#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 07:11 PM |
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) | Lord Blacklight | Astronomy Misc | 56 | November 21st 03 02:45 PM |
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 27 | November 7th 03 10:38 AM |
Hypothetical astrophysics question | Matthew F Funke | Astronomy Misc | 39 | August 11th 03 03:21 AM |