Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Apr 7, 4:52*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
On Apr 6, 5:54 am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
All the better for my pet theory...
Which is what?

We are inside a black hole. *The "glow of the CMBR"
is what the distorted light from our container Universe
looks like. *Entire galaxies could have been swallowed,
whatever metalicity desired if multiple BHs in the
container Universe open up into this one, small ones
to shred atoms into subatomic particles.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
... when you get to the end, and you infer (as I did) that
he is describing an interior Universe *exactly* like ours,
then realize that there is a "black curtain" in our own
past...

Interestingly, another guy, Nikodem Poplawski, is
proposing the same thing in a story appearing today.

***
Our universe could be within a wormhole inside
another universe, says physicist
"In a paper written by an Indiana University theoretical
physicist, Nikodem Poplawski, which appears in
Physics Letters B, it is suggested that the universe
was born from a wormhole that lies inside a larger
universe.

Poplawski suggests that our universe could have
been born inside a wormhole, or an Einstein-Rosen
Bridge. This is a theorized phenomenon that
provides solutions in general relativity when it
combines models of black holes and white holes.

The motion of a particle falling into a black hole
can only be revealed through experimentation or
observation. But Poplawski also states the known
fact that the inside of a black hole cannot be
observed unless the observer is inside.

"This condition would be satisfied if our universe
were the interior of a black hole existing in a bigger
universe," The physicist said.
snip link now broken by Google.groups

Which again is still just an hypothesis, and only better researched
than mine.

The problem with single-interface connections (just one black hole),
is that it must have been small enough to shred atoms over most of its
"external life", to get the amount of hydrogen we see. Which forbids
ingesting galaxies essentially intact, and makes the CMBR glow what we
think it is... recombination of protons with electrons into hydrogen
and subsequent ionization.

Of course, Hawking radiation "exports" then reingests almost
everything, many times (since not all particles escape until the BH
has lost a lot of mass, and does it as small particles. So that alone
might give us the hydrogen...

I don't see that a "larger" Universe is required for a container, nor
do I see it as a necessity for this model. Exterior size maps to our
time, and the mathemagics that allows this "infinite hall of mirrors"
and says that Universe is like ours, says that it will also suffer
expansion and cooling. So at some point it will be large, but our
Universe might very well have been embedded in the container Universe
when it was "grapefruit sized", or certainly by the time it had no
more volume than the Milky Way now has.

David A. Smith

dlzc wrote:
Which again is still just an hypothesis, and only better researched
than mine.

The problem with single-interface connections (just one black hole),
is that it must have been small enough to shred atoms over most of its
"external life", to get the amount of hydrogen we see. Which forbids
ingesting galaxies essentially intact, and makes the CMBR glow what we
think it is... recombination of protons with electrons into hydrogen
and subsequent ionization.

That's assuming that a universe needs to be "big". All of those "little"
blackholes we see in our own universe may be the homes of some very fine
universes for their own inhabitants. And the inhabitants of those
universes must think that their own universe is absolutely humongous,
and can't imagine how there could be a bigger one outside it. They
probably have their own stars and galaxies within.

Of course, Hawking radiation "exports" then reingests almost
everything, many times (since not all particles escape until the BH
has lost a lot of mass, and does it as small particles. So that alone
might give us the hydrogen...

I don't see that a "larger" Universe is required for a container, nor
do I see it as a necessity for this model. Exterior size maps to our
time, and the mathemagics that allows this "infinite hall of mirrors"
and says that Universe is like ours, says that it will also suffer
expansion and cooling. So at some point it will be large, but our
Universe might very well have been embedded in the container Universe
when it was "grapefruit sized", or certainly by the time it had no
more volume than the Milky Way now has.

David A. Smith

The speed of light may be slower inside the blackhole micro-universes,
therefore it would take particles longer to travel from one point of the
universe to another.

Yousuf Khan

Brad Guth wrote:
I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10
fold older.

~ BG

If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg.
Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just
reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current
incarnation.

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Apr 7, 2:57*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
dlzc wrote:
Which again is still just an hypothesis, and only
better researched than mine.

The problem with single-interface connections (just one
black hole), is that it must have been small enough to
shred atoms over most of its "external life", to get the
amount of hydrogen we see. *Which forbids ingesting
galaxies essentially intact, and makes the CMBR glow
what we think it is... recombination of protons with
electrons into hydrogen and subsequent ionization.

That's assuming that a universe needs to be "big". All of
those "little" blackholes we see in our own universe may
be the homes of some very fine universes for their own
inhabitants. And the inhabitants of those universes must
think that their own universe is absolutely humongous,
and can't imagine how there could be a bigger one
outside it. They probably have their own stars and galaxies
within.

Agreed, this seems likely. My concern is one of how many levels are
there? It would seem to me that all the holes from one Universe must
link to a single lower Universe. Now whether that is true is
unknowable. The next tenet is if you proceed into a massive black
hole in our Universe, and on into a massive black hole in that
Universe, and so on... do you end up crossing into the Big Bang of
*this* Universe eventually? I think you must, because the "laws of
symmetry" would then "average out" with say, four rotations (space1 -
time2... space2 - time3... space3 - time4... space4 - time1). This
would generate Universes where antimatter was dominant (perhaps 1 away
in either "direction"), and preference for handedness was opposite
(perhaps 2 away).

All untestable, tantamount to just SF.

Of course, Hawking radiation "exports" then reingests
almost everything, many times (since not all particles
escape until the BH has lost a lot of mass, and does
it as small particles. *So that alone might give us the
hydrogen...

I don't see that a "larger" Universe is required for a
container, nor do I see it as a necessity for this model.
*Exterior size maps to our time, and the mathemagics
that allows this "infinite hall of mirrors" and says that
Universe is like ours, says that it will also suffer
expansion and cooling. *So at some point it will be large,
but our Universe might very well have been embedded in
the container Universe when it was "grapefruit sized", or
certainly by the time it had no more volume than the Milky
Way now has.

The speed of light may be slower inside the blackhole
micro-universes, therefore it would take particles longer
to travel from one point of the universe to another.

Maybe. I find it likely that it will still "locally" be a constant,
and that any sort of measure wil be unable to distinguish between c's
in any of the Universes.

This in one problem with describing the behavior of a finite set
(likely) with infinite mathematics... such things "make sense" to
discuss.

David A. Smith

On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg.
Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just
reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current
incarnation.

Yousuf Khan


No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

My old buddy, Smitty dlzc" wrote:
Yusuf Khan wrote:

The whole tripe between Yossy & Smitty is in here,
http://tinyurl.com/ygj7r7a followed by:

hanson who wrote:
Yo, Smitty, good to hear from you. I commented about
a similar pov, on my take of the universe, earlier here
in: http://tinyurl.com/yhkt3hw wherein you also find
Yossy's missing link is http://tinyurl.com/ye64gew
(no pun intended ... ahahaha)

Some history on Black holes:
The original notion of a body system from which not
even light escapes, a "black star", goes back to John
Michell & P. LaPlace in ca 1790, which they conjured
up from/with/by interpreting Newton's gravitational
escape velocity, v , which they replaced with "c" to find
that such an "invisible star" to have a radius and mass
of R = 2GM/c^2. This equation was poly-plagiarized &
150 years later it was heralded as the Schwarzschild
radius... an Einstein Dingleberry plagiarism that took
off after 1922 under the then Zio propaganda machine
which spawned all types of stories, tales, phantasms &
fables, from worm holes, 5 to 21 dimensional unreal
realties, to branes that came out of the brains of
phyzzycyst... ahaha... (Hey, they gotta make a buck too)

The notion that our visible/accessible portion of the
universe happens to be the INSIDE OF A BLACK
HOLES goes back to physicist Canuto, ~1970, who
first proposed that idea, shortly after John Wheeler
coined the term "BH" in 1967. (It came less likely
from poster Ken Seto, which some other illustrious
NG member yesterday posted ... ahahaha... To Ken's
credit one may add that he may have reinvented it).

The bright inside of the Cosmic Black Hole:
That "Black Hole Bubble" inside the larger cosmos
is NOT to be taken as an OBJECT that is enveloped
or closed in by a skin of sorts. It is simply any of an
infinitely large number of regions of a radius R
that can have any arbitrary locus of origin and its
spherical radius of R = ~ 13,75 BLY around it, ...
.... as long as it obeys the rules of the
------- "1234 cosmic envelope" which says -------

||| c = (GM/R)^1/2 = (GMH)^1/3 = (GM*b_r)^1/4 |||

Notice those pretty stepwise power 1,2,3,4-exp. in
each expression. Peel out the essential M/R = c^2/G
Mass/Length constant. See how & what role, H, the
Hubble constant plays, with its dimension of [1/T]
that has been interpreted as a Periodicity or the
Time that elapsed since the start of the "advocated"
Big Bang, and why the BB has never taken place
except in the mind of its inventor & his disciples.

Check out the interpretation and the character of b_r,
a cosmic constant that has the dimension of an
acceleration, L/T^2, which shows you that no mass in
the cosmos is ever free from gravitational forces, but
always under the influence of a residual gravitational
pull or force, F_r = m*b_r, from any of its 3 spatial
dimensions, giving 3D space a gravitational analog
to its EM-CMBR manifestation. . Convert that residua
or background acceleration, b_r, into terms of
Temperature and you'll get the 2.7°K CMBR value.
---- All these events and processes intermesh -----

With a bit of further juggling of the 1234 cosmic
envelope you can even see why the INSIDE of any
R ~ 13.7 BLY size BH is NOT black at all, but very
much lit up... and that the laws of physics do NOT
break down inside any of the so-called black holes, ...
but in the minds of Einstein Dingleberries.... ...ahhhh..

COSMOLOGY: THE GREATEST STORY every told.
If it tickles your fancy,Smitty, enjoy my ruminations
and lamentations on this, in http://tinyurl.com/yjtalof
wherein it also mention why any cosmology that does
not satisfy the numerical values of the 1234CE is
nothing more than a Gedanken-fart in a Supernova

PS: None of the above is original. It's all old hat
that has been around since the 1940's. It just has
never reached the lime-light. You can dig up any
and all of it in some dusty and forgotten annals
and manuscripts. It may have some pedagogic
interest though... ... ahahahaha...

Take care Smitty and have fun.... ahahahahanson


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Apr 7, 2:59*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10
fold older.

*~ BG

If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg.
Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just
reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current
incarnation.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Correct, as far as anyone knows we've been sucked into black holes and
reincarnated dozens upon dozens of times. Perhaps our next demise and
subsequent incarnation is within "The Great Attractor", along with
dozens of other galaxies headed from all directions into the same dark
and scary location.

Matter begets photons and photons beget matter. In other words,
energy in always equals energy out, and there's never anything more or
less because the universe is a forever kind of thing, that as a whole
stays exactly the same.

~ BG

On Apr 7, 8:21*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg.
Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just
reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current
incarnation.

* * *Yousuf Khan

* *No Center
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

* *Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

* *WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

* *WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The Great Attractor"?

~ BG

On 4/8/10 7:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:21 pm, Sam wrote:
On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg.
Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just
reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current
incarnation.

Yousuf Khan

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The Great Attractor"?

~ BG

Slight concentration of galactic cluster mass... it happens.

On Apr 8, 5:24*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/8/10 7:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote:



On Apr 7, 8:21 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg.
Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just
reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current
incarnation.

* * * Yousuf Khan

* * No Center
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

* * Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

* * WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

* * WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The Great Attractor"?

* ~ BG

* *Slight concentration of galactic cluster mass... it happens.

invisible galactic cluster mass?