Elemental Puzzle

[davar55]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

12 pages of fluff. There's no proof or supporting evidence anywhere.

To quote something or other: patience, oh great mystery.

[davieddy]

I prefer to post on subjects of which I have a
glimmering of understanding. Meantime, is this any help?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-just-yet.html

David

[davar55]

Not much help. Guess I have to rewrite the monograph
just because you called it BS. Well, eventually.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by davar55

Not much help. Guess I have to rewrite the monograph
just because you called it BS. Well, eventually.

Well, to be fair, not JUST davieddy.

[davar55]

Yes, I know, at least three of you. I've continued to add to and
refine my ideas, have taken what's been presented in this thread
and the other as legit criticism and a challenge, and will re-present
the monograph eventually. It's not easy challenging the Big Bandwagon
known as the Big Bang, but entrenched science is not always right.

I've been working on this for about 13 years, and got the idea while
taking freshman chemistry in college.

Science progresses slowly at times, and more quickly after breakthroughs.
I'm hoping that this work will prove its merit eventually.

[davar55]

By the way, just to tide over all of those who may be eagerly awaiting
the next installment in this possible upset of the Big Bandwagon. I
wonder wonder if anyone else objects to the foundations of the Big
Bang Theory as I do, in that its fundamental assumption is that there
was a beginning to the universe, which I deny.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

By the way, just to tide over all of those who may be eagerly awaiting
the next installment in this possible upset of the Big Bandwagon. I
wonder wonder if anyone else objects to the foundations of the Big
Bang Theory as I do, in that its fundamental assumption is that there
was a beginning to the universe, which I deny.

Many many people share that objection.

The latest missive from Roger Penrose is on my bookshelf waiting to be read. It is a Xmas present from a brother-in-law who knows of my interest in such things.

Paul

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by xilman

The latest missive from Roger Penrose is on my bookshelf waiting to be read.
Paul

If you need more, try this:

Road to Reality

David

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

I wonder wonder if anyone else objects to the foundations of the Big Bang Theory as I do, in that its fundamental assumption is that there was a beginning to the universe, which I deny.

The two major underlying assumptions of the Big Bang theory are:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Underlying_assumptions

the universality of physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

It is the combination of those two assumptions with the observation that the distances to far-away galaxies are proportional to their redshifts that implies a conclusion (not assumption), within the theory, that the contents of the observed universe were once in a very small, very dense state.

Thus, that "there was a beginning to the universe" is not a "fundamental assumption" of the Big Bang theory. Indeed, the Big Bang theory is compatible with the oscillatory idea that the universe existed before the "Big Bang" event, contracting down to that small dense state, then expanding from it (as is happening now). Furthermore, there are the M-Theory variants in which our "Big Bang" was just a collision of branes which are parts of a greater more-dimensional universe which may have had no beginning.

Did you have a different understanding of the Big Bang theory's assumptions? Or do you object to that conclusion (not assumption) of a past small, dense state?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Thus, that "there was a beginning to the universe" is not a "fundamental assumption" of the Big Bang theory. Indeed, the Big Bang theory is compatible with the oscillatory idea that the universe existed before the "Big Bang" event, contracting down to that small dense state, then expanding from it (as is happening now).

I've not yet read Penrose's elementary account and have only skimmed one of his papers on the subject. This one, to be precise:
Gurzadyan VG; Penrose R (2010-11-16). "Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity". arΧiv:1011.3706

If I understand him correctly, the previous didn't contract exactly, rather that states of infinite density and infinite sparsity are identified with each other. There even appears to be an identification between the big rip caused by a positive csomological constant and the exponential expansion which goes under the name of "inflation". I'm far from sure that I have got that one right so caveat lector.

Paul

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by davar55

I wonder wonder if anyone else objects to the foundations of the Big
Bang Theory as I do, in that its fundamental assumption is that there
was a beginning to the universe, which I deny.

Not I.

If anything, a beginning to the universe (or omniverse/multiverse, whichever is larger and exists) seems somewhat neater to me, but really I'm good either way.

Good posting by cheesehead there. davar55, it seems that your new cosmology is rather based on the assumption of the opposite though.

xilman, your mention of circles in WMAP data brings back something half remembered. I think I read somewhere that a group decided to look for other shapes and found triangles, squares, and pretty much anything else they tried looking for. I can't remember where I would have read that, and possibly you are already aware of it, but I thought it was worth mentioning.