The Link opens with
Well I may not but by discussing things step by step maybe we can all learn more.
Well this is something to discuss.
You can't deal with all you cover so casually but all I can say is one thing at a time and each thing you raise is not stuff that has not been considered in arriving at the current model.
Well all that says is we have over one hundred years of developing the current theory (arguably more) and you feel it can be dismissed for what reason and in place we put what?
Have you googled to find observations in support of the current model?
I use an anology which can be dangerous because folk focus on unimportant detail rather than grasp the principle that the anology seeks to outline.
[6] Your continued ranting, raving and unsupported nonsense is confined to this forum, open to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, and of course Gravage, to occupy a sliver of cyber space and eventually like the Plasma/Electric hypothetical failure, fade into total oblivion.
[6] Finally after so much ranting, raving and unsupported claims, why not put your energy to some useful purpose and write up a paper for official, professional peer review:
[7] Or are you like most cranks, quacks, god botherers, and other assorted nuts, going to again cry conspiracy!
Your lengthy meaningless rants say otherwise.
Firstly just because you fail to understand the BB model does not mean it is incorrect: That just highlights your agenda elsewhere and ignorance.
But Halton Arp was never disproven, never.]/QUOTE]
Yes he was...many times.
Already explained in your excitable rant how you are reading it wrong.
But to speculate about the prior nothing that existed........
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.
Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.
Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
They certainly sell more books then that promoting your mythical deity and any Electric/Plasma nonsense.
Abiogenisis is the only scientific theory open to explain how life is here.
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
A Universe from Nothing
by Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff
Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.
Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition, by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division of Thomson Learning.
Courtesy of AURA/NOAO/NSF.
In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.
The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.
What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of “nothing” is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.
Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing. Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
Perhaps many quantum fluctuations occurred before the birth of our universe. Most of them quickly disappeared. But one lived sufficiently long and had the right conditions for inflation to have been initiated. Thereafter, the original tiny volume inflated by an enormous factor, and our macroscopic universe was born. The original particle-antiparticle pair (or pairs) may have subsequently annihilated each other – but even if they didn’t, the violation of energy conservation would be minuscule, not large enough to be measurable.
If this admittedly speculative hypothesis is correct, then the answer to the ultimate question is that the universe is the ultimate free lunch! It came from nothing, and its total energy is zero, but it nevertheless has incredible structure and complexity. There could even be many other such universes, spatially distinct from ours.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-livio/is-our-universe-the-ultim_b_2123732.html
Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?
The inflationary model (described in my previous post, “What Did Go ‘Bang’ in the Big Bang?“) suggested an elegant solution to the puzzle of why our universe is expanding. The model relies on the fact that a region of space filled with a peculiar state called “false vacuum” experiences rapid expansion due to a repulsive gravitational force. But what happened before that? How did the universe get to that state?
Naïvely, one would expect that a universe which began from a singularity — a state of infinite matter density and infinite curvature — would collapse rather than expand, since the gravitational attraction of the matter would overwhelm the repulsive force. Before the 1980s, the prevailing views were that the universe was already expanding (albeit in a more leisurely manner) even before inflation, thus diluting matter to the point where the false vacuum started to dominate. However, this was not a satisfactory picture, since it required an unexplained expansion that existed before inflation.
We can understand the problem with a simple model of a closed, spherical universe, which is filled with vacuum energy (that generates repulsive gravity) and matter (that creates attractive gravity). Let’s examine this universe when it is momentarily at rest — neither expanding nor contracting. Cosmic evolution from there on will depend crucially on the size of the universe at that instant. According to Einstein’s General Relativity, if the cosmic radius is very small, attractive gravity will win and this universe will collapse to a point. If the radius is very large, repulsive gravity will have the upper hand, and inflation will ensue.
In classical physics, the universe could not pass from a collapsing state to an inflating one without the infusion of some energy into it (which the assumption of a pre-inflation expansion attempted to do). However, in 1982 my colleague Alex Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University, suddenly had a brilliant realization. In quantum mechanics — the theory of the subatomic world — even processes that are forbidden by classical physics have a certain probability of occurring. This phenomenon is known as quantum tunneling, and it is being routinely observed in radioactive decays and in solid-state physics. Because of its probabilistic nature, quantum mechanics reveals that even a universe that would have been destined to collapse in classical General Relativity could actually tunnel (albeit with a small probability) to the other side, and emerge as an inflating universe.
That is, our universe could have started out as a speck doomed to collapse to a singularity, but instead it tunneled through the energy barrier to a larger radius, initiating inflation (Figure 1). But this was not all. Vilenkin demonstrated mathematically that the probability for tunneling did not vanish even when he took the initial size of the universe to be zero. In other words, the universe could tunnel to some radius that allowed it to inflate from literally nothing!
There is something I need to explain here. “Nothing” is not the same as the vacuum. The physical vacuum, or empty space, is very rich. It has energy, and virtual particles and antiparticles continually appear and disappear in it. Einstein taught us that it can also warp and stretch. By “nothing” I mean that neither space nor time exist. Put differently, if we were to go back in time from the present, Vilenkin’s scenario demonstrated that we would reach a beginning — a point beyond which spacetime did not exist.
Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.
I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it all begin?
Figure 1. A schematic of the quantum tunneling from literally nothing, that may have given birth to our spacetime. Credit: Pam Jeffries.
What's wrong with you man? Do you lack something or what? you cannot compare singularity which does not exist-since it is dimensionless you are just making assumptions over assumptions and none of them can ever be proven, since dimensionless singularity cannot exist at all, and it does not exist.
Singularity does not exist, universe did come from something and from somewhere not from nothing-because this is simply 100% impossible, if you wantr to believe in mathematical ghosts and witches go ahead-but that is not science that is religion disguised as science.
Firstly the singularity does not need to be infinite, it simply may lead to infinite quantities, secondly the singularity starts applying where our laws and GR break down at the quantum/Planck level or around t+10-43 seconds.
I missed nothing, simply have recognised the fact that you most likely have an agenda [religious] and you are contravening rules by pushing alternative nonsense in the mainstream science threads.
Needless to say as I mentioned before, what you or any other baggage laden Tom, Dick or Harry claims, means nothing in the greater scheme of things, despite the efforts you are putting into your anti science crusade, which has not been reported yet.
You mean like this?
Do you accept that magnetic fields are real?
Firstly the singularity does not need to be infinite, it simply may lead to infinite quantities, secondly the singularity starts applying where our laws and GR break down at the quantum/Planck level or around t+10-43 seconds.
I missed nothing, I simply have recognised the fact that you most likely have an agenda [religious] and you are contravening rules by pushing alternative nonsense in the mainstream science threads.