Oh dear. There's plenty of evidence for it, which you would know, if you'd ever studied the subject.
Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.
- Thread starter astrocat
- Start date
- Status
Oh dear. There's plenty of evidence for it, which you would know, if you'd ever studied the subject.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
No. You have speculated on such a structure based upon your deep misunderstanding and ignorance of current cosmological theory. You have offered no observational data and no mathematical argument to support your discovery. Thus, you have failed to 'discover' the black hole either empirically or theoretically.
Current 'Big Bang' theory owes almost nothing to Lemaitre's Cosmic Egg proposal. Your statement simply confirms the depth of your ignorance about basic Big Bang theory.
His biggest blunder was, arguably, thinking that was his biggest blunder. What Einstein thought or didn't think, however, is irrelevant. You are falling into the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority.
I don't hate the idea, I just think it is risible.
as you can see from my earlier post this is not what I have devoted my life to, but thank you for comparing me to Stephen Hawking - I'm sure he'll be flattered.
Clearly you have not bothered to study even the simplified descriptions of his theory. The evaporation rate of black holes is dependant on their mass. No galaxy sized black hole could possibly have evaporated by any significant amount in a mere 13.5 billion years.
I really do have to question your intellectual rigour. (This is a polite way of avoiding censure by the moderators for asking you if you are really that thick.) The Cosmological Principle proposes that viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers. What don't you understand about that?
As it happens I do not feel especially warm towards the Big Bang. On philosophical and historical grounds I am opposed to it. However, it presently provides the best explanation for observations of the cosmos. Until something better comes along I am forced to accept it.
Rest assured, I have been avidly looking for an alternative that fits since shortly after Penzias and Wilson found out it wasn't pigeon droppings. It's not that your idea would finish a poor last in any race; it wouldn't even be allowed in the changing room.
this is the first statement you have made which will be greeted with general agreement.
I see in Wiki they say Planets come from the accretion rings of Stars. These accretion rings are supposed to condense out, in order to form the planets. Now, if these Stars form from giant Hydrogen clouds, (the same way I say the Universe Formed) and I read that in Wiki, how come that in the outer edges of this Hydrogen cloud, we can find red hot balls of iron, and other heavy elements? Clearly, these iron balls, such as the one that forms Earth's core, are captured by Sol. Where do these red hot iron balls come from? From exhausted, exploded stars, who's cores are made of these very elements. Again I ask you, how long does it take a Star to form from its giant hydrogen cloud, to burn its life out, and explode? A mere 8 billion years? With Earth already at 5 billion years old, that's how much time you have left yourself. Clearly, the Cosmos is way older than a mere 13 billion years - unless, of course, you are going to tell me that the Stars and Galaxies came out of the Big Bang already formed? Please!
Oh, I know whole books have been written on it, and University Courses have studied it down to the nth degree, just like in the old days, books were written about the Sun orbiting the Earth (when the opposite turned out to be the truth). I'm sure the Universities then held courses on the Earth centered Universe, and I'm sure it was studied to death, but that didn't make it any more true. Things, Phlogistician, are not always as they appear.
We've been over the beginning part of an explosion, and we've seen that that's clearly not how it ends. Your thermally insulated Baloon? I asked you for your challenge and you came up with "an ordinary party balloon," if I remember correctly. Without air around it to support it, your balon will fall just like a hammer or a rubber ball. About the lifetimes of Stars, they go on much longer than you, Pete know. Or are you saying Planets last longer than Stars? About the 25 solar mass star? I think it might well form a Black Hole, but I don't really know how small it will become. If it becomes small enough, of course, GR predicts that it would form a Black Hole.
Rebecca.Joseph, it's a treat to communicate with you. Of course, you're correct. The Big Bang was dreamed up by a Belgian Priest, a Mathematician, who had - as Einstein remarked "a woeful lack of Physics." Dark Energy likewise was 'made up' on news the Observable Universe was Speeding Up. Apparently, from my reading of Wiki, the Speeding Up only started in 1998. Before then, if you can believe it, the Expansion had been Slowing Down. This Big Bang that Started Fast, Slowed Down, and then Sped Up again, is a little too much for me to accept. How about you?
Sock Puppet? Prometheus? Just 'cause I found someone who agrees with me? About the Big Bang, anyway. Prometheus, let me ask you, are you not the teeniest bit jealous of me?
Maybe they will, Oh, but I'm having such a good time debunking your Big Bang theory.
Observational Data - the fact that Susan Faber came up with the observation that the Observable Universe was largely composed of filaments and voids. A universe made up like a 'Sponge' was her conclusion. I notice too, that this observation (from 1986) seems to be the prevalent view today. I think that spells the end of your Cosmological Principal. Others in this group called The Seven Samurai, "compared our own stream (our local stream) to a train ' and wondered where the engine was?"."
We're going in Ophiolite, like everything else in the Cosmos. Nothing else is going 'out' except maybe some solar flares and the occasional exploding nebula. Galaxies are Spirals, by far the commonest shape in Space, and Galaxies are Votices - they go in. Interesting that you think Einstein was deluded about his CC (lambda). You obviously disagree with him. Me, on the other hand, I agree with Everything Einstein said. You should get on side with Einstein too, he was smarter than you, if I might say that, Ophiolite. And how do I know it's a Black Hole we're falling into, and not just the center of mass of the Cosmos? Well, it's the ever increasing Rate of Acceleration that is so well known - if we were falling into the C of M of the Cosmos, our rate of Acceleration would actually be declining.
I know all I need to know about your Big Bang. Just more hot air.
Where did it happen, Phlogistician? There's no point in the sky that it could have come out of - so you say it happened 'Everywhere? Well that's the only answer that there could possibly be, but Everywhere? Come on, Phlogistician, you're joking, right?
So what? We're not talking about how the universe ends, either.
Did you mean to ask for an outward expansion that accelerates infinitely?
If so, why?
If not, then the early stage of an explosion is a clear example of an accelerating outward expansion, so please stop saying that no example has been given.
Right. And as I said, I don't think it won't cool, expand, or lose pressure.
Even if it's not thermally insulated it won't cool, expand, or lose pressure any more than a non-falling balloon. In fact, I think that tidal forces will tend to heat, compress, and increase its pressure.
And you are again ignoring a cloud of gas that falls in on itself.
The science says that planets do indeed last longer than some stars.
Yes. The science says that after a life of about 10 million years, it will explode into a supernova leaving a black hole behind.
Good question, but nothing got hurled, that doesn't happen in Space except for exploded stars etc. Gravity brought together a huge Hydrogen cloud - happens all the time, it's how stars form, and the center of this Cloud evolved fastest. Relatively quickly, Black Holes formed there, and ate out the center of this cloud from the inside. Other stars started to fall, and have been falling ever since, Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. Forming into streams, streamlets really, a vortex formed, as in any other Galaxy - it's how Black Holes eat.
The Cosmos is a Vortex, kind of like the Milky Way, just on a different scale. What I'm saying is that the Universe wasn't created 'Poof,' just like that, but it evolved slowly over trillions of years.
Pete, that's how they say the Universe is gonna end, in a dissipation, as you call it.
I'm not going to argue about your 'Early Stage' of an experiment. Lets take it to its conclusion, why don't we? I'm asking for any Outward Expansion that Speeds Up (as a conclusion) - if you can give me one that Speeds Up ad infinitum that would be even better? Tidal forces? You've lost me there. I know about tides - Spring Tides and Neap Tides. What's this to do with Tides, Ferrous Cranus?
Oh, and you say Planets last longer than Stars? My my, how interesting. And yet it can only be that way, of course - with Earth at 5 billion years old, in a Cosmos of a mere 13 billion years, that leaves 8 billion for a Star to form, burn out and die. If Earth goes on for another 5 billion years, a 10 billion year life span and Stars burn out in 8 billion years, then of course you're right - Planets last longer than Stars. Who would have thunk it?
Sure Pete. You see,I don't think there ever was a Big Bang - I think it was 'made up.' Same for Dark Energy. Gravity, however is real, and I think that's why the Observable Universe (OU) is Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. I just need Gravity, Pete, gravity to frorm the Original Hydrogen Cloud, gravity to make this Cloud evolve, and Gravity to operate the Universe. You need a Big Bang, D
So what's your problem? An explosion is also an accelerating outward expansion that dissipates, right?
Why? Is that what the Universe is supposed to be doing?
New ideas, astrocat. That's what growing and learning is all about.
You seem to be trying to ridicule something.
Are you disputing that a large star will only last a few million years?
Why?
Do you understand that the lifetime of a star depends on its size?
This isn't controversial. It's in the link I posted before.
Well, I'm not the one pushing a barrow, so I don't see that I need anything. If the Big Bang model is wrong, why would I care?
Your response didn't address any of the questions in my post:
Do you have anything to support your theory?
Is there evidence of this vortex in the CMBR?
What do you think happened before those trillions of years?
Where did that tremendous cloud of hydrogen come from?
How large was it?
It seems like you need a cloud of hydrogen that either appeared *poof*, or was just always hanging around until something (What? And why at that time?) triggered the start of its collapse.
You are not using the rational arguments of an innocent man, but the illogical objections of a man caught red handed with his thumb on the scales. Lemaître's nationality, occupation, gender or even crimes have no weight on judging the observations of the universe and the model that best explains them.
Of note, Lemaître was also a professor and doctor (1920) of physics, so you are not really in a position to put down his occupation. It just makes you look irrelevant, as your lack of rational argument certainly is.
In 1922 and 1924, Friedmann published possible non-static universes described by General Relativity. Einstein followed the reasoning and agreed such non-static solutions were allowed by his axioms.
In 1927, Lemaître talked with Einstein in Brussels. What is agreed upon is that Einstein's relativity says either the universe is expanding or contracting. Lemaître pointed out the reddish color of the distant galaxies and argued for expanding.
Einstein, without an argument against it displayed his own prior convictions when he said (Lemaître himself is our source of this quotation) “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable. (Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable.)” That is, however, an indictment of Einstein against the axioms of his own General Relativity, as was his own refusal to accept that collapsed stars were the logical consequence of his axioms. We must go where the axioms take us until we can show a disagreement with observation and not until then may we discard those axioms.
But in 1929, Hubble confirmed in detail that distance correlates with recession velocity. Further measurements would refine both the measurements of distance and recession and the two would always go hand-in-hand.
In 1948, one of the most important predictions of the Big Bang model was calculated: the relative abundance of light elements not formed in any star.
In 1964, cosmic microwave background was discovered, just before Lemaître's death in 1966.
In this century, detailed measurements and improved models shows that these three lines of evidence not only support a Big Bang model, but they all converge on very detailed parameters for a specific Big Bang model. For the first time we have an evidence-based age of the universe good to 3 significant figures. You don't throw away this evidence ever, and you don't throw away these models until you replace them with something better. The lack of substance is why this thread has been relegated to Pseudoscience -- with good cause.
http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/expanding.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Without-Yesterday-Lemaitre-Cosmology/dp/1560256605
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
- Status