dennislmay

Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory

Recommended Posts

A couple of questions, now that I'm intrigued. I like origin-related topics.

1. Has a "center" been found related to the Big Bang theory, or any equivalent theory? Or is there a possibility of multiple sources?

2. You mentioned red dwarves. Could they be pinpoints of multiple origins then? Or are there other older stars that could point us to specific origins?

~ Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My model assumes an arbitrarily old and arbitrarily large universe. With no outside of the universe referents there is no limit to how slow in the past or how fast in the future the universe can operate while maintaining its current appearance – the speed of passage of time can only be measured internally against other portions of the universe we can observe.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. In your previous post, you said that, according to your model, the speed of light itself was slower in the past than it is now. This is different than saying that the speed of the passage of time has changed. If the speed of light itself keeps getting slower as we go back in time, then there's a problem, because there is a limit to how slow the speed of light can be -- 0. So, in other words, if the speed of light in our present universe is =~ 186,000 miles/sec, and it was slower than this one billion years ago, and presumably still slower 100 billion years ago, eventually you reach the point where the speed of light is 0, or you approach some asymptotic limit.

Martin

What is important is the relative speed of light where you are now and what the speed of light was in the past. We are dealing with real numbers and their relative differences – you cannot view the system from the outside. You can maintain the identical appearance of features as long as the relationships remain the same no matter how large or how small the numbers. In calculus you would integrate to the limit in one fell swoop as viewed from the outside. Viewed internally using ratios that limit large or small is never reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of questions, now that I'm intrigued. I like origin-related topics.

1. Has a "center" been found related to the Big Bang theory, or any equivalent theory? Or is there a possibility of multiple sources?

2. You mentioned red dwarves. Could they be pinpoints of multiple origins then? Or are there other older stars that could point us to specific origins?

~ Shane

The Big Bang Theory has no center – neither does my theory.

Red dwarf stars would have no relationship to the existence of a hypothetical center or centers to the universe. I mentioned red dwarf stars because though the Big Bang Theory has expected specific chemical signatures no first generation red dwarf star has been found though they should be super abundant and many would still be in their youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of questions, now that I'm intrigued. I like origin-related topics.

1. Has a "center" been found related to the Big Bang theory, or any equivalent theory? Or is there a possibility of multiple sources?

2. You mentioned red dwarves. Could they be pinpoints of multiple origins then? Or are there other older stars that could point us to specific origins?

~ Shane

The Big Bang Theory has no center – neither does my theory.

Red dwarf stars would have no relationship to the existence of a hypothetical center or centers to the universe. I mentioned red dwarf stars because though the Big Bang Theory has expected specific chemical signatures no first generation red dwarf star has been found though they should be super abundant and many would still be in their youth.

I apologize for asking this question, since I would know the answer if I actually kept up with the updated literature in astronomy/cosmology. According to the best estimate of the "official" Big Bang Theory, the BBT happened about 13.7 billion years ago, corresponding to the hypothesized age of our universe. So if you wanted to find a first generation star, you would have to locate a star that is about 13.7 billion light years away. Red dwarf stars have a very low luminousity even compared with our sun. Is it actually possible to detect a low luminousity red dwarf star that is over 13 billion light years away, in order to be able to analyze its chemical composition? I would think that it would be rather difficult to even do this to a red dwarf star in the Andromeda galaxy, let alone a star that is 13 billion light years away.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of questions, now that I'm intrigued. I like origin-related topics.

1. Has a "center" been found related to the Big Bang theory, or any equivalent theory? Or is there a possibility of multiple sources?

2. You mentioned red dwarves. Could they be pinpoints of multiple origins then? Or are there other older stars that could point us to specific origins?

~ Shane

The Big Bang Theory has no center – neither does my theory.

Red dwarf stars would have no relationship to the existence of a hypothetical center or centers to the universe. I mentioned red dwarf stars because though the Big Bang Theory has expected specific chemical signatures no first generation red dwarf star has been found though they should be super abundant and many would still be in their youth.

I apologize for asking this question, since I would know the answer if I actually kept up with the updated literature in astronomy/cosmology. According to the best estimate of the "official" Big Bang Theory, the BBT happened about 13.7 billion years ago, corresponding to the hypothesized age of our universe. So if you wanted to find a first generation star, you would have to locate a star that is about 13.7 billion light years away. Red dwarf stars have a very low luminousity even compared with our sun. Is it actually possible to detect a low luminousity red dwarf star that is over 13 billion light years away, in order to be able to analyze its chemical composition? I would think that it would be rather difficult to even do this to a red dwarf star in the Andromeda galaxy, let alone a star that is 13 billion light years away.

Martin

There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

Dennis,

Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far :)

~ Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

Dennis,

Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far :)

~ Shane

Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory.

In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see.

If you don’t take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form.

Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe.

In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

Dennis,

Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far :)

~ Shane

Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory.

In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see.

If you don't take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form.

Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe.

In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large.

This sounds somewhat like Learner's theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

Dennis,

Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far :)

~ Shane

Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory.

In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see.

If you don't take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form.

Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe.

In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large.

This sounds somewhat like Learner's theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Learner's book estimated 1 trillion years for structures observed back then. Since that time much larger structures have been identified and I've not heard updated numbers - I would suspect you can multiply 1 trillion years by 10 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

Dennis,

Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far :)

~ Shane

Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory.

In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see.

If you don’t take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form.

Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe.

In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large.

First Stars in Universe Were Not Alone

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110204130908.htm

"Unlike short-lived high-mass stars, low-mass stars may survive for billions of years. "Intriguingly," says Dr. Clark, "some low-mass primordial stars may even have survived to the present day, ..."

This research indicates that first generation red dwarf stars should be even more common than previously thought. Though none are found.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no center of the expansion in the Big Bang theory so red dwarf stars which formed 13 billion years ago should be a common part of our galaxy and scattered throughout space generally.

Dennis,

Would it be safe to assume that there are multiple sources then? And if so, is there a chance the universe is much older than 13.7 billion years? This has always been a fascinating subject, but I'm at the laymen level of understanding. There's a lot of terminology I'm not familiar with. Thanks for the info so far :)

~ Shane

Not multiple sources - no centralized sources of any kind in either the Big Bang theory or in my theory.

In the standard Big Bang theory the singularity where physics breaks down is theorized to have occurred 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years ago [NASA 12-04-2010] – a number close to what they have stuck with for a few years now in the latest incarnation. Until recently the numbers ranged from 12-14 billion years but I had seen numbers ranging from 9-20 billion years prior to that. It used to be theorized that no galaxies would be seen out very far – but now old fully formed galaxies are seen as far back as telescopes can see.

If you don’t take the Big Bang view but rather invoke known plasma physics there are large-scale observable structures in the universe that must extend out of view and would have taken at least 1 trillion years to form.

Since no first generation red-dwarf stars are seen and they have a lifetime much greater than 13.75 billion years – well into the hundreds of billions or a trillion year lifetime – I think it is safe to say observational evidence supports a very old universe.

In my theory the age of the universe is indefinitely old into the past and will extend indefinitely into the future – appearing much as it does today. It is also indefinitely large.

First Stars in Universe Were Not Alone

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110204130908.htm

"Unlike short-lived high-mass stars, low-mass stars may survive for billions of years. "Intriguingly," says Dr. Clark, "some low-mass primordial stars may even have survived to the present day, ..."

This research indicates that first generation red dwarf stars should be even more common than previously thought. Though none are found.

Dennis May

From a post on Physics_Frontier titled: Yet another mature galaxy cluster in the "dawn of time"

"Such clusters are expected to be very rare according to current theory, and we have been very lucky to spot one. But if further observations find many more, then this may mean that our understanding of the early universe needs to be revised."

http://www.space.com/11086-ancient-galaxy-cluster-young.html

The Hubble Deep Field was 1/28,000,000 of the total area of the sky. I would be interested to see how much of the sky they have looked at using this resolution [and observation time] to get "lucky".

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...