Is the current big bang model wrong?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />As I understand it, the BB model does not necessarily mean that all matter presently visible came out of a single point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I understand it, your understanding is incorrect. The standard Big Bang does require origin in a singularity. It is not a point in space only because there was no space before the Big Bang.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Those who work this field have different viewpoints (sometimes more than one so they can go from one to the other to get out of difficulties).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Everyone who is not a follower may have his/her own favorite variant cosmology. But the standard Big Bang model has some features in common to all adherents, even though the standard model does remain fluid (as you say) to keep from being falsified by every new discovery that comes along.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The big bang hypothesis has lots of wiggle room as do all fundamental theories of existence ... including mine ... including Tom's.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I also differ here. One of the strengths of MM is its deductive nature from first principles, which leaves it no wiggle room on important issues. Of course, details about forms that depend on observations can always change. But the basic principles and their corollaries cannot change. If they did, that would imply that we exist in a holodeck simulation of reality, and not in the "real world". -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">One of the strengths of MM is its deductive nature from first principles, which leaves it no wiggle room on important issues<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You had to do a "little" wiggling to accomodate the absorbtion/emmission of CGs instead of perfect elasticity which was mathematically inconsistent with pushing gravity (by your own acceptance and to your credit). That seemed like a major accomodation to me ;o)

Also, you must necessarily wiggle like a doomed worm on a hook if/when you try to deal with parity non-conservation from a mechanical perspective. As stated elsewhere, this phenomenon rules out all mechanical models as potentially complete descriptions of reality ... in principle. The experimentally verifiable results are devastating to a strict mechanical description such as MM. It will have to be modified again ... at the root ... at some future date.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thus, a seemingly empty patch of the HUDF may well contain thousands of galaxies?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Big bang models cannot, in principle, accomodate an ever deepening field with identical properties and appearance as the near field. At some distance the field must show deviation from our neighborhood else the theory is falsified at the most fundamental level.

I am confident that such differences will show up somewhere so that "development over time" will be easily apprehended. However, I am, as ever, not completely (100%) convinced that this is so. An eternal universe such as MM may, after all, be the way to go.

I am not married to the Big Bang ... it's more like a useful whore rather than a faithful wife ;o)

My thoughts are that before the BB, the universe existed in a “quiet” state. The BB event was an explosion within the universe that threw out fragments from an ultra-supermassive black hole. Some of the fragments were large and formed the seeds of the galaxies, which is why the galaxies developed so quickly after the BB.


wisp

- particles of nothingness

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />You had to do a "little" wiggling to accomodate the absorbtion/emmission of CGs instead of perfect elasticity which was mathematically inconsistent with pushing gravity (by your own acceptance and to your credit). That seemed like a major accomodation to me ;o)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Okay. But I don't think of correcting errors of reasoning, where one of two possibilities was impossible all along, as "wiggling". Rather, I think of constantly adding new helper hypotheses such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" as wiggling. So the issue just became more semantic than substantive.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, you must necessarily wiggle like a doomed worm on a hook if/when you try to deal with parity non-conservation from a mechanical perspective. As stated elsewhere, this phenomenon rules out all mechanical models as potentially complete descriptions of reality ... in principle. The experimentally verifiable results are devastating to a strict mechanical description such as MM. It will have to be modified again ... at the root ... at some future date.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't have even the beginnings of a clue as to how such a sweeping generalization could be justified. First, define "mechanical model". I know what parity non-conservation is. But because parity has not yet been defined in MM, I can't imagine how you might draw conclusions about it. I've already stated that the property "spin" certainly does not mean mechanical spin in the classical sense. Rather, it must be some sort of wave property because it is quantized. But that's okay with MM, which invokes one medium (gravitons) for forces and another (elysium) for wave properties. I'm not seeing any particular blockage to future progress. So please elaborate your thought here. -|Tom|-

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field observations [1] show that the big bang universe is once again younger than the galaxies found in it. The singularity, which appears in the big bang universe beginning shows that we cannot derive a proper picture of the cosmos by the assumptions we make. The scale invarinat description of reality in terms of 3D-spiral sources of unifying interaction [2] is in agreement with the puzzling findings at the outskirts of the observable universe. Eugene Savov’s “firework universe” [2] shows how everything comes from its 3D-spiral source and moves around its core in the way solving many puzzles of the cosmos. The cosmic redshift results from expansion of the structure of light as it travels from the distant galaxies to the Earth [2].

The just born “firework universe” was made of bright blue stars that move around the their sources – the galactic nuclei, which came from even much larger sources of interaction and so on, all coming from the 3D-spirally contracting and expanding source of the universe that thus remains always finite [2]. The cooling of the Eugene Savov’s “firework universe” created the cosmic microwave background and its structure.

I have not read any more challenging and self-consistent description of the universe.


1. hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/survey/hubbledev/ne...4/07/text/index.html

2. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, 2002.