The Big Bang Theory....Simplified?

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,569
11,515
113
Low Earth Orbit
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.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
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.
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.
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
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?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Then don't make claims about observer-created reality and "There is no matter" as if these were established facts.
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?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
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
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
requires
serious attention.
Herein, it is important to give a clarification of Crothers’
solution from the viewpoint of a theoretical physicist whose
professional field is the General Theory of Relativity. The
historical aspect of the black hole problem will not be discussed
as this has been suciently addressed in the scientific
literature and, especially, in a historical review [3]. The
technical details of Crothers’ solution will also not be reanalyzed:
his calculations were reviewed by many professional
relativists prior to publication in Progress in Physics. These
reviewers had a combined forty years of professional employment
in this field and it is thus extremely unlikely that a formal
error exists within Crothers’ work. Rather, our attention
will be focused only upon clarification of the new result in
comparison to the classical solution in Schwarzschild space.
In other words, the main objective is to answer the question:
what have Abrams and Crothers achieved?
In this letter,http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-18.PDF

Gravitational collapse
as the ultimate condition in Scwarzschild space leads to black
holes outside a real physical space, with the consequence that
the black hole solution in Schwarzschild space has no real
meaning (despite the fact that it can be formally obtained).
Mathematical curiosities are always interesting, but if these
things have no real meaning, then one must make it clear in
the end. Consequently, the current mathematical treatment
of black holes in Schwarzschild space does not have physical
validity in nature, as Crothers explains.

(so there are no black holes in physical space which in my thinking also eliminates the singularity of the Big Bang)DB


http://www.thunderboltsproject.com/Ebooks_files/Big_Bang?_sampler.pdf

the myth of the big bang with pictures

“It seems likely that red-shift may not be
due to an expanding Universe, and much
of the speculations on the structure of the
universe may require reexamination.”
Edwin Hubble 1947

(the big bang is science fraud taught as reality) DB
 
Last edited:

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
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?


What if we just dont have the equipment to see past the universe event horizon.... And if there are galaxies past this point would the big bang theory be wrong? Wouldnt the existence of glaxaies outside the limit we can see refute the age of the universe being 13 billion years old?

I love reading about space and ive become really knowledgable(but far from an expert) about it... I just refuse to believe that the universe is in the shape of a big cone. I have this really good instinct and it tells me that the big bang theory is just too smooth.and will be replaced by a totally different model. Kinda like how lord kelvin was beaten out by radioactive dating
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Mornin Johnny, time is a concept to describe the distance between events. It is not fixed by anything but celestial position. Position is subject to change, very often rapid change. So the length of an hour a day a minute all are subject change. To say that anything has existed for 13 billion years based on non existent fixed positions is meaningless in my opinion. The introduction of the electromagnetic basis of space cancels time fixations all together. Nothing can resist the adjustments of plasma. Artifact dating especially. Of course I am a simple minded chicken farmer incapable of higher thinking so you have to take my cannabis fueled ranting with a box of salt.
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
To say that anything has existed for 13 billion years based on non existent fixed positions is meaningless in my opinion.

See thats what i think too cause they say the universie is expanding from a point in space... What point ?where is this point? How do they know the location of this point? If galaxies are moving away from each other why are we on a collision course with the andromeda galaxy? Or do only galaxy clusters more out away from each other?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
If atomic structures are similar in constitution as solar systems, then it is possible that galaxies are similar to molecular structures. Galaxy clusters could be cellular structures, etc, etc. Perhaps the Universe is the body of a giant being and we are just a tiny speck on a proton within that body. Kinda makes one humble. Kinda makes our speculations somewhat of a joke - so much mental masturbation.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,569
11,515
113
Low Earth Orbit
If atomic structures are similar in constitution as solar systems, then it is possible that galaxies are similar to molecular structures. Galaxy clusters could be cellular structures, etc, etc. Perhaps the Universe is the body of a giant being and we are just a tiny speck on a proton within that body. Kinda makes one humble. Kinda makes our speculations somewhat of a joke - so much mental masturbation.
They only appear to be like our solar system. If it were the same to scale we'd be one helluva lot farther from the sun than we are now.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
They only appear to be like our solar system. If it were the same to scale we'd be one helluva lot farther from the sun than we are now.
True, but has anybody actually seen an atom or have we only speculated on their structure mathematically? The point is that we can only see from our perspective, so any conclusions we draw are purely speculative at best and who judges which speculation is more accurate to another?
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
The entire universe you perceive is contained within one atom of another beings coffee table.
Look, don't make me resort to the Carl Sagan explanation again. Jeez, that guy just couldn't make it simple enough for most people. He tried his best though.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Halton Arp received his bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his Ph.D. from the California Institute of Technology in 1953, both cum laude. For 29 years he was a staff astronomer at the Observatories known originally as the Mt. Wilson and Palomar Observatories.​
A recognized expert observer of quasars and galaxies, Arp is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and numerous scholarly publications. Consequently, he has hundreds of galaxies named after him. With Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies and this book he is now famous for being the new Galileo of astronomy with his redshift findings. He has been awarded the Helen B. Warner prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 1980 to 1983 and received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award in 1884. He is currently at the Max-Planck-Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Munich, Germany.

Now we have a situation where new facts are judged by whether they fit old theories. If they do not, they are condemned with the judgment:
"There is no way of explaining these observations, so they cannot be true."
That encourages the dissident to come up with an explanation of how it could be true. It disagrees with convention. Then the jaws of the trap spring shut and the theory labeled:
"....prima facie evidence that the proponent is a crackpot and the evidence is false."
This, then, is the crisis for the reasonable members of the profession. With so many alternative, contradictory theories, many of them fitting the evidence very badly, abandoning the accepted theory is a frightening step into chaos. At this point, I believe we must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and interdisciplinary thinkers—those who form judgments on the general thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation, particularly official ones, and above all are tolerant of other people's theories. (When the complete answer is not known, in a sense every-one is a crackpot—Gasp!).Seeing Red book



  • [*]
    observations showing that extragalactic redshifts are NOT caused by an expanding universe​

    [*]
    An empirical picture of the birth and evolution of quasars and galaxies​

    [*]
    An account of crucial observations ignored and suppressed​

    [*]
    Examples of how academic science fails its ideals and potential​