The Big Bang Theory is a verisimilitude

[msgray]

The problem started when certain people thought that they could take the Universe as it was currently observed and extrapolate it back to its beginning. The result was that it appeared to have once been an infinitely small point that had no where to exist in time and space but did anyhow.

Actually Steven Hawkins once said it was the size of a garden pea that existed no where in time or space. That makes a little more sense since at least a garden pea had some dimensions even though, unfortunately, it still had no space in which to exist.

So taking the pea concept, warts and all, as a more practical size to start a universe with, became unstable and exploded. Now this is getting a little more believable, but not much. At least it is believable that if our current universe was compacted into the size of a garden pea, with all it matter and energy we now know of, it could be considered rather unstable to say the least.

So having reverse engineered our universe down to the size of a pea our theorists were pretty sure it couldn’t stay that way forever. How they knew this is puzzling since time was not in existence yet so forever wasn’t either. So we will just have to ignore the fact of them having painted themselves into a timeless corner. They somehow found a space for a pea where there was no space so we will have to assume they have found time enough for an explosion to occur.

So ignoring the obvious difficulties with this theory this little pea went off rather violently and created our universe i.e. the space, time energy and matter that we enjoy so much today.

When I said “went off” I meant it exploded throwing everything in it off expanding in all directions. Here is where the verisimilitude comes in. The above scenario could, with a great stretch of the imagination, seem like the truth.

To illustrate what I’m trying to say, let’s bring all this down to human size using well known principles of physics.

Let’s pull the pin from a hand grenade and throw it into empty space. (Well if the theorists can squeeze a universe into a garden pea allow me at least some empty space)

So we toss the grenade into empty space and it explodes sending everything it is made of out in all directions. The expanding gases at first accelerate the exploded bits slowly but soon the explosion reaches its maximum and the pieces accelerate to a certain speed and with nothing to impede them in empty space they soon reach a maximum velocity and continue at that velocity nearly forever.

Our makeshift exploding universe is nearly like our real universe i.e. The Big Bang universe. HOWEVER! Yes, however our universe’s bits and pieces didn’t stop accelerating. There was a time when we believed it had but we now know it hasn’t,

What in the world (or universe:) could be causing this acceleration? One obvious answer is that we are still in the maximum acceleration period of the big bang. However all evidence of this is missing and/or can’t be detected. In fact, theoretically, a lot of matter in missing as well.

This has been equally explained by our Big Bang theorists who crammed our universe into a garden pea to start with. They say the energy causing this acceleration is all around us and since it can’t be detected except in their own minds they call it Dark Energy. In those hidden recesses of their minds they have also tucked away the missing matter that can’t be explained away as to why it is missing. They call that Dark Matter.

I don’t know how old some of these theorists are but some might be old enough to be the ones who invented the aether to carry radio waves. If so we can add dark matter and dark energy to the aether they have invented we return scientific thinking back the the 19th century.

So what force has the ability to provide continued acceleration? There is only one that is known in current physics that has this power. And it is true that it is all around us and can’t be seen. We all know of it. We see its effects every moment of our lives. It is gravity.

However to consider gravity as the force that is causing the expanding universe to accelerate we have to give up the Big Bang Theory lock, stock and barrel. We have to think outside the box. The box in this case is the Universe. Our current Big Bang Theory is getting so many unrealistic patches on it with each new discovery it can’t be sustained any longer.

It may seen odd to use the current thinking in something as big as the Universe as parochial. But we are inside the Universe and to see it as all there is, is definitively parochial. It may be hard to grasp but our Universe as we call it did not explode. It is being pulled apart by gravitational forces outside of and beyond the horizon we define as the limits of our Universe.

Bits of our sub-universe are being sucked out through black holes and our far off galaxies are forever increasing their speed into the great unknown. It is about time to create new theories from the evidence we see. For want of a better term let’s say what we call our Universe is actually inside of of a Meta-Universe

I have more to say about this subject but like Fermat’s Last Theorem that was too large to fit in the margin, mine requires a larger margin too.

.

[PhysBang]

@msgray

The problem started when certain people thought that they could take the Universe as it was currently observed and extrapolate it back to its beginning. The result was that it appeared to have once been an infinitely small point that had no where to exist in time and space but did anyhow.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, if one extrapolates back, then one finds such a point. But, no on two important counts. One: the cosmological theory called the Big Bang theory tends to not deal with this point at all and be about the history of the universe as far as we can know it. Two: this point is technically outside of the spacetime of the universe and no physical path in the universe reaches this point, according to general relativity; some modification is required to include this point.

Actually Steven Hawkins once said it was the size of a garden pea that existed no where in time or space. That makes a little more sense since at least a garden pea had some dimensions even though, unfortunately, it still had no space in which to exist.

We can describe the entire universe, or the entire universe that we see, in the volume of a pea, but not particularly well and not well at all much smaller than that.

So taking the pea concept, warts and all, as a more practical size to start a universe with, became unstable and exploded.

No explosion, the expansion of the Big Bang theory is not an explosion. It is the change in the geometry of space (mostly outside of large regions that are denser than average) such that the average distance between points gets bigger. This change in geometry is just the kind of universe that we live in; it’s something that naturally happens.

So having reverse engineered our universe down to the size of a pea our theorists were pretty sure it couldn’t stay that way forever. How they knew this is puzzling since time was not in existence yet so forever wasn’t either.

It is not puzzling at all: the current universe is much bigger than a pea.

So we will just have to ignore the fact of them having painted themselves into a timeless corner. They somehow found a space for a pea where there was no space so we will have to assume they have found time enough for an explosion to occur.

No space to put space in. No explosion. You are imagining parts of the theory that are not there.

This has been equally explained by our Big Bang theorists who crammed our universe into a garden pea to start with. They say the energy causing this acceleration is all around us and since it can’t be detected except in their own minds they call it Dark Energy.

No, it is called dark energy because pop science writers like to name things the same and there was already something called “dark energy”. And dark energy can be detected in a number of ways, some of which we can manage to do and some of which we are still trying.

In those hidden recesses of their minds they have also tucked away the missing matter that can’t be explained away as to why it is missing. They call that Dark Matter.

Currently the stuff from the “hidden reaches of their minds” is the stuff that you are imagining about the physics instead of actually studying the physics.

I don’t know how old some of these theorists are but some might be old enough to be the ones who invented the aether to carry radio waves.

They would be well older than the oldest person alive.

If so we can add dark matter and dark energy to the aether they have invented we return scientific thinking back the the 19th century.

If one is prone to ignorantly proclaim things that are false, then one can surely do this.

It may seen odd to use the current thinking in something as big as the Universe as parochial. But we are inside the Universe and to see it as all there is, is definitively parochial. It may be hard to grasp but our Universe as we call it did not explode. It is being pulled apart by gravitational forces outside of and beyond the horizon we define as the limits of our Universe.

This is an interesting and somewhat viable theory. Though the details matter.

I have more to say about this subject but like Fermat’s Last Theorem that was too large to fit in the margin, mine requires a larger margin too.

It requires a) calculations, b) observations, c) addressing the actual science rather than made up science.

[James_S_Saint]

@msgray

The problem started when certain people thought that they could take the Universe as it was currently observed and extrapolate it back to its beginning. The result was that it appeared to have once been an infinitely small point that had no where to exist in time and space but did anyhow.

Actually Steven Hawkins once said it was the size of a garden pea that existed no where in time or space. That makes a little more sense since at least a garden pea had some dimensions even though, unfortunately, it still had no space in which to exist.

So taking the pea concept, warts and all, as a more practical size to start a universe with, became unstable and exploded. Now this is getting a little more believable, but not much. At least it is believable that if our current universe was compacted into the size of a garden pea, with all it matter and energy we now know of, it could be considered rather unstable to say the least.

So having reverse engineered our universe down to the size of a pea our theorists were pretty sure it couldn’t stay that way forever. How they knew this is puzzling since time was not in existence yet so forever wasn’t either. So we will just have to ignore the fact of them having painted themselves into a timeless corner. They somehow found a space for a pea where there was no space so we will have to assume they have found time enough for an explosion to occur.

So ignoring the obvious difficulties with this theory this little pea went off rather violently and created our universe i.e. the space, time energy and matter that we enjoy so much today.

When I said “went off” I meant it exploded throwing everything in it off expanding in all directions. Here is where the verisimilitude comes in. The above scenario could, with a great stretch of the imagination, seem like the truth.

To illustrate what I’m trying to say, let’s bring all this down to human size using well known principles of physics.

Let’s pull the pin from a hand grenade and throw it into empty space. (Well if the theorists can squeeze a universe into a garden pea allow me at least some empty space)

So we toss the grenade into empty space and it explodes sending everything it is made of out in all directions. The expanding gases at first accelerate the exploded bits slowly but soon the explosion reaches its maximum and the pieces accelerate to a certain speed and with nothing to impede them in empty space they soon reach a maximum velocity and continue at that velocity nearly forever.

Our makeshift exploding universe is nearly like our real universe i.e. The Big Bang universe. HOWEVER! Yes, however our universe’s bits and pieces didn’t stop accelerating. There was a time when we believed it had but we now know it hasn’t,

What in the world (or universe:) could be causing this acceleration? One obvious answer is that we are still in the maximum acceleration period of the big bang. However all evidence of this is missing and/or can’t be detected. In fact, theoretically, a lot of matter in missing as well.

This has been equally explained by our Big Bang theorists who crammed our universe into a garden pea to start with. They say the energy causing this acceleration is all around us and since it can’t be detected except in their own minds they call it Dark Energy. In those hidden recesses of their minds they have also tucked away the missing matter that can’t be explained away as to why it is missing. They call that Dark Matter.

I don’t know how old some of these theorists are but some might be old enough to be the ones who invented the aether to carry radio waves. If so we can add dark matter and dark energy to the aether they have invented we return scientific thinking back the the 19th century.

So what force has the ability to provide continued acceleration? There is only one that is known in current physics that has this power. And it is true that it is all around us and can’t be seen. We all know of it. We see its effects every moment of our lives. It is gravity.

However to consider gravity as the force that is causing the expanding universe to accelerate we have to give up the Big Bang Theory lock, stock and barrel. We have to think outside the box. The box in this case is the Universe. Our current Big Bang Theory is getting so many unrealistic patches on it with each new discovery it can’t be sustained any longer.

It may seen odd to use the current thinking in something as big as the Universe as parochial. But we are inside the Universe and to see it as all there is, is definitively parochial. It may be hard to grasp but our Universe as we call it did not explode. It is being pulled apart by gravitational forces outside of and beyond the horizon we define as the limits of our Universe.

Bits of our sub-universe are being sucked out through black holes and our far off galaxies are forever increasing their speed into the great unknown. It is about time to create new theories from the evidence we see. For want of a better term let’s say what we call our Universe is actually inside of of a Meta-Universe

I have more to say about this subject but like Fermat’s Last Theorem that was too large to fit in the margin, mine requires a larger margin too.

.

=D>

…although I have to disagree with your proposed new theory.

[msgray]

My little missive was written sort of tongue in cheek in the beginning except for the conjecture about what is causing the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. I believe it is true that gravity does have that ability without having to invent dark energy. In fact we do not know of any other energy that has this ability.

Having the conjecture that there is something outside of our perceivable universe is not unreasonable. If indeed what we call our universe is actually a smaller component of a larger system then the possibilities for further conjectures can be vastly interesting.

There is much to be speculated on from the origins of our universe to black holes. For instance on the the nature of black holes, if there is a structure of a massive a gravitational field outside our universe then black holes could represent some sort of tear in the fabric of our universe and not be a local event within our universe as we believe.

To continue of the black hole conjecture, if what I said about it could be true then the missing matter of the Big Bang theory could be explained because it has been sucked out as I mentioned above.

At this level of conjecture it is unreasonable to expect anyone to hand the world a complete set of calculations, data and proofs. This is the inductive thinking that Karl Popper says is the beginnings of new concepts. I’m not even calling this an hypothesis at this stage. although a scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. No one person can do that at this stage. But blindly. dismissing it out of hand is definitely not scientific thinking.

Unfortunately there are still people who are as dogmatic about current science knowledge as the creationists are. Scientific knowledge is meant to be challenged. While I admit challenging the Big Bang theory may seem to be asking for trouble remember it is still a theory with a vast amount of questions about it yet to be answered. We think we are pretty sure know old our universe is but that could be completely wrong if it is just a continuation of something else. Not to belabor Karl Popper too much but any theory that doesn’t have the capability to be falsified is no theory at all. And I say the Big Bang theory is not too big to be immune from this.

I mentioned in my last missive about parochial thinking. To believe that our universe is all that exists is certainly parochial from a scientific perspective simply because we don’t know of anything else. And as long as we keep gazing at our navel (in this case our navel is our known universe) then new ideas haven’t got a chance.

[PhysBang]

@msgray

At this level of conjecture it is unreasonable to expect anyone to hand the world a complete set of calculations, data and proofs. This is the inductive thinking that Karl Popper says is the beginnings of new concepts. I’m not even calling this an hypothesis at this stage. although a scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. No one person can do that at this stage. But blindly. dismissing it out of hand is definitely not scientific thinking.

Don’t kid yourself: what you are doing is not science and not remotely close. It’s not even as close as Mr. Saint gets, and he’s pretty far away from science. What you have done is take a less-than-cartoon picture of physics and produced conjectures about that. Actual scientists have done work to consider the serious analogue to what you have written; some of it cannot work, and the idea that there is some kind of massive shell outside of our visible universe has been worked out with a lot of calculations and reference to observations.

Unfortunately there are still people who are as dogmatic about current science knowledge as the creationists are.

Demanding that people who are purportedly doing science don’t just pull facts out of their ass is not dogmatism. I’m sure you want the ego boost of thinking that you are advancing science, but you are going to actually have to work at something real for that. You haven’t even the wherewithal to do a google search to see if something like your idea has already been proposed.

[msgray]

Dear PhysBang,

I have taken your advice and done a bit of research. I have researched your 400 odd posts and come to the conclusion that there isn’t much under the sun you are not an expert on. I believe that I can’t compete with your seemingly infinite knowledge on all things except good manners. Nor do I intend to compete with your abrasive and insulting behavior. So it’s best if we do not communicate here. I won’t respond to any of your posts if you do not respond to mine. I hope you take this as a constructive suggestion and preventive conflict resolution.

Thanking you in advance,
msgray

[PhysBang]

@msgray

Dear PhysBang,

I have taken your advice and done a bit of research. I have researched your 400 odd posts…

Really? So rather than research the facts about which you are speaking, you’re going to research me. Welcome to the land of ad hominem.

[James_S_Saint]

MsGray?
Do you believe that for something to be said to exist, it must have affect upon something?

[PhysBang]

Sigh.

@dictionary.com

affect

af·fect
1 [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt]
verb (used with object)
1.
to act on; produce an effect or change in: Cold weather affected the crops.
2.
to impress the mind or move the feelings of: The music affected him deeply.
3.
(of pain, disease, etc.) to attack or lay hold of.
noun
4.
Psychology. feeling or emotion.
5.
Psychiatry. an expressed or observed emotional response: Restricted, flat, or blunted affect may be a symptom of mental illness, especially schizophrenia.
6.
Obsolete, affection; passion; sensation; inclination; inward disposition or feeling.

[James_S_Saint]

@PhysBang

Sigh.

@dictionary.com

affect

af·fect
1 [v. uh-fekt; n. af-ekt]
verb (used with object)
1.
[size=150]to act on; produce an effect or change in[/size]: Cold weather affected the crops.

You had a point to that?
…presuming that msgray didn’t know something?