The Big Bang never happened

I agree with your statement:
"Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do."

I would even predict the compaction of Hydrogen atoms once broken down to quaks-neutrons being 130,000,000,000,000,000,000 about. This may be a large compaction. The High density Plasma does not need to be large only a few kms to form a star.

The extreme flares that come out of M87 are so big that it is probable that these small high density plasmas are shot out around the galaxy. Rather than material ejected and the compaction occuring outside the black hole.

Although compaction does occur ouside the galaxy and black holes and stars are formed with existing matter. The process of recycling is largely geared by the active Black Holes.

Harry

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I agree with your statement:
"Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Eric Lerner is making that statement for all of us.

It should be of no surprise that matter could have moved in one of TWO directions, in or out. So it is natural to have two possible frameworks to consider. Empirically the question becomes which way does matter move around a galaxy? In or out?

The surprise is that the observations show an outflow from the center of galaxies. And one framework says this is happeneing because there is such a tremendous inflow, excess matter is thrown back out. They admit that this is ASSUMED, the reason given is that no other mechanism is known which would do that.

The other framework says that the observed outflow of matter/energy, which has been described as jets, plumes, geysers, winds is the result of the ejection from the center.

If our Sun is a plasma ball, as the Sun researchers regard the Sun, with an anomalous chronosphere hundreds of times hotter than the surface photosphere, imagine what a super plasma ball would do?

It would look just like a white hole...and we would be able to recognize it by a tremendous outflow of matter/energy.

And THEN the alternative view is based on a black hole driven by black energy and dark matter resulting from an invisible contraction that came after a superluminal expansion the beginning of which is forever impossible to know...

Hello Tommy
Your statement "The surprise is that the observations show an outflow from the center of galaxies. And one framework says this is happeneing because there is such a tremendous inflow, excess matter is thrown back out. They admit that this is ASSUMED, the reason given is that no other mechanism is known which would do that."

The degree of out-flow I think has little to do with the rate of in-flow.I think it has more to do with the basic particals that matter breaks down to. Lets say quaks for now: up-quaks and down-quaks may create convectional currents such as we see in cyclones. The centre of the Jet having a neutral electromagnetic force and possibly an outward gravitational force or vise versa. We know that in M87 theses Jets go over 5,0000(much more)light years into space and the width of these jets is estimated to be about 10 light years.
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041211.html
antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970405.html
The size of such Jets are able in my opiniontt to eject future core plasma to form new stars and cluster of stars. The inner core of the sun does not need to be very large only a few kms considering the compaction of this plasma to be about 130,000,000,000,000,000,000. These cores will have a long life of about 1 to 14 Billion years depending on the size of the core.

Once they become part of the galaxy they will collide with other cores creating black holes and varies different forms of stars Neutron,dwarf etc.



Harry

It all seems pretty simple to me. The Big Bang is as easy to explain as m=E/c2. Before the "BANG" all that existed was "E"nergy. Through the process of m=E/c2 the "BANG" occured just as in the picture below.
<center>

[url] www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae22.htm [/url] </center>



Patrick[]

Be careful, if you are reverting back to matter, your process will be subject to the laws of matter regardless of how you do it. And it has been known for a long time that a matter only big bang could not have made us. Recall that Inflation was necessary so that an entire Universe of space was the beginning point. The standard assumption is that there was a radiation of energy which when cooled produced the forces of nature. The point to grasp is that "energy" in the standard theory is locked up in the radiation - all of it. It is assumed by the Big Bang theory that all matter was created at that first time. This assumption ironically logically leads to another assumption, that there is/was no other way matter could be created.

Meanwhile, in 1987 Hal Puthof published the paper which shows that the ground state of the electron derives its radiative energy from the ZPF, the Inside of space.

Think about it, an atom is not an inert bit of stuff, it is a fast moving process, and in the process creates fields which have entropy
and that means electrons would stop unless they were supplied with an energy to replace what it needs to move around for billions and bilions of years.

The energy that matter needs to exist is an ongoing energy.

It is no different in the center of almost any galaxy. The electrons and protons et al, not only derive their enormous sustaining energy from inside the center, they outflow "extra" energy. Above Unity energies to borrow a phrase...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Be careful, if you are reverting back to matter, your process will be subject to the laws of matter regardless of how you do it. And it has been known for a long time that a matter only big bang could not have made us. Recall that Inflation was necessary so that an entire Universe of space was the beginning point. The standard assumption is that there was a radiation of energy which when cooled produced the forces of nature. The point to grasp is that "energy" in the standard theory is locked up in the radiation - all of it. <b>It is assumed by the Big Bang theory that <u>all matter</u></b> was created at that first time. This assumption ironically logically leads to another assumption, that there is/was no other way matter could be created.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Take a look at the underlined above. What is "M"atter? Where does "M"atter come from? If "M"atter comes FROM "E"nergy and the BANG was a radiation of "E"nergy then wouldn't that basically mean; ALL the "M"atter that does, can, or will ever exist - EXISTS? As long as the "E"nergy exists then any and all forms of "M"atter are simple waiting to be assembled, reassembled, and disassembled. "M"atter IS "E"nergy however, "E"nergy ISN'T always "M"atter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Meanwhile, in 1987 Hal Puthof published the paper which shows that the ground state of the electron derives its radiative energy from the ZPF, the Inside of space.

Think about it, an atom is not an inert bit of stuff, it is a fast moving process, and in the process creates fields which have entropy
and that means electrons would stop unless they were supplied with an energy to replace what it needs to move around for billions and bilions of years.

<u><b>The energy that matter needs to exist</u> is an ongoing energy.</b>

It is no different in the center of almost any galaxy. The electrons and protons et al, not only derive their enormous sustaining energy from inside the center, they outflow "extra" energy. Above Unity energies to borrow a phrase...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In the above statement you are making the assumption that "M"atter stays constant when actually "M"atter is constantly deteriorating, converting back to or releasing stored "E"nergy. You are correct that "M"atter would require a constant inflow of "E"nergy if it were to be maintained at its original form however, that is not the properties of "M"atter.

EVERY physical "THING"("M"atter) that exists REQUIRES "E"nergy in order to exist. Once the "E"nergy supply is gone then so too is "THE THING". "The THING" is now back to its original origins.

Take Einsteins equivelence theory, if we are enclosed in a capsule of "E"nergy(The Universe or as the bible would say - "God") then when things suddenly apprear wouldn't they seem to appear out of "NOTHING"? Long ago, when rain fell from the sky what do you think the people on earth thought? Now, how about the fish in the water?

Patrick[]