Cosmology is all about origins according to me and my dictionary but never mind. When I have used the word cosmology here I specifically meant it to include the issue of our origins, rightly or wrongly. If you take that into account what I have said might seem less obviously wrong.
What is "space" consisted of?
- Thread starter thinker
- Start date
quote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern cosmology only deals with the large scale evolution of the cosmos. That evolution can be traced back as far as say, a split second after the big bang, but that's about it. In that case, it's still going to be the origin of most of us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what makes the big bang theory incomplete. We will never know what led to the big bang and what were the laws of physics before it. It is better to consider the universe as one self-reproducing interaction, which contracts and expands in a 3D-spiral way thus remaining always finite while creating the similar multiscale sources of reality. Then the laws of physics will remain the same forever. They will be one set of scale invariant rules applicable to the eternal evolving in contraction and expansion cycles universe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern cosmology only deals with the large scale evolution of the cosmos. That evolution can be traced back as far as say, a split second after the big bang, but that's about it. In that case, it's still going to be the origin of most of us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what makes the big bang theory incomplete. We will never know what led to the big bang and what were the laws of physics before it. It is better to consider the universe as one self-reproducing interaction, which contracts and expands in a 3D-spiral way thus remaining always finite while creating the similar multiscale sources of reality. Then the laws of physics will remain the same forever. They will be one set of scale invariant rules applicable to the eternal evolving in contraction and expansion cycles universe.
An incomplete theory is better than a theory that offers nothing at all. Does Savov's hypothesis explain the available evidence as well as the BBT? Does it make any testible predictions at all? I didn't think so.
Look, there is a very specific forum for discussing alternative theories on this board. It's better to post there than hijack every single thread.
Look, there is a very specific forum for discussing alternative theories on this board. It's better to post there than hijack every single thread.
grimreaper
Registered Senior Member
Bravo Red Devil
they wont listen but i give an a for effort
with respect
Originally posted by Red Devil
A so called "crackpot" has his (or her) place in our lives. How many crackpots in the past have later to be come realised as genius incarnate? Galileo? Da Vinci? Copernicus, Baird? Edison? The list goes on - todays bright idea from a "crackpot" opens up a whole new world tomorrow!!
they wont listen but i give an a for effort
with respect
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why is the universe expanding? And yes, it is! Expanding from what? A central point of course.....
__________________________________________________
The universe expands in the big bang sense because of misinterpretation of the major part of the cosmic redshift. Everything expands coming from its source including the aging light on its long way from the distant galaxies, thus showing greater wavelength observed as cosmic redshift.
You have to believe that that the universe came in a mystery from structureless particles born in the big bang singularity a point of infinite mass density. Or to trust your ability for self-consistent thinking that shows how one 3D-spiral source of interaction creates similar smaller one's from its structure. They interact and build every structure from walls of galaxies to forms of life.
Savov's "firework universe" also expands as new sources of interaction are ejected from the cores of the initial ones. But this universe expands in 3D because 3D is the smallest number of dimensions in which the all-building interaction can remain finite (singularity frees) in everything else excluding way.
The surprising result is that the universe like a huge atomic nucleus that casts smaller ones, which do the same and so on the sizes of the all-building sources of interaction decreases to create what we see as galactic nuclei, stars, planets, atoms, light and all-sources of interaction. We live on a surface of a huge nucleus seen as the planet Earth from which center came the atoms building us. We see similar cosmic nuclei as stars and planetary like moons. The interaction unfolds to smaller scales - expands and much latter re-collapses toward a new expansion that is what the self-consistent thinking claims, while accounting for the puzzling normal galaxies at the outskirts of the observable universe and many big questions. The discovery of these most normal galaxies suggests that they are older than the big bang. This finding will be for the big bang theory what cosmic microwave background was for the steady state theory – ticket to the history of science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why is the universe expanding? And yes, it is! Expanding from what? A central point of course.....
__________________________________________________
The universe expands in the big bang sense because of misinterpretation of the major part of the cosmic redshift. Everything expands coming from its source including the aging light on its long way from the distant galaxies, thus showing greater wavelength observed as cosmic redshift.
You have to believe that that the universe came in a mystery from structureless particles born in the big bang singularity a point of infinite mass density. Or to trust your ability for self-consistent thinking that shows how one 3D-spiral source of interaction creates similar smaller one's from its structure. They interact and build every structure from walls of galaxies to forms of life.
Savov's "firework universe" also expands as new sources of interaction are ejected from the cores of the initial ones. But this universe expands in 3D because 3D is the smallest number of dimensions in which the all-building interaction can remain finite (singularity frees) in everything else excluding way.
The surprising result is that the universe like a huge atomic nucleus that casts smaller ones, which do the same and so on the sizes of the all-building sources of interaction decreases to create what we see as galactic nuclei, stars, planets, atoms, light and all-sources of interaction. We live on a surface of a huge nucleus seen as the planet Earth from which center came the atoms building us. We see similar cosmic nuclei as stars and planetary like moons. The interaction unfolds to smaller scales - expands and much latter re-collapses toward a new expansion that is what the self-consistent thinking claims, while accounting for the puzzling normal galaxies at the outskirts of the observable universe and many big questions. The discovery of these most normal galaxies suggests that they are older than the big bang. This finding will be for the big bang theory what cosmic microwave background was for the steady state theory – ticket to the history of science.
Last edited:
These people WERE considered crackpots, by other so called academics. Most were fearful of what the church might say! Remember, Tycho Brahms was burnt alive, by a catholic church, for daring to say something scientific which did not agree with the church's view. Galileo was only "pardoned" by the present pope - until then, the church officially believed that he was wrong, after all those years!
The universe does not contain any galaxies or matter of any sort that is "older" than the Big Bang - I don't know where that information comes from but it is in error.
Just because it is not understood by people outside the sphere of astronomy and physics does not mean it is incorrectly reported or believed by these eminent, clever, reasoning people.
The universe does not contain any galaxies or matter of any sort that is "older" than the Big Bang - I don't know where that information comes from but it is in error.
Just because it is not understood by people outside the sphere of astronomy and physics does not mean it is incorrectly reported or believed by these eminent, clever, reasoning people.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The discovery of these most normal galaxies suggests that they are older than the big bang."
Care to expand on that. It's news to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The age of the big bang universe is a recurrent problem (1). Light from the most distant galaxies takes a long time to reach the Earth. This time is about 90% of the age of the big bang universe. Therefore the found normal galaxies at the outskirts of the observable universe will have no enough time to form. This confusing observation is naturally explained by Eugene Savov’s theory of interaction, in whose “firework universe” all space bodies are ejected from the 3D-spiral structure of their sources and later cool off to create what we now see as galaxies, stars, planets and cosmic microwave background radiation (2). The structure of the found sources of all-building interaction accounts also for the dark matter problem (2).
1. Maddox, J., (1995) Big bang not yet dead but in decline, Nature, Vol.377, page 99.
2. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The discovery of these most normal galaxies suggests that they are older than the big bang."
Care to expand on that. It's news to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The age of the big bang universe is a recurrent problem (1). Light from the most distant galaxies takes a long time to reach the Earth. This time is about 90% of the age of the big bang universe. Therefore the found normal galaxies at the outskirts of the observable universe will have no enough time to form. This confusing observation is naturally explained by Eugene Savov’s theory of interaction, in whose “firework universe” all space bodies are ejected from the 3D-spiral structure of their sources and later cool off to create what we now see as galaxies, stars, planets and cosmic microwave background radiation (2). The structure of the found sources of all-building interaction accounts also for the dark matter problem (2).
1. Maddox, J., (1995) Big bang not yet dead but in decline, Nature, Vol.377, page 99.
2. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction the Simplest Explanation of Everything, Geones Books, 2002.
Peter: forgive me if I have read your post wrong but the further away a galaxy is surely it has had MORE time to form. The infant galaxies are those that are nearer to the source of the "big bang" and have had LESS time to form. In terms of interstellar time we are talking a difference of eons anyway - so time is really only a word to describe the difference between the two.
What I did say somewhere was that scientists have identified the residue left over from the big bang and have made calculations based on that as well as time/distances. This residue does exist and, without spending the next few hours researching, exists in real time.
Science has been known to be either wrong or have misplaced equations in the past but generally they are always on the right track. Most of scientific discoveries made are generally never publicised until different people all do the same calculations etc and come up with almost or exactly the same answer. I tend to go along with what the scientists/astronomers say about the universe - they are a damn sight cleverer than me for a start - so I trust their judgement.
What I did say somewhere was that scientists have identified the residue left over from the big bang and have made calculations based on that as well as time/distances. This residue does exist and, without spending the next few hours researching, exists in real time.
Science has been known to be either wrong or have misplaced equations in the past but generally they are always on the right track. Most of scientific discoveries made are generally never publicised until different people all do the same calculations etc and come up with almost or exactly the same answer. I tend to go along with what the scientists/astronomers say about the universe - they are a damn sight cleverer than me for a start - so I trust their judgement.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
you make it sound as if you expect only fully-formed galaxies to give off light.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
given that the big bang is postulated to have occured in millionths of a second, the amount of time available to a galaxy on the edge of the known universe would only be factions of a fractions of a second longer than any other galaxy. I doubt it would be enough time to have created much of a difference in time frames of current galaxy formation.
Also, given that we are sort of in the middle of things, saying that an object that is "farther away" is also father away from the center of the big bang is not fully accurate.
I'm just being picky