Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Zero Point Energy examples around Ball Lightning, Comets, Spritesup to Quasars
Next: Connect the 9-11 Dots to Israel
From: jacob navia on 7 Apr 2010 06:46 Yousuf Khan a �crit : > Not sure what to make of this article. Some of what they say makes > sense, such as the fully formed galaxies in the early universe, and > their metal-richness. Yet, there is a lack of details in their > statements and a penchant towards flowery language like crackpots > usually have. > > Yousuf Khan > > *** > Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory - India - The Times of India > "He also noted that CERN scientists "are trying to jigsaw a theory which > fits the conditions of the Big Bang model". > > "The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is > evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed > distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at > the time," he added. > > In his paper "Big Bang? A Critical Review", Lal says: "There is a > growing body of evidence which demonstrates the Universe could not have > begun with a Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago. " > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indian-US-scientists-question-Big-Bang-theory/articleshow/5761894.cms > The article is a summary of the evidence against Big Bang theory. Well written and clear, it is a useful for understanding why BB theory is completely wrong.
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Apr 2010 07:52 dlzc wrote: > On Apr 6, 5:54 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> dlzc wrote: >>> All the better for my pet theory... >> Which is what? > > We are inside a black hole. The "glow of the CMBR" is what the > distorted light from our container Universe looks like. Entire > galaxies could have been swallowed, whatever metalicity desired if > multiple BHs in the container Universe open up into this one, small > ones to shred atoms into subatomic particles. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html > ... when you get to the end, and you infer (as I did) that he is > describing an interior Universe *exactly* like ours, then realize that > there is a "black curtain" in our own past... Interestingly, another guy, Nikodem Poplawski, is proposing the same thing in a story appearing today. Yousuf Khan *** Our universe could be within a wormhole inside another universe, says physicist "In a paper written by an Indiana University theoretical physicist, Nikodem Poplawski, which appears in Physics Letters B, it is suggested that the universe was born from a wormhole that lies inside a larger universe. Poplawski suggests that our universe could have been born inside a wormhole, or an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. This is a theorized phenomenon that provides solutions in general relativity when it combines models of black holes and white holes. The motion of a particle falling into a black hole can only be revealed through experimentation or observation. But Poplawski also states the known fact that the inside of a black hole cannot be observed unless the observer is inside. "This condition would be satisfied if our universe were the interior of a black hole existing in a bigger universe," The physicist said." http://www.examiner.com/x-30007-Space-News-Examiner~y2010m4d6-Our-universe-could-be-within-a-warmhole-inside-another-universe-says-physicist
From: dlzc on 7 Apr 2010 10:35 Dear Yousuf Khan: On Apr 7, 4:52 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > dlzc wrote: > > On Apr 6, 5:54 am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > >>dlzc wrote: > >>> All the better for my pet theory... > >> Which is what? > > > We are inside a black hole. The "glow of the CMBR" > > is what the distorted light from our container Universe > > looks like. Entire galaxies could have been swallowed, > > whatever metalicity desired if multiple BHs in the > > container Universe open up into this one, small ones > > to shred atoms into subatomic particles. > > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html > > ... when you get to the end, and you infer (as I did) that > > he is describing an interior Universe *exactly* like ours, > > then realize that there is a "black curtain" in our own > > past... > > Interestingly, another guy, Nikodem Poplawski, is > proposing the same thing in a story appearing today. > > *** > Our universe could be within a wormhole inside > another universe, says physicist > "In a paper written by an Indiana University theoretical > physicist, Nikodem Poplawski, which appears in > Physics Letters B, it is suggested that the universe > was born from a wormhole that lies inside a larger > universe. > > Poplawski suggests that our universe could have > been born inside a wormhole, or an Einstein-Rosen > Bridge. This is a theorized phenomenon that > provides solutions in general relativity when it > combines models of black holes and white holes. > > The motion of a particle falling into a black hole > can only be revealed through experimentation or > observation. But Poplawski also states the known > fact that the inside of a black hole cannot be > observed unless the observer is inside. > > "This condition would be satisfied if our universe > were the interior of a black hole existing in a bigger > universe," The physicist said. <snip link now broken by Google.groups> Which again is still just an hypothesis, and only better researched than mine. The problem with single-interface connections (just one black hole), is that it must have been small enough to shred atoms over most of its "external life", to get the amount of hydrogen we see. Which forbids ingesting galaxies essentially intact, and makes the CMBR glow what we think it is... recombination of protons with electrons into hydrogen and subsequent ionization. Of course, Hawking radiation "exports" then reingests almost everything, many times (since not all particles escape until the BH has lost a lot of mass, and does it as small particles. So that alone might give us the hydrogen... I don't see that a "larger" Universe is required for a container, nor do I see it as a necessity for this model. Exterior size maps to our time, and the mathemagics that allows this "infinite hall of mirrors" and says that Universe is like ours, says that it will also suffer expansion and cooling. So at some point it will be large, but our Universe might very well have been embedded in the container Universe when it was "grapefruit sized", or certainly by the time it had no more volume than the Milky Way now has. David A. Smith
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Apr 2010 17:57 dlzc wrote: > Which again is still just an hypothesis, and only better researched > than mine. > > The problem with single-interface connections (just one black hole), > is that it must have been small enough to shred atoms over most of its > "external life", to get the amount of hydrogen we see. Which forbids > ingesting galaxies essentially intact, and makes the CMBR glow what we > think it is... recombination of protons with electrons into hydrogen > and subsequent ionization. That's assuming that a universe needs to be "big". All of those "little" blackholes we see in our own universe may be the homes of some very fine universes for their own inhabitants. And the inhabitants of those universes must think that their own universe is absolutely humongous, and can't imagine how there could be a bigger one outside it. They probably have their own stars and galaxies within. > Of course, Hawking radiation "exports" then reingests almost > everything, many times (since not all particles escape until the BH > has lost a lot of mass, and does it as small particles. So that alone > might give us the hydrogen... > > I don't see that a "larger" Universe is required for a container, nor > do I see it as a necessity for this model. Exterior size maps to our > time, and the mathemagics that allows this "infinite hall of mirrors" > and says that Universe is like ours, says that it will also suffer > expansion and cooling. So at some point it will be large, but our > Universe might very well have been embedded in the container Universe > when it was "grapefruit sized", or certainly by the time it had no > more volume than the Milky Way now has. > > David A. Smith The speed of light may be slower inside the blackhole micro-universes, therefore it would take particles longer to travel from one point of the universe to another. Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 7 Apr 2010 17:59
Brad Guth wrote: > I'll buy that it's way older than 13.75e9 years, if not more than 10 > fold older. > > ~ BG If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current incarnation. Yousuf Khan |