The Big Bang Theory....Simplified?

We've all heard of the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology. Since there was nobody around
at the time to witness this happening, there are a number of opposing arguments about
what actually happened.

First, I am not a physicist. I worked as a mechanical engineer for close to forty years and
that gets me a cup of coffee along with about three dollars depending where I'm buying.
I am an amateur astronomer and I've had an interest in cosmology for around thirty years.

My first thought about the big bang theory was that all the matter in the universe exploded
out of a single point, a singularity if you will, and expanded into the universe. It is all
still expanding, and has been for the last thirteen billion years or so. A physicist I talked
to reckoned it was more like a balloon being inflated and that every point on the surface
of that balloon was rushing away from every other point.

I'd like to get everyone's thoughts, all who are interested, on this subject. Just keep it
as simple as you can so I can keep up.

Cheers

Redshift reality says no to expanding balloon universe.

Redshift is electrical density not distance, they say, I think.

Dopple shifts are only in the eye of the observer.

get to a designated eye wash and flush the dopplers out of the eye with clean distilled water, report the incident to your supervisor

Becareful or you poked in the eye with a long skinny universe balloon.

What does an expanding universe expand into?

The same place it came from...nothing.

Outside of our universe there is no such thing as physics.

Out of curiosty I wonder where you got that little gem from. How would you even guess that ?

Which gem? I've got plenty of gems. Some local from foreign.

Everything you ever wanted to know about cosmology: --

I think further study is required.

There is no matter, so what, if anything, is expanding? Matter depends on an observer who believes in the idea of matter. If there was no observer, the universe wouldn't exist. Physics is just the observer trying to prove his belief is valid.

No matter? What's this desk I'm sitting at then?

It's space that's expanding, not matter. There's no evidence to suggest the universe wouldn't exist if there were no observer. Quantum theory is fully consistent with an objective reality that exists independently of anyone's or any thing's observation of it. There's a lot of New Age quantum quackery around that claims otherwise, but that's the fact. If you truly believe what you're claiming, I invite you to jump off the peak of my roof and believe away the existence of the rock garden you'll land in.

Tell that to these quantum physicists.

I thought the universe was expanding into space.

Yeah, that's at least the third time you've posted that video recently. I invite you to tell it to the rocks in my garden. The video's an attempt to explain in ordinary words and concepts what quantum theory's about, and you really can't do it without the mathematics. What's clear from the video is that nobody really knows the ultimate nature of reality, and as the narrator says about 43 minutes in, if you think you understand, you probably don't.

No, it's not expanding into anything, the space and its contents are the universe, there's nothing to expand into but itself. But if it's infinite, it's also the same size it's always been, it can't get any bigger... See? Nobody understands this stuff. Infinity is full of paradox. Just consider something as simple as the integers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. There are infinitely many of them. Throw the odd numbers away, or multiply them all by 2, so you have 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. How many numbers do you have now? Same number as you started with, an infinite number of them. But there are orders of infinity too. In between any two integers is an infinite number of real numbers, so the number of reals is infinitely many times as large as the number of integers. The infinity of integers is the lowest order of infinity, called Aleph-null. The infinity of reals is called Aleph-one, which is also the number of points on a line or a surface. Aleph two is the number of different curves that can be drawn on a surface. There might be an infinite number of infinities too, though I haven't seen any claims that anyone knows what an aleph higher than two is.

If you want to get into infinity that is a whole new thread and it has driven many a mathematician into the looney bin.

The big bang satisfies the irrational human emotion for linear progressions and virtually nothing else.

Is a toroid a balloon?



IN MATHEMATICS, A DOUGHNUT SHAPE is known as a torus, the three-dimensional generalisation of a ring. A ring lies in a single plane; so topologically speaking there is one closed path around it that lies just outside it (a loop around the ring). Because a torus has one more dimension, you can travel along closed paths around it in two perpendicular directions. If you imagine a doughnut on a plate, one of these is a larger loop around the periphery, parallel to the plate, and the other is a smaller loop through the hole, toward and away from the plate. The generalization of a torus, any closed curve spun in a circle around an axis, is called a toroid. Curiously, there are genuine scientific theories that the universe is toroidal.

Modern cosmology is mathematically modelled through solutions to Einstein's general theory of relativity. Recall that general relativity explains gravity through a mechanism in which matter curves the fabric of space and time. It is expressed in terms of an equation that relates the geometry of a region to its distribution of mass and energy. For example, an enormous star warps space-time much more, and therefore bends the paths of objects in its neighbourhood by a greater amount, than does a tiny satellite.

Soon after general relativity was published, a number of theorists, including Einstein himself, delved for solutions that could describe the universe in general, not just the stars and other objects within it. The researchers discovered a plethora of diverse geometries and behaviours, each a distinct way of characterising the cosmos. Some of these models imagined space as resembling an unbounded plain or endless flat landscapes, only uniform in three directions, not just two. Two parallel straight lines, in such a spatial vista, would just keep going in the same direction indefinitely, like outback railroad tracks. Physicists call these flat cosmologies.

Other solutions possess spaces that curve in a saddle shape, technically known as hyperbolic geometries with negative curvature. This curvature couldn't be seen directly, unless you could somehow step out of three-dimensional space itself, but rather would make itself known through the behaviour of parallel lines and triangles. In a flat geometry (called Euclidean), if you draw a straight line and a point not on it, you can construct just one single line through that point parallel to the first line. For a saddle-shaped geometry, in contrast, there are an infinite number of parallel lines fanning out from that point, like the tracks out of a major city's terminal train station. Moreover, while triangles in flat space have angles that add up to 180 degrees, in saddle-space the angles add up to less than 180 degrees.

Yet another possibility, called positive curvature, resembles the spherical surface of an orange. Like the saddle-shape, its form could be seen only indirectly, through altered laws of geometry.

Bending time is like bending good or bending dark. The toroidal form is a plasma signature.

Of course I don't fully understand it and neither do you. We can only understand it from our own personal perspectives and those perspectives are based on our knowledge base and our personal experiences in life. I can at least partly understand why you have the views you have from what I have read of your posts over the past few years. I would not pretend to even think that you are wrong because, from your perspective, you are right. What annoys me is that you, like so many others, are willing to say that someone else is wrong because they don't come to the same conclusions as you do. Sometimes you come off as closed minded as Alleywayz. It is impossible to debate from that position, only argue and that is an endeavor that is a waste of time.

Then don't make claims about observer-created reality and "There is no matter" as if these were established facts.

What i dont get is they say the universe is expanding. I dont really understand

What i dont understand is it the vacuum of space expanding ahead of the galaxies? Or is the vacuum of space limitless and the universe(galaxies) just hasnt spread to out there yet?
Is the farthest galaxy the edge of the universe?
If were expanding and it all happened from one point why do galaxies collide into each other? Wouldnt they all move outward, and not into each other?

Our universe is contained within a single particle in a hadron collider...

Nice cherry picking. Matter is an illusion in my reality. I don't expect you to believe it. You state stuff all the time that makes no sense in my reality. Why do you think you have more right to state your opinions than I do?

The Black Hole, the Big Bang – A Cosmology in Crisis
Stephen J. Crothers
Queensland, Australia

Introduction
It is often claimed that cosmology became a true scientific inquiry with the advent of
the General Theory of Relativity. A few subsequent putative observations have been
misconstrued in such a way as to support the prevailing Big Bang model by which the
Universe is alleged to have burst into existence from an infinitely dense point-mass
singularity. Yet it can be shown that the General Theory of Relativity and the Big
Bang model are in conflict with well-established experimental facts.
Black holes are not without cosmological significance in view of the many claims
routinely made for them, and so they are treated here in some detail. But the theory of
black holes is riddled with contradictions and has no valid basis in observation.
Nobody has ever found a black hole, even though claims for their discovery are now
made on an almost daily basis. Nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass
singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon, the tell-tale signatures of the
black hole, and so nobody has ever found a black hole. In actuality, astrophysical
scientists merely claim that there are phenomena observed about a region that they
cannot see and so they illogically conclude that the unseen region must be a black
hole, simply because they believe in black holes. In this way they can and do claim
the presence of a black hole as they please. But that is not how science is properly
done. Moreover, all black hole solutions pertain to one alleged mass in the Universe,
whereas there are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more
masses, such as two black holes. In other words, the astrophysics community has no
solution to Einstein’s field equations that can account for the presence of two or more
bodies, yet they claim the existence of black holes in multitudes, interacting with one
another and other matter.
Owing to the very serious problems with the Big Bang hypothesis and the theory of
black holes, it is fair to say that neither meets the requirements of a valid physical
theory. They are products of a peer review system that has gone awry, having all the
characteristics of a closed academic club of mutual admiration and benefit into which
new members are strictly by invitation only. The upshot of this is that the majority of
the current astrophysics community is imbued with the dogmas of the academic club
and the voice of dissent conveniently ignored or ridiculed, contrary to the true spirit of
scientific inquiry. This method has protected funding interests but has done much
harm to science.
Infinite Density Forbidden
Like the Big Bang progenitor

Only sometimes?