Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
The Big Bang Theory - Debunked?
message 301:
by
Harry
(new)
Jun 11, 2015 12:13PM
Anyone else ever noticed that the internet loading circle is the orobouros (the snake eating its own tail)?
reply
|
flag
Harry wrote: "Anyone else ever noticed that the internet loading circle is the orobouros (the snake eating its own tail)?"More hidden symbolism?
sayori wrote: "science is very much based on philosophy only!"Real science should include philosophy and shouldn't exclude other paradoxical ideas or spiritual theories etc
So let me know when we get to the real science bit ;)
Dunno - I know the Mayans had zero.Also wondered if the Ancients had negative numbers? -1, -2, etc
Does anyone know where and when the infinity symbol (the horizontal 8) was first used.
Here's a good history of that infinity symbol:https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Read...
It states:
"The symbol for infinity that one sees most often is the lazy eight curve, technically called the lemniscate. This symbol was first used in a seventeenth century treatise on conic sections.1 It caught on quickly and was soon used to symbolize infinity or eternity in a variety of contexts. For instance, in the 1700s the infinity symbol began appearing on the Tarot card known as the Juggler or the Magus. It is an interesting coincidence that the Qabbalistic symbol associated with this particular Tarot card is the Hebrew letter À (pronounced alef), for Georg Cantor, the founder of the modern mathematical theory of the infinite, used the symbol À0 (pronounced alef-null) to stand for the first infinite number."
Big Bang implies a finite universe.Finite space and finite time.
Infinity is a real mind bender!!
So if negative numbers were discovered in an ancient Civilization, what would this mean? That they were extremely advanced ?
Oh okWell what about things like fractions, prime numbers, integers etc?
What if very old Civilizations had these ?
What about the Pi number then?
Okay thank you for the mathematics lesson.Now back to the BBT - you can't get something from nothing :)
Something always had to exist, right?
Maybe infinity explains this
There are of course lots of different types of numbers.The easiest to understand are integers 1,2,3, etc. then of course 0 and negative integers -1, -2, -3 etc.
Next comes rational numbers x/y where x and y are integers.
Irrational numbers are those that can't be represented as rational. Pi is irrational, but it is more than that.
Irrational numbers could be solutions of equations with rational coefficients e.g.,
x^2 = 2
is of course a quadratic equation with all its coefficients integers but its solution is plus or minus root 2, which is irrational.
Pi is a transcendental number. It is irrational and not the solution of any equation with rational coefficients. Another such number is e, the base for natural logs = 2.718....
It is also useful to have imaginary numbers, while negative numbers do not have a conventional square root, for many purposes it is useful to think of them having one. This would be an imaginary number based on i = sqrt(-1)
There is a remarkable relationship connecting some of these numbers, the Euler equation:
e^(pi.i) + 1 = 0
Infinity itself is not so simple either. There are two different types of infinity. Numbers of things are "countably infinite" or "uncountably infinite".
I kid you not!
For example, the integers are countably infinite. In other words, if you had an infinite amount of time, you could count them "all"! To prove this you need to set a group of objects into "one to one correspondence" with the integers. The rational are also "countably infinite". This is a bit unintuitive, but in principle you can put the rationals into one to one correspondence with the integers. These are the tricks of pure mathematicians.
Now the interesting point! The irrationals pi and so on cannot be put into one to one correspondence with the integers. This means that they are "uncountably infinite". You could never count them, even if you had an infinite amount of time! So in a sense there are "more" irrationals than rationals.
Infinity probably exists only in mathematics, not in the real world. Singularities (division by zero) occurs sometimes in physics equations, but it is usually considered a weakness in our understanding. for example the universe is not infinite. Instead, if you travel for long enough in one direction, the curvature of space keeps you within the universe. Newton's laws would have permitted an infinite universe and Newton himself would probably have been troubled by this. Now we have general relativity to set the record straight.
The "big bang" is supposedly a singularity which is troubling. However, the likelihood is that the universe was never of strictly zero size. The merging of quantum mechanics with general relativity will perhaps eventually sort out this anomaly. Then physicists will be closer to understanding the will of God.
Sayori,It is not easy to visualise the universe, nor do we really know what I suppose it looks like. If we were 2-D beings then we could imagine that the universe was the SURFACE of a 3-D sphere: it never ends.
As 3-D objects, the universe is the volume within a 4-D space, but of course we don't have the experience to understand that directly.
sayori wrote: "Fay, the galaxy might have collided with another galaxy."Surrrre...
Some of you might be interested in a conversation between Dara O'Brien (science programme host) and Stephen Hawking:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tjndb
I was certainly interested to here Hawking cut through the crap:
1. Time travel to the past is not possible.
2. Travel by humans to other star systems is not possible.
3. God doesn't exist.
All in 4 min! I suppose if you have his health problems you have to use words sparingly!
John wrote: "Some of you might be interested in a conversation between Dara O'Brien (science programme host) and Stephen Hawking:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tjndb
I was certainly interested to here Ha..."
You reminded me I wanted to watch this John. Thanks for the link.
John wrote: "I was certainly interested to here Hawking cut through the crap:1. Time travel to the past is not possible.
2. Travel by humans to other star systems is not possible.
3. God doesn't exist.
..."
It's interesting to observe the diversity in scientific opinions. For example, Einstein and Tesla (greater minds than Hawking in my humble opinion) both believed in the existence of God and that time travel is definitely possible.
A luta continua (the struggle continues)
And the mystery continues also...
Yeah, not to mention most quantum physicists believe the types of things you describe, Sayori.
sayori wrote: "okay I heard a pretty interesting fact about infinity.... that it depends on our counting capability...... a crow cannot count beyond 3, and so to it 4 is infinity! so maybe to us universe may seem..."Counting crows (?) is a brilliant analogy Sayori!
James,I'm not sure if Einstein really believed in time travel to the PAST. Don't forget that time travel to the future is theoretically possible because of Einstein's discovery of the "relativity of simultaneity". Clocks held by different observers run at different rates according to their relative velocity. This has been confirmed by exquisitely accurate measurements with identical clocks. For example, an astronaut living on the space station for a year might be a few hundred milliseconds younger than his twin living on Earth. If you really want to travel into the future, you get into a spaceship, travel in one direction at 99% of the speed of light for a year; turn around and come back. Excluding the deceleration phase, about 14 years would have elapsed on Earth, even though you have been away for only 2. So, you have travelled 12 years into the future!
Don't get too excited, though, the fastest known human made object is the voyager spacecraft, which is currently moving out of the solar system at 17 km/s compared with 300,000 km/s for the speed of light!
Regarding Einstein and God, I'm sure he was misquoted or misunderstood. I believe the problem stems from the often quoted remark "God does not play dice". This refers to Einstein's refusal to accept quantum mechanics as accurate. Alas he seems to have been wrong on that point. Our very existence (the big bang) appears to be a consequence of quantum mechanics. Of course that is the benefit of another century of scientific discovery beyond Einstein.
Back to the God question, in the above quote Einstein was using God as a metaphor for nature. It did not imply that he believed in a supernatural being. Over decades people have been so literal in understanding the comments of great men. If you know of documentary evidence that Einstein believed in a supernatural being that takes care of us or whatever believers really believe then let me know. Death bed conversions don't count, if that's the best you can find.
In the 4 min. discussion Stephen Hawking was initially almost as vague as Einstein, but later clarified to let it be known that "people who believe in God are like adults who are afraid of the dark". This is not the first time that Hawking has commented about belief systems, so I believe his view is clear.
I don't know what Tesla's beliefs were. As far as I'm concerned he was a very good engineer, not a scientist.
I know we had a previous thread on him, but in the end nobody in that thread actually could say categorically what he had done as it was all apparently shrouded in secrecy. That cuts no ice with me. As I sarcastically pointed out as a scientist I could claim to have invented or discovered a whole range of phenomena unknown to civil science, but if that material were classified nobody would know about it. The military are not as clever as they pretend to be.
John wrote: "James,I'm not sure if Einstein really believed in time travel to the PAST. Don't forget that time travel to the future is theoretically possible because of Einstein's discovery of the "relativity..."
John,
Obviously when I gave examples of Tesla and Einstein both believing in God and time travel, they were merely that - examples. As you surely must be aware, there are almost an unlimited number of other leading scientists I could have selected as examples of those who believe in the same theories. Note also I never specified the Christian God or a religious God, just a form of God.
You are correct that Einstein made various ambiguous statements concerning God over the years. This has been much debated in the decades since his death with various books and articles devoted entirely to the subject of Einstein’s spiritual beliefs. But the general consensus (from biographers, scientists and Einstein’s family members) is that he did believe in a form of God. Most say he believed in something like a non-anthropomorphic mathematical entity, devoid of any mental abilities or identity – and certainly Einstein’s statements seem to match that idea. Nowhere has the atheist community ever claimed Einstein (they would love to, of course). I just had a quick look at Wikipedia and it states he was not an atheist and the Wiki entry on Einstein also has various quotes of Einstein expressing his dislike for atheists and how he never wanted to be termed as such.
Throughout history there have been many great scientists who believed in a form of God including I believe (from memory) Isaac Newton and Faraday and loads of others. And these days there are course numerous scientists who believe in God (again, not necessarily a religious version of God)… Especially quantum physicists of course, where the majority do not seem to be atheists…And many modern scientists have beliefs that are probably unclassifiable e.g. Michi Kaku believes in the eternal multiverse theory which to me is starting to sound remarkably similar to the multiple dimensions mentioned in the ancient vedic spiritual texts of India...
Same arguments and examples could be put forward regarding the amount of scientists who have opposing beliefs to Hawking on time travel – including those who believe time travel to the past is possible.
The point in my reply by the way, is not to say I remotely know any ultimate truths on any of these subjects. For all I know Hawking could be right about everything. Likewise, you yourself could be right about everything. I have zero idea and don’t pretend anything but uncertainty – so don’t misinterpret my reply here as implying I’m ignoring your experience as a scientist.
However, I’m taking the time to reply here as I believe you’re possibly falling into the journalistic trap of presenting one scientist’s opinion – in this case Hawking’s – and pretending that is “the unified voice of science”. Surely a more scientific and less biased approach would be to say something like “here are Hawking’s viewpoints which I agree with, but to be fair it must be noted there are many leading scientists who believe in opposing theories such as a form of God or time travel to the past.”
Regarding Nikola Tesla...you merely call him an “engineer”… In reality, he was an inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer AND physicist. He's a polarizing and controversial figure, for sure, but the point is untold leading scientists have expressed their utmost respect for the man over the years. Including, curiously enough, Einstein himself who was said to be in awe of Tesla's wide array of scientific inventions and theories. In a letter to his old friend and trusted advisor for his 75th birthday in 1931, Einstein wrote the following to Tesla: “As an eminent pioneer in the realm of high frequency currents... I congratulate you on the great successes of your life's work.”
However, the big problem with Tesla is many of his most important and revolutionary scientific inventions remain classified to this very day. If you don’t believe me, then I suggest you have a read of this National Geographic article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...
This article correctly states the following: “When Tesla died in 1943, during World War II, the Office of Alien Property took his belongings, Alcorn said. Most of his things were later released to his family, and many ended up in the Tesla Museum in Belgrade, which opened in the 1950s. But some of Tesla's papers are still classified by the U.S. government.”
The National Geographic article continues: "I know people have requested things through the Freedom of Information Act, and they are released heavily redacted," said Alcorn. As a result of the years of secrecy, many people have speculated about what fantastic inventions might have been suppressed, perhaps to keep them out of enemy hands or, more darkly, to perpetuate the status quo. Perhaps supporting the former theory, Tesla had spoken publically about working on a "death beam." Those who fear the latter theory often point to his work on harvesting the energy in the forces of nature as something that would upset powerful oil companies.”
Well I much admire Hawkings and Dawkins; however it just all depends on your experience. We are all dependant on our perceptions. A year or so back , a fourth cone was discovered in the human eye! Consciousness is still a mysterious phenomenon. Some psychics are able to "read" a client's story , (Past , present and future) in the Now. Yep , sounds whacky. A Newtonian universe is a much safer place inhabit. But life and time are not always linear. Clairvoyance is dismissed with a snigger in academic circles, but privately , in the tea room , it can be a very different matter! Well if it's true , it's true. If B...S... it's B...S.... BUT let's start with the data. Participate in a Systemic Family Constellation session, and leave your prejudices behind. The contemporary dogma is that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon from the brain. Or is it the organ whereby we become aware of our consciousness? Arthur Koestler in the Roots of Coincidence , Ian Stevenson MD in Children Who Remember Previous Lives, are worthy of consideration, as is Jessica Utts. Replication and Meta-analysis in Parapsychology. A question of reincarnation. Worth a look.Our world views are shaped by past experience , ( limited) and expectations, ( conditioned , socially acceptable and 'reasonable').
In social studies as a kid in Oz , we were taught about the extra-ordinary abilities of Aboriginal trackers... even after heavy rains..could follow a trail. Three cones? Four cones (visual) or Spiritual vision?
Of course, all of the above can be said to be crap. Non-consensual perception is labelled as psychotic by the dominant majority. Consciousness purely a physicalist phenomenon, mediated by chemical in the brain; and thus managed biochemically. The Bio-Psycho-Social model is in practice a Bio-Bio-Bio model. Medicine ignores the heart (emotions) and denies the spirit (Consciousness); to it's own benefit. Cha-Ching!
James,Of course Hawking and Einstein's views are the views of just two men. I certainly did not make the "journalistic trap" of assuming that just because Hawking, e.g., said something then it must be true. Rather, you are making the reader or non-scientist assumption that science is categorical. It isn't of course. Science is a philosophy which forms a consensus amongst the cognoscenti. That consensus can change as more data come in.
Regarding the issue of time travel, if you want to travel back in time, tell me how to do it without breaking the laws of physics. I've already explained how to travel forwards in time, albeit with a technology we don't possess, but some species in the universe might.
It is no good other scientists or individuals thinking it is possible unless they can say how travel to the past is done. Without this information these scientists are no better than the fiction writers themselves.
John,My sense of this is that we exist as duality; Matter and Energy. Body Mind and Spirit if you like. Words are always difficult.
Is time Linear... well certainly that is my experience of ageing and observing our changing world from week to week, year to year. Thank you Isaac Newton for a rational material universe!
But other dimensions exist. Time may be like a swimming pool. Walk along the edge of a 50m olympic pool and observe your child swimming, but as she reaches the other end of the pool, has she swum through 50m of water? Yes/No?
Clairvoyance / Psychic and time travel: What the hell. Some years back during quite a stressful period of my life , I had a mechanical problem in my Subaru. I let out an expletive "how much is this bastard going to cost me?" My (now wife) Flavia replies " $450, not more than $800.00 and there's two parts."
Two days later, the bill comes in . "that'll be $450 for the radiator, but there's another bit." ie a piece of hose, $300.00 for a new hose and a 2yr warrantee, or $150, and no warrantee.
Delusion?? NO...( Some think I was) ; Flavia a charlatan..NO ( try living with a psychic)
Reproducible ?? Difficult. Unique ??NO , not once you start dabbling in this stuff. ( Freud warned Jung not to dabble)
But there you have it. My patients are more open about this sort of stuff with me. I would previously labelled have them as delusional.
Now , I just accept that people have their experiences. Often people with so called psychosis , or Borderline personality disorders, have dissociative experiences. I think some forms of schizophrenia are in fact a major dissociation. It's just too painful for some people to remain in their bodies.
If we let go of the premise that consciousness is purely an emergent phenomenon( of the brain) ; but rather a bio-energetic embodiment, a lot of psychosis starts to make sense. ie the spirit (consciousness- SELF-energy) becoming comfortably embodied in an emotionally abled biological system.
The Being becomes fully Human. ie has a competent emotional system. Trauma {Biological, emotional, toxic , abuse} violates this delicate synergy. Body needs spirit ( Spirit in body = Emotion); and Consciousness needs body to become self aware, in a physical sense.
Of course this thesis would be offensive to some in the Medical establishment, and be subject to ridicule and derision. Would derail the Gene-Biochemistry -phenotypic expression needing an anti-psychotic, theory. ( and sometimes they are necessary..BUT)
Energy doesn't understand time. It just is. Past present future is all now. Certainly this is my experience treating patients with Hypnosis.
Change the energy (Consciousness) and you change the past. Memory is a very fickle thing. Clone yourself a hundred times and you may have a hundred different narrative for the so called identical experience.
I probably wandered off topic a little . My interest is in clinical application. So many people get trapped in their Narrative, which becomes Who they think they are. Just a conditioned thought stream.
Change the narrative , ( and the underlying conditioned physiological responses ) and you change your world. It's all perception.
We all need to feel loved and be able to love , and belong. Without love , there's no Human Being. No "I -thou" just "I- it" or worse, just an "it-it".
Radin at the Noetic Institute has done some interesting research. On TED talks I think.
Is this scientific?? Well it all depends on how you see it. Contemporary scientific is contingent on a notion of linear time and reproducibility. But you've got to start with Data , and if it doesn't fit... well maybe the theory needs some rethinking.
Enough of my raving.
Kevin
John, just had a peek at the Stephen Hawking interview. Good stuff. He certainly calls a spade a spade! He is definite that macroscopic (Matter) cannot time travel. Is there an unspoken inference that energies travel.And consciousness. Emergent or Embodied energy .
I've been looking after an old guy who's dying. Dementia for many years...and totally out of it. YET ... in his wife's presence... my clinical sense that he is aware. A sl reaching out.
Whether a single celled organism , or a complex , competent Human Being, or a paraplegic whose sense perception is augmented by an artificial exoskeleton, facilitating knitting of shredded neuronal networks;
Consciousness is an interpretation of energy , dense or ephemeral.
And wow. Just look at Stephen Hawking.. the power of his intellect is astounding..augmented by computerisation...but without his essence.
Now thats Energy...That's consciousness.. he defies physical death for years! When first diagnosed .. who would have believed...the power of the human spirit!!
Kevin. ( with great respect..His is an opinion ..shaped by his experience and reflective intellect...and a human opinion... perhaps fallible like the rest of us.)
I don't see much point in mixing the concrete physics with the ephemeral spirit world. The latter is subjective and there is no evidence of its truth. The physics may be imaginary, but has the benefit of being predictive and hence useful. So, Kevin, I don't understand a word of what you are talking about: "Consciousness is an interpretation of energy , dense or ephemeral." ??
"Past present future is all now." ?? Etc.
Be careful with this pseudo-scientific language. there is too much of it about and it is all meaningless.
One of the reasons why I find religion unsatisfying is that, ultimately, you can't use it to predict anything. Praying to god --- doesn't achieve anything measurable; disasters happen in the world whether it is fair or not etc. etc.
Back to Hawking, it was impressive to see the interview. The brain is of course incredibly complex and beyond our current understanding. But it is only a machine, a chemical one certainly, but a machine subject to the laws of physics.
John wrote: "Be careful with this pseudo-scientific language. there is too much of it about and it is all meaningless...."John,
Less than a century ago quantum physics was deemed to be pseudo-scientific (or even completely unscientific).
So "be careful" assuming today's scientific understanding is the apex of understanding. We still know soooooo little about the nature of reality...A mere fraction, in fact.
Kevin - I for one, fully understood your post. You're presenting the theory (commonly held by many all over the world including all native peoples) that the brain is more of a "receiver" and consciousness is non-local. Also, "Past present future is all now" is interestingly an idea that's gaining momentum in scientific circles, especially with quantum physicists who regularly write and speak about this concept.
John wrote: "I don't see much point in mixing the concrete physics with the ephemeral spirit world. The latter is subjective and there is no evidence of its truth. The physics may be imaginary, but has the bene..."Thanks John, I'm not an engineer, and struggled with Physics in Med 1; and fully acknowledge the value of physics in allowing an interpretation of an ECG : Electrocardiograph AND I've been a clinician for over 30yrs and am and have been confronted with aspects of existence that the contemporary biomedical model just cannot explain. A dogmatic adherence to
So we say "it's a mystery!? or "That's Bullshit" or "That's a delusion" or "Kevin, Medicine can't explain everything." If it's concerning the human experience ,I say why not?
For years my clinical impression was that people with bipolar disorder went off (decompensated) with a full moon, or especially over Easter or Christmas. There are many psychosocial reasons why this may so. Often the nursing staff would say the psychotic decompensation was a full moon phenomenon. I scoffed at this. No evidence. Just a sadness magnified by the absence of "What might have been."
But other animals are affected by moon cycles.
Interestingly a retrospective look at old data has indeed revealed a significant impact of lunar cycles on human sleep.
Ref: Martin Roosli et al. Sleepless night, the moon in bright: Longitudinal Study of Lunar Phase and Sleep. Journal of Sleep Research Vol.15, p149-153. June 2006.
As for an ephemeral spirit world, I have had many experiences I cannot explain, and can only be thankful.(that's hard sometimes) And this comment (By me) I find irritating. Gut feel I cannot explain..but has saved my life on occasions. The police will tell you that some women who are raped report having a gut feel they ignore.
Antonio Damasio , perhaps one of the worlds leading neuroscientists wrote Descartes' error, where he argues very persuasively that rational thought is disabled significantly when we are disengaged from our emotions. We are all feeling beings, John; and our experiences are interpreted through a lens of expectation. We all see what we want or expect to see. I don't think the human mind is just a highly sophisticated computer.
John, I welcome your scepticism and certainly don't want to derail this discussion. Some stuff just doesn't fit . Perhaps Schroedinger's Cat experiments , which I think have been validated at a physics dept in Brisbane Uni might add some light. What does that quantum experiment mean for our experience of reality?
Can we find any consensual understanding here?
Thanks ,
Kevin
New video uploaded: Were Scientists Wrong About The Big Bang? -- https://www.goodreads.com/videos/8771...
I finally read through this thread, skipping over the religious arguments. James mentioned plasma cosmology in one of his posts. This is a heresy I have embraced for some time. PC and Electric Universe theorists are very critical of mainstream astronomy and particle physicists.The late Halton Arp demonstrated that Z-shift is not an indicator of recessional velocity but is intrinsic to the objects themselves. This means we don't know how far away things are beyond what we can measure with parallax. That calls into question the whole notion of the big bang and the dating of the universe.
Here is a video of Wal Thornhill giving a presentation about it. It's an hour long but worth watching. About 40 minutes in, he gives a plausible explanation for how gravity works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiB...
Jim wrote: "I finally read through this thread, skipping over the religious arguments. James mentioned plasma cosmology in one of his posts. This is a heresy I have embraced for some time. PC and Electric U..."You must've had your mind blown reading thru all the comments in this discussion thread, Jim...And not in a good way as in "you now know more" but rather in a bad way as in "you've lost your mind"!
My recollection is most of this thread was satirical and designed to wind up a scientist who used to belong to this group but left in a huff when I kept telling him his so-called ultimate truths were merely "scientific facts, until next revision!" :)
Will check out that video on plasma cosmology.
James Morcan wrote: "ultimate truths were merely "scientific facts, until next revision!" :)"That's an important point that seems to be lost on a lot of practitioners. Nobody reads Popper anymore.
Well, from a layman's perspective, the way I see it science is often cyclical...In one decade certain scientific theories are completely thrown out and said to be proven to be false...But then decades later those same concepts are often deemed to be true or partly true, albeit observed from a new position and perhaps combined with other compatible theories.Sometimes, also, I've sensed science can mirror aspects of religion in that some scientists don't seem to be thinking for themselves but rather believe in ideas they are told are factual.
Which makes the subject all the more confusing for the unscientific like myself...
p.s. This Wallace Thornhill has a talent for breaking down science for non-scientists. Thanks for the video as I didn't realize gravity was so complex!
I watched the video a couple of times so the gravity explanation doesn't seems as complex. What's unique here is that nobody has ever tried to explain gravity before. Particle physics seems to think the Higgs boson or graviton play some role but they don't really have a coherent explanation. That doesn't mean the EU/PC explanation is correct but it makes sense and doesn't invoke any hypothetical objects.
Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider -- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scien...Scientists at Cern could prove the controversial theory of ‘rainbow gravity’ which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely, with no Big Bang
Way upthread it was commented that parallel universes as a theory was untestable. Well ... http://www.sciencealert.com/the-paral... Interesting read.
Good one RobertWhat is untestable in one era is testable in the next one
James, you amaze me with your areas of interest. Nice.
J.B. wrote: "James, you amaze me with your areas of interest. Nice."Thanks J.B.
Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our UniverseAccording to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public was: what came before the Big Bang? We all know on some level what the Big Bang is, but we don’t know how it became the accepted theory, or how we might know what came before. In Before the Big Bang, Brian Clegg (the critically acclaimed author of Upgrade Me and The God Effect) explores the history of this remarkable concept. From the earliest creation myths, through Hershel’s realization that the Milky Way was one of many galaxies, to on-going debates about Black Holes, this is an incredible look at the origins of the universe and the many theories that led to the acceptance of the Big Bang. But in classic scientist fashion Clegg challenges the notion of the “Big Bang” itself, and raises the deep philosophical question of why we might want to rethink the origin of the universe. This is popular science at its best, exploratory, controversial, and utterly engrossing.
Lance wrote: Genesis and the Big Bang Theory: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible
[bookcover:Genesis and the Big Ba..."
I read a fairly interesting rebuttal of that book here
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/sc...
Introduction To The Theory Of The Early Universe: Hot Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory: Edwin Hubble and the Origins of the Universe
THE MYSTERY OF THE BIG BANG THEORY SOLVED USING COMMON SENSE
God of the Gods: How Evolution, Creationism, The Big Bang Theory, and Ancient Aliens Can All Work Together
The Big Burp Theory of the Universe: How to burp, slurp, gurgle, glunk and laugh at the Big Bang Theory?
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe
Article by the foundation of Richard Dawkins:No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/no...
okay so is cyclic universe theory coming back then....otherwise how can something stay forever without any begining......
so now if big bang is not true, then what about microwave background radiation?
so now if big bang is not true, then what about microwave background radiation?
EU folks argue that the so-called cosmic microwave background is a relatively local phenomenon. The source dark-mode plasma, that is, plasma that doesn't emit light. The types of radiation emitted by plasma are related to the electrical current running through it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
i think this might mean CMB can be after effects of big bang
i think this might mean CMB can be after effects of big bang
Theory claims to offer the first 'evidence' our Universe is a hologram http://www.wired.co.uk/article/our-un...Everything you see and experience in 3D, including time, could be an illusion
Written in 91-He seems to be out in left field. From WikipediaThe Big Bang Never Happened
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (1991) is Lerner's controversial book which rejects mainstream Big Bang cosmology, and instead advances a non-standard plasma cosmology originally proposed by Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s. The book appeared at a time when results from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite were of some concern to astrophysicists who expected to see cosmic microwave background anisotropies but instead measured a blackbody spectrum with little variation across the sky. Lerner referred to this as evidence that the Big Bang was a failed paradigm. He also denigrated the observational evidence for dark matter and recounted a well known cosmological feature that superclusters are larger than the largest structures that could have formed through gravitational collapse in the age of the universe.[6]
As an alternative to the Big Bang, Lerner adopted Alfvén's model of plasma cosmology that relied on plasma physics to explain most, if not all, cosmological observations by appealing to electromagnetic forces.[6] Adopting an eternal universe,[20] Lerner's explanation of cosmological evolution relied on a model of thermodynamics based on the work of the Nobel Chemistry prize winner Ilya Prigogine under which order emerges from chaos.[6][21] This is in apparent defiance of the second law of thermodynamics. As a way of partially acknowledging this, Lerner asserts that away from equilibrium order can spontaneously form by taking advantage of energy flows, as argued more recently by Eric Chaisson, an American astrophysicist.[22]
Lerner's ideas have been rejected by the professional physicists and cosmologists who have reviewed them. In these critiques, critics have explained that, contrary to Lerner's assertions, the size of superclusters is a feature limited by subsequent observations to the end of greatness and is consistent with having arisen from a power spectrum of density fluctuations growing from the quantum fluctuations predicted in inflationary models.[23][24][25] Anisotropies were discovered in subsequent analysis of the both COBE and BOOMERanG experiments and were more fully characterized by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[23][24] and Planck.
Physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have generally dismissed it.[23][25][26][27][28][29] In particular, Edward L. Wright, the American astrophysicist and cosmologist, was critical of Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation and criticized specifics of Lerner's alternative cosmology,[24] making the following critiques:
Lerner's alternative model for Hubble's Law is dynamically unstable
the number density of distant radio sources falsifies Lerner's explanation for the cosmic microwave background
Lerner's explanation that the helium abundance is due to stellar nucleosynthesis fails because of the small observed abundance of heavier elements
Lerner has disputed Wright's critique.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Le...
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe (other topics)
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Richard Dawkins (other topics)Takaaki Musha (other topics)
