking the true about functions of the
universe, is not your main motivation.

My motivation is to address what you call a "conundrum" in Big Bang theory, which has so far been your lack of research into what Big Bang theory is, and what it successfully addresses.

As suggested, I have read the link to CMWR and again,
found no link other than the big-bang model is
logically connected with CMWR.

Well, since you seem incapable of doing any research without someone else providing support services...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the science
has no confirmed link in between CMWR and the
big-bang event.

I have no idea what you mean by CMWR, perhaps it is what others call Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)?

If so, no one claims that the Big Bang did anything more than provide the initial ionization that kept the emitting medium self-pumped (both absorbing and emitting) until this final glow was emitted.

Next important item, how about the reliability in
the red-shift data, so far no elaborated comment there.

Several papers compare distance methods between the various standard candles, and "red shift as Universal expansion" is in good agreement with the three or four other methods. Arxiv.org is a good source for papers, data, and analysis of data.

Some candidates:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1802
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2989
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.4951
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.4280
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403024
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205396
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5416

David A. Smith

On 21/04/2013 8:45 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
If the space was created by the inflating big-bang, then where the
space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I
seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a
controlled entity somewhere in the border-less place.

Well, there are various theories about what was there before the
universe. There's no time to get into all of them, I'll give you just
some of my favourites.

One idea is that our current universe was created as just a random
quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing primordial universe, which we'll
call the multiverse. The multiverse is just a flat, directionless place
in both space and time. It's directionless in space, because everywhere
you look it looks exactly the same. It's directionless in time, because
every event has no discernible causes and effects: meaning if you ran a
film backwards and watched something happen, you couldn't tell if you
were watching the film played forward or reversed. The quantum
fluctuation that led to our universe set a definitive direction of time
for our universe. It's this direction of time that lets this universe
prefer that certain events (i.e. causes and effects) to occur over their
reverse events. If we had no definite direction of time, then we'd be
just a dead universe, where whenever one random event occurs, a reverse
event occurs to cancel that first event out.

A second idea is that our current universe is just an illusion, that
we're just a simulation of a universe living inside a massive quantum
computer. This is much like the movie, The Matrix. The illusion is that
everything we think of as "stuff" is just a bunch of numbers sitting
inside a memory bank, and we're just interpreting it the way we perceive
it physicality, but it's just a bunch of numbers.

Either could be plausible, but then you have to wonder in both cases, if
that's so, then what is the real universe or the real computer we're
living in, what is it living in?

The nature has a tendency to evolve in the simplest and most suitable
ways. The explained model of the inflating universe is not even close
to the simplicity, suggesting that only human mind can construct a
possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form of expanding and
inflating motion should show signs of uniformity. In the deep field
images, the galaxies are rather disoriented, suggesting that the
linear motion of the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
motion.

As mentioned before. The Inflation model is smooth, but it stretches out
quantum fluctuations that occurred immediately after the Big Bang from
microscopic to macroscopic. That's why Inflation is important. It takes
a universe that would be completely smooth, and transforms it into
something that's lumpy-smooth. The minor lumpiness leads to galaxies,
stars, planets, people, atoms, etc., etc.

In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am merely suggesting to
go back and see how much the current observation data will fit to the
original models and what modification has to be made to make it work in
the other formats of the universe, vs. one point beginning. Obviously,
in the steady-state model, the motion factor created by the gravity has
to be added, which may lead to the recycling concept of the universe.

I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself.

“If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it started in a
single point and is expanding out in all directions.“ When you observe
the CMBR in every direction, how it’s decided that all radiations
originated from the same point and are of the same age.

Simple, you just look at the direction of movement of the galaxies. They
are all flying away from each other in a more or less linear fashion,
straight out, like an explosion had occurred. They rewound the film
backwards and surmised that at some point all of this had to have been
together, just like an explosion leads its way back to a bomb.

Yousuf Khan

Originally Posted by Yousuf Khan[_2_]

On 21/04/2013 8:45 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
If the space was created by the inflating big-bang, then where the
space is inflating into and what was the space before the inflation? I
seem what you are saying is: the space, including the universe, is a
controlled entity somewhere in the border-less place.

Well, there are various theories about what was there before the
universe. There's no time to get into all of them, I'll give you just
some of my favourites.

One idea is that our current universe was created as just a random
quantum fluctuation in a pre-existing primordial universe, which we'll
call the multiverse. The multiverse is just a flat, directionless place
in both space and time. It's directionless in space, because everywhere
you look it looks exactly the same. It's directionless in time, because
every event has no discernible causes and effects: meaning if you ran a
film backwards and watched something happen, you couldn't tell if you
were watching the film played forward or reversed. The quantum
fluctuation that led to our universe set a definitive direction of time
for our universe. It's this direction of time that lets this universe
prefer that certain events (i.e. causes and effects) to occur over their
reverse events. If we had no definite direction of time, then we'd be
just a dead universe, where whenever one random event occurs, a reverse
event occurs to cancel that first event out.

A second idea is that our current universe is just an illusion, that
we're just a simulation of a universe living inside a massive quantum
computer. This is much like the movie, The Matrix. The illusion is that
everything we think of as "stuff" is just a bunch of numbers sitting
inside a memory bank, and we're just interpreting it the way we perceive
it physicality, but it's just a bunch of numbers.

Either could be plausible, but then you have to wonder in both cases, if
that's so, then what is the real universe or the real computer we're
living in, what is it living in?

The nature has a tendency to evolve in the simplest and most suitable
ways. The explained model of the inflating universe is not even close
to the simplicity, suggesting that only human mind can construct a
possibly workable one-point expansion. Any form of expanding and
inflating motion should show signs of uniformity. In the deep field
images, the galaxies are rather disoriented, suggesting that the
linear motion of the galaxies, are not in the agreement with expanding
motion.

As mentioned before. The Inflation model is smooth, but it stretches out
quantum fluctuations that occurred immediately after the Big Bang from
microscopic to macroscopic. That's why Inflation is important. It takes
a universe that would be completely smooth, and transforms it into
something that's lumpy-smooth. The minor lumpiness leads to galaxies,
stars, planets, people, atoms, etc., etc.

In the subject of the steady state-universe, I am merely suggesting to
go back and see how much the current observation data will fit to the
original models and what modification has to be made to make it work in
the other formats of the universe, vs. one point beginning. Obviously,
in the steady-state model, the motion factor created by the gravity has
to be added, which may lead to the recycling concept of the universe.

I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself.

“If we see the CMBR in every direction, then that means it started in a
single point and is expanding out in all directions.“ When you observe
the CMBR in every direction, how it’s decided that all radiations
originated from the same point and are of the same age.

Simple, you just look at the direction of movement of the galaxies. They
are all flying away from each other in a more or less linear fashion,
straight out, like an explosion had occurred. They rewound the film
backwards and surmised that at some point all of this had to have been
together, just like an explosion leads its way back to a bomb.

Yousuf Khan

“I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in
the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself’.

Yes, I have made the case for billions of Big-Bangs, and the case for recycling universe. However, the idea of the recycling universe to work, the natural cooling process of the matter has to over come obstacles of the laws of thermodynamics and the equation of E=mc².

This natural cooling theory is based upon the idea that mass is a permanent entity, and the energy associated with mass is necessary only for matter that is viable and can be detected. Theoretically, an active atomic mass can reach the mass only state and exist within the environment that is out of reach from the environment of the matter. It’s a result of a simple function of the nature, but big challenge for the mankind.
When the matter reaches 0 degrees Kelvin, particle activity ceases but the mass without the energy still exists, hence, makes recycling process possible. Through the natural process of cooling, The subatomic particles of an atom – the protons, neutrons and electrons will use up the available energy and eventually reach 0K. When the matter reaches 0K, the mass of subatomic particles enters a neutral, undetectable state, having no particles in motion and therefore, no thermal radiation. In that environment, the mass of an atom remains. And while it would lack any thermal energy, it would maintain a gravitational force, and thus a potential source of Kinetic energy.

The matter is always associated with the work=heat state, where the use of energy is unavoidable action. The conservation of the energy is not applicable to the system where work =heat is measurable in the form of temperature of heat. When Albert Einstein was formulating an equation E=mc² for nuclear fission, he knew that there is a tremendous amount of energy available in the nuclei of an atom. To complete his mathematical statement, he needed a substantial number to relate to this huge energy source. The value of component "c," the speed of light, may have nothing more to do with mass and energy other than being a suitably constant large number to use as a multiplier. The point is, when E=mc² is used to calculate the mass and energy of an elementary sub-atomic particle at its lowest energy state of near absolute zero; the result may be misleading. The margin of error is a lot smaller when E=mc² is applied to the weakest end of the energy spectrum – Hence, the theory obtained by the equation E=mc² may not be applicable to natural behavior of matter in an extremely low mass and energy state.
The universe based on cooling cycles of the matter, is simple in operations. Forming galaxies from inside out is more logical conclusion vs. Big-Bang based inflating environment, where from the beginning and constantly, all particles of matter is moving away from each other.

Jaakko Kurhi

On 29/04/2013 1:39 PM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote:
“I assume when you talk about the "recycling concept of the universe",
you're talking about a universe that goes from the Big Bang and ends in

the Big Crunch, which then leads to another Big Bang? If that's the
case, then you've just made case for the Big Bang yourself’.

Yes, I have made the case for billions of Big-Bangs, and the case for
recycling universe. However, the idea of the recycling universe to work,
the natural cooling process of the matter has to over come obstacles
of the laws of thermodynamics and the equation of E=mc².

This natural cooling theory is based upon the idea that mass is a
permanent entity, and the energy associated with mass is necessary only
for matter that is viable and can be detected. Theoretically, an active
atomic mass can reach the mass only state and exist within the
environment that is out of reach from the environment of the matter.
It’s a result of a simple function of the nature, but big challenge
for the mankind.

I'm afraid you got it backwards. Mass is not the permanent property, it
is energy that is the permanent property, and mass comes from energy,
not vice-versa. E=mc^2 is a statement about how mass comes from energy,
not how energy comes from mass.

When you think about the pantheon of forms of energy that you learned
about in school, you usually hear about kinetic energy (work), potential
energy, and heat. At the same time you are often told that the best form
(highest order) of energy, is that which does pure work (kinetic), and
the lowest order form is heat which does little work. That is because
kinetic energy is highly organized, while heat is highly disorganized.
However, we know from thermodynamics that we can get heat to do some
work for us, but we have to concentrate it into machines that will
concentrate it and organize it well enough to get a little bit of work
done. We may not be able to get the heat organized enough to be 100%
efficient at doing work for us, but we can usually convert somewhere
around 10-30% of the heat into kinetic -- good enough to get some work
done for us.

Think of mass as simply a very special form of energy, a highly
organized form of energy: the highest order energy, even higher order
and more organized than kinetic energy! We've known about kinetic,
potential, and heat energies since the 19th Century, but the 20th
Century taught us that there's one more level of energy which is mass.
At the atomic level, particle masses are even measured with units of
energy, such as the GeV (Giga-electron-Volt), rather than kilograms,
pounds, ounces, etc. Think of mass as a form of energy that's so
organized that it has locked itself up into a single particle. All
particles, including matter particles, are basically pellets of energy.

When the matter reaches 0 degrees Kelvin, particle activity ceases but
the mass without the energy still exists, hence, makes recycling
process possible. Through the natural process of cooling, The subatomic
particles of an atom – the protons, neutrons and electrons will use up
the available energy and eventually reach 0K. When the matter reaches
0K, the mass of subatomic particles enters a neutral, undetectable
state, having no particles in motion and therefore, no thermal
radiation. In that environment, the mass of an atom remains. And while
it would lack any thermal energy, it would maintain a gravitational
force, and thus a potential source of Kinetic energy.

0K is impossible to reach because all energy transfers are achieved
through the exchange of photons between particles. The universe is a
closed system, so all of the photons that have ever been created are
still inside the universe in some form or another. Either they are being
captured by other particles, or they are still in flight somewhere. At
best you can get closer and closer to 0K, like 0.1K, 0.01K, 0.001K,
0.0001K, etc. but you'll never reach it. It's same as reaching the speed
of light, it gets more and more difficult the closer you get.

So the universe as it expands cools down, because it takes longer for
photons to travel between particles. Also there is a form of movement
that requires no energy, which is quantum movement. In quantum movement,
particles just naturally are squirmy, you can't hold them down to any
particular speed or position, also known as the Uncertainty Principle.
So you'll never get absolutely no movement.

Interestingly though, you're not entirely incorrect about something new
happening as more and more energy is removed from a system, as you reach
absolute zero. Many different particles start to lose their energy-based
movement, but then start to link up their quantum movements together
into a synchronized state. This state is where many atoms start acting
like one big atom, which is known as a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC). A
BEC is thought to be what the final state of the universe will be when
the universe has expanded to a size too large for light to travel across
it. Those particles that remain in contact with each other will be
linked up into many individual BECs.

Yousuf Khan