Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: A Better Model than Big Bang Model by ShanSun

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22

    Lightbulb A Better Model than Big Bang Model

    I have developed a new model of the creation of the universe which I consider to be better than the Big Bang model*. Like Big Bang model, it also suggests that the universe had a beginning. Also like Big Bang model, it successfully explains three important observations of cosmology.

    First, like Big Bang Model, it also assumes that the universe started from a very small size (but not singularly) and from there on it is expanding according to Hubble’s Law. Also like Big Bang Model, it explains that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed.

    Secondly, like Big Bang Model, it predicts the abundance of light elements in accordance with the observations.
    Thirdly, like Big Bang Model, it correctly predicts the existence of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) with a blackbody temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin.

    However, in addition to this, our model successfully explains some of the recent observations which Big Bang Model is not able to do.

    First, Big Bang Model is not able to explain the formation of very large filaments and walls in its 13.8 billion years age whereas our model successfully does that. For example, structures larger than 1200 Mly (mly=million light years) in maximum dimension are incompatible with the cosmological principle, according to all estimates whereas walls up to 10,000 Mly in maximum dimension have been found so far.

    Secondly, Big Bang Model is not able to explain the formation (and existence) of huge voids but our model can successfully do it.

    Furthermore, Big Bang Model assumes that a cataclysmic event (in the form of Big Bang) occurred whereas in our model, the creation of the universe occurs smoothly over time without any sudden humongous (or cataclysmic) event. Thus our model is an Uniformitarian model of the universe whereas Big Bang Model is a Catastrophist model (Ref. 1). Historically, we know that the history of the universe is full of examples of ‘gradual and uniform change’ (Uniformitarian view) rather than ‘sudden and massive change’ (Catastrophist view). To support this point, we will give two examples here:

    I. We now know that mountains were not created overtime by a massive upheaval of rocks (Catastrophist
    view) but were uplifted at a rate of a few mm per year over the course of millions of years (Uniformitarian
    view)

    II. We also know that Earth was not created overnight by a Biblical flood which sculpted the geological formation, but the slow cooling of molten hot lava over millions of years to its current temperature.

    Finally, another argument that favors our model is the Occam’s Razor which holds that ‘if there are two competing theories or explanations, then, all other things being equal, the simpler one is more likely to be correct (Ref. 2). And our model is a lot simpler than the current ‘Hot Inflationary Big Bang Model’.

    Moreover, there are several things in the Big Bang Model which are still unexplained. For example, about inflation; What started it? What ended it? What controlled its duration? etc. Similarly, about the original singularity; how did it appear? Where did it appear? etc.

    *Note here whenever we say ‘Big Bang Model’, we mean ‘Hot Inflationary Big Bang Model’

    References:
    1. Simon Singh, “Big Bang: The origin of the universe”, page 78, Harper Perennial, 2005
    2. Ibid, page 45
    Last edited by sksuneja; 2019-Jan-11 at 05:18 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,111
    Odd that the millennium simulation, based on current cosmology, produced filaments and voids similar to those that we see then.

    Also current cosmology doesn't contain in initial singularity - that is a common error made by popular descriptions of the model and perpetuated by misinterpretation of speculation as mainstream theory.

    Ignoring those inaccuracies in your claims (which are irrelevant to making the case for your theory - current theory could be utterly wrong and it would not make your claims the default replacement) can you please present your ideas here in sufficient detail for us to evaluate them?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    ... can you please present your ideas here in sufficient detail for us to evaluate them?
    Let me make that official.

    sksuneja, welcome to CQ. But you need to present your idea in detail here if you wish to discuss it here. If you do not, this thread will be closed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22

    A Better Model than Big Bang Model by ShanSun

    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Let me make that official.

    sksuneja, welcome to CQ. But you need to present your idea in detail here if you wish to discuss it here. If you do not, this thread will be closed.
    Hello Mr Swift: Thank you for your comments. I will provide more details on my model, so please don’t close this thread. The reason I did not provide more details in my original post is that I did not want to make it too long & so too confusing. Also I am new to this forum, so I wanted to get a feel for it first. Thank you again for your constructive comments.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Hi Shaula: Thank you for your open mindedness & willingness to evaluate and comment on my model. Regarding the apparent
    inaccuracies in my claims about Big Bang model, I would like to let you know that I have education in engineering ( & not in physics). So I had to educate myself along the way about the Big Bang model and therefore all my ideas about Big Bang may not be strictly accurate &/or up to date. I will post soon ( in a day or so) more details on my model and will look forward to your comments, feedback & suggestions

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,364
    Hi sksuneja. Welcome to CQ.

    About this quote of yours:

    Moreover, there are several things in the Big Bang Model which are still unexplained. For example, about inflation; What started it? What ended it? What controlled its duration? etc. Similarly, about the original singularity; how did it appear? Where did it appear? etc.
    Does your model explain, and answer any of these questions?
    And if so, could you tell us? I for one would love to know about how the original singularity came to be.

    -- Dennis
    Last edited by BetaDust; 2019-Jan-11 at 08:33 PM.
    Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. - Niels Bohr

    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

    Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- Mike Alexander

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    First, like Big Bang Model, it also assumes that the universe started from a very small size (but not singularly) and from there on it is expanding according to Hubble’s Law. Also like Big Bang Model, it explains that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed.

    Secondly, like Big Bang Model, it predicts the abundance of light elements in accordance with the observations.
    Thirdly, like Big Bang Model, it correctly predicts the existence of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) with a blackbody temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
    Sounds almost indistinguishable from the standard Big Bang model.

    So what evidence would distinguish your model from the current Lambda-CDM model?

    And what evidence would disprove your model?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,364
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post

    However, in addition to this, our model successfully explains some of the recent observations which Big Bang Model is not able to do.
    What recent observations?

    -- Dennis
    Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. - Niels Bohr

    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

    Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- Mike Alexander

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Hi Betadust: Thank you for your comments & questions. To answer your questions, my model does not require a singularity at the beginning & also does not require inflation to explain the ongoing expansion. So there is no need to explain them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Hi Betadust: Thank you for your question. By recent observations here, I mean the finding/ observation of huge filaments & walls , and huge voids

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Hi Strange: Thank you for your comments. Actually, my model is very different from the Big Bang model. Soon (hopefully in a day or so) I will post more details about my model & then it will be obvious that my model is very different indeed.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,364
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    Hi Betadust: Thank you for your comments & questions. To answer your questions, my model does not require a singularity at the beginning & also does not require inflation to explain the ongoing expansion. So there is no need to explain them.
    Yes of course it does. Explain your model.

    Why is there no singularity at the beginning?
    Why does it not require inflation to explain the ongoing expansion?

    -- Dennis
    Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. - Niels Bohr

    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

    Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- Mike Alexander

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    Hi Betadust: Thank you for your comments & questions. To answer your questions, my model does not require a singularity at the beginning & also does not require inflation to explain the ongoing expansion. So there is no need to explain them.
    The current model does not include a singularity.

    Inflation one hypothesis to explain the horizon problem (and the things). It is not the only possible explanation so is not essential.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    The current model does not include a singularity.

    Inflation one hypothesis to explain the horizon problem (and the things). It is not the only possible explanation so is not essential.
    Hi Strange: Thank you for your supportive understanding. Your support is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your continued understanding and support

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,425
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    ...structures larger than 1200 Mly (mly=million light years) in maximum dimension are incompatible with the cosmological principle, according to all estimates whereas walls up to 10,000 Mly in maximum dimension have been found so far....
    In other words, you say a structure 10 billion light years across has been found. I must have missed that. Would you provide the source for this claim?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    In other words, you say a structure 10 billion light years across has been found. I must have missed that. Would you provide the source for this claim?
    Hi Cougar: Thank you for your interest in my thread. Sure this structure is: Hercules-Coma Borealis Great Wall. According to Wikipedia, this is the largest known structure so far and is 10 Bly long x 7.2 Bly wide x 1Bly thick.
    Incidentally, my model successfully predicts the wall- like or the filament- like shape of these large structures. I will be posting more details about my model very soon ( most likely today). I will look forward to your constructive comments & evaluation. Please take care in the mean time!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22

    More details about my Model

    More details about my model
    In order to understand my model, visualize two spheres: Sphere A is expanding by drawing energy from the other sphere (Sphere B) and Sphere B Is contracting thereby supplying energy to sphere A. With this picture in view, I will now list some features of my model.
    1. Our universe is spherical (and not flat) in shape, like all known celestial objects.

    2. There are two universes: One is expanding and the other is contracting. The expanding universe gets a continuous supply of energy from the contracting universe. In the contracting universe, matter is being converted into energy which is then supplied to the expanding universe. In the expanding universe, the reverse occurs. The expanding universe represents our universe.

    3. The process described in item number 2 is going on until today, and will continue until all energy from the contracting universe is withdrawn. At that point, the expansion of our universe (which is currently expanding) will stop and the reverse process will start, that is, our universe will start contracting and the other universe will start expanding.

    4. Thus, our universe is an open system (and so is the contracting universe) whereas, in Big Bang Model, the universe is assumed to be a closed system.
    Our model explains the events going on in the expanding universe (which is currently our universe). So the rest of the discussion applies only to the expanding universe (that is, our universe)

    5. The expanding universe starts expanding from a size zero at temperature close to zero degree Kelvin (which is the temperature of the deep space) at the speed of light (thus no singularity).

    6. The expanding universe maintains a constant density over time (that is since the beginning until now). It does this by drawing enough energy from the contracting universe proportional to the rate of increase in its size (volume).

    7. The expanding universe expands at a rate determined by the equations of general relativity. Since according to these equations, the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, therefore, the rate of energy drawn from the contracting universe is also increasing as time goes on. Thus, the newer structures that are forming are also getting progressively bigger in size compared to those formed earlier in time. Hence the formation of large filaments and walls identified recently.

    8. Out of the incoming energy, a very small fraction (less than a millionth part) is converted into antiparticles. These antiparticles quickly interact with an equivalent amount of particles by fusion to produce tremendous amounts of heat which heats the entire mass to very high temperature (of the order of 〖10〗^13degrees or so). (Note this is very different from Big Bang Model where it is postulated that almost equal amounts of particle and anti particles are produced).

    9. Thus according to #8 above, no antiparticles are left. This explains why we are not able to detect any anti matter so far (note in contrast, there should be plenty of antimatter still present in the universe according to Big Bang Model)

    10. The very hot material produced in #8 above quickly cools down from a temperature of about 〖10〗^13degrees to about 0.9 (〖10〗^9) degrees. At this temperature, nucleosynthesis occurs (like in Big Bang Model).
    Then this material further cools down to a temperature of about 3000K at which point, simple atoms are formed. All this cooling occurs in a small part of the universe near the entry point of the incoming energy. We call this part the ‘furnace of the universe’. The cooling in the furnace occurs mainly by turbulent convection and radiation.

    11. The material leaves the ‘furnace’ at a temperature of around 3000K. Further, it cools down slowly by adiabatic cooling as the universe expands. Until today, it has cooled down to a temperature of about 2.7K which is the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

    Thus, this model neither starts with a singularity nor it requires ‘inflation’ to explain the observational findings. Note that it also explains the following:
    a. Expansion of universe at ever increasing rate
    b. Nucleosynthesis
    c. CMB temperature of 2.7 Kelvin
    d. Absence of antimatter
    Moreover, it does not assume the creation of matter/energy out of nothing. Thus it does not violate the law of Conservation of Energy.

  18. #18
    sksuneja, your words are in italics, my comments are not.

    I have developed a new model of the creation of the universe which I consider to be better than the Big Bang model.

    Good. Whilst I'm happy with the expanding universe, I think there are some issues with Big Bang cosmology.

    Like Big Bang model, it also suggests that the universe had a beginning.

    Hmmn. I have problems with creation ex nihilo myself.

    Also like Big Bang model, it successfully explains three important observations of cosmology. First, like Big Bang Model, it also assumes that the universe started from a very small size (but not singularly) and from there on it is expanding according to Hubble’s Law.

    Since we have pretty convincing evidence that the universe is expanding, that's no surprise. I'm pleased to hear you say "but not singularity". I do not like point-singularities, I think they're based on a misunderstanding of general relativity myself.

    Also like Big Bang Model, it explains that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed.

    I'm not sure that's actually explained, but nevermind.

    Secondly, like Big Bang Model, it predicts the abundance of light elements in accordance with the observations.

    Every model retrodicts that, saying light elements are easier to put together. The issue is the mass-5 roadblock. Does your model get past that?

    Thirdly, like Big Bang Model, it correctly predicts the existence of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) with a blackbody temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin.

    Again, every model retrodicts that. The paper by Dicke et al talked about an oscillating universe. According to them, the CMB was the smoking-gun evidence for the Big Bounce.

    However, in addition to this, our model successfully explains some of the recent observations which Big Bang Model is not able to do. First, Big Bang Model is not able to explain the formation of very large filaments and walls in its 13.8 billion years age whereas our model successfully does that. For example, structures larger than 1200 Mly (mly=million light years) in maximum dimension are incompatible with the cosmological principle, according to all estimates whereas walls up to 10,000 Mly in maximum dimension have been found so far.

    That's good. The cosmological principle is not scientific. It's an assumption for which there is no justification. It's like saying I live in a forest, so everybody must live in a forest. For all we know some guy 43 billion light years away is looking up at the night sky wondering why half of it is black.

    Secondly, Big Bang Model is not able to explain the formation (and existence) of huge voids but our model can successfully do it.

    That's good. But how?

    Furthermore, Big Bang Model assumes that a cataclysmic event (in the form of Big Bang) occurred whereas in our model, the creation of the universe occurs smoothly over time without any sudden humongous (or cataclysmic) event. Thus our model is an Uniformitarian model of the universe whereas Big Bang Model is a Catastrophist model (Ref. 1). Historically, we know that the history of the universe is full of examples of ‘gradual and uniform change’ (Uniformitarian view) rather than ‘sudden and massive change’ (Catastrophist view). To support this point, we will give two examples here:

    This I like, for my own reasons, related to my reading of the Einstein digital papers and my understanding of black holes. It's a shame that Einstein thought they couldn't form. But he seemed to have some problems with cosmology.

    Finally, another argument that favors our model is the Occam’s Razor which holds that ‘if there are two competing theories or explanations, then, all other things being equal, the simpler one is more likely to be correct (Ref. 2). And our model is a lot simpler than the current ‘Hot Inflationary Big Bang Model’.

    I think people miss the trick with time dilation, and I think inflation sucks. But I have to say that your claim above isn't scientific. You need to make it more scientific. Perhaps I could help with that.

    Moreover, there are several things in the Big Bang Model which are still unexplained. For example, about inflation; What started it? What ended it? What controlled its duration? etc. Similarly, about the original singularity; how did it appear? Where did it appear? etc.

    I think inflation is a solution to a 3 problems that do not exist. Why it ever became "mainstream" I do not know. I think Big bang cosmology would be much improved without it. Now I guess you need to provide those details.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    More details about my model
    There are so many problems with this that I am not going to try and comment on all of them.

    1. Our universe is spherical (and not flat) in shape, like all known celestial objects.
    Where do you get the idea that the universe is "flat in shape". It very obviously isn't. (I suspect I know what you are confused about, but this does not bode well.)

    If the universe is spherical, that suggests there must be something beyond that sphere. What is that and why isn't it part of the universe?

    2. There are two universes: One is expanding and the other is contracting. The expanding universe gets a continuous supply of energy from the contracting universe. In the contracting universe, matter is being converted into energy which is then supplied to the expanding universe. In the expanding universe, the reverse occurs. The expanding universe represents our universe.

    3. The process described in item number 2 is going on until today, and will continue until all energy from the contracting universe is withdrawn. At that point, the expansion of our universe (which is currently expanding) will stop and the reverse process will start, that is, our universe will start contracting and the other universe will start expanding.
    Obviously, you have no evidence for these two universes. Do you have a mechanism for the energy being transferred from one to another? Do you have a mechanism for this process reversing at some point?

    5. The expanding universe starts expanding from a size zero at temperature close to zero degree Kelvin (which is the temperature of the deep space) at the speed of light (thus no singularity).
    The evidence shows that the universe used to be extremely hot. So that contradicts your hypothesis.

    Also, by "expanding at the speed of light" do you mean that the outer edge of the universe is moving away from the centre at the speed of light?

    This is contradicted by the evidence because we see galaxies moving away from us at more than the speed of light.

    It would also seem to imply that we are at the centre of your universe, is that correct?

    6. The expanding universe maintains a constant density over time (that is since the beginning until now). It does this by drawing enough energy from the contracting universe proportional to the rate of increase in its size (volume).
    Again, this is contradicted by the evidence that the universe has cooled from a hot dense state.

    7. The expanding universe expands at a rate determined by the equations of general relativity. Since according to these equations, the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, therefore, the rate of energy drawn from the contracting universe is also increasing as time goes on.
    The equations do not (necessarily) say that. The idea of accelerating expansion comes from observation not from GR.

    8. Out of the incoming energy, a very small fraction (less than a millionth part) is converted into antiparticles.
    What is the mechanism for this energy being converted to anti-particles? And why is it just a small proportion?

    These antiparticles quickly interact with an equivalent amount of particles by fusion to produce tremendous amounts of heat which heats the entire mass to very high temperature (of the order of 〖10〗^13degrees or so).
    Where does the temperature of 10^13 degrees come from?

    10. The very hot material produced in #8 above quickly cools down from a temperature of about 〖10〗^13degrees to about 0.9 (〖10〗^9) degrees. At this temperature, nucleosynthesis occurs (like in Big Bang Model).
    As you say the density of the universe is constant, why isn't it still at a temperature of 10^13 degrees?
    What is the mechanism for cooling if the density stays constant?

    I have ignored your comparisons with the big bang model as they appear to be based on a profound misunderstanding of that model. And are not really relevant to the correctness of your idea.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,636
    Quote Originally Posted by The Physics Detective View Post
    But I have to say that your claim above isn't scientific. You need to make it more scientific. Perhaps I could help with that.
    Please remember that the ATM forum is not a collaborative environment. If you wish to help, you’ll need to do so via PM, e-mail, on in some other venue.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by The Physics Detective View Post
    Like Big Bang model, it also suggests that the universe had a beginning.

    Hmmn. I have problems with creation ex nihilo myself.
    The Big Bang model doesn't;tsay anything about that.

    Also like Big Bang model, it successfully explains three important observations of cosmology. First, like Big Bang Model, it also assumes that the universe started from a very small size (but not singularly) and from there on it is expanding according to Hubble’s Law.

    Since we have pretty convincing evidence that the universe is expanding, that's no surprise. I'm pleased to hear you say "but not singularity". I do not like point-singularities, I think they're based on a misunderstanding of general relativity myself.
    It is not based on a misunderstanding of GR. It is based on applying GR where we can be pretty sure it is not applicable.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Hi The Physics Detective: Thank you for your thoughtful comments on my recent post. You have raised some important & interesting questions which I will try to answer now:
    1. 'You said that my recent post does not explain how universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed' : You are right. I did not explain it in my post, I just stated it. Actually the mathematical formulation of my model shows that. According to it, the uniform started to expand at the speed of light and now it is expanding at a speed greater than that of light.
    2.' You asked if my model gets past the mass-5 roadblock': The answer is 'no'. Like Big Bang model, my model also relies on the current/prevailing explanation of this phenomenon which is quite satisfactory in my opinion.
    3. 'You wanted to know how my model explains the formation of huge voids?': In my model, the matter is formed by the condensation of energy. Thus when an incoming batch of energy condenses into mass, the resulting mass occupies extremely small volume (E=mc2) compared to the energy it is formed out of and the remaining space is left as a void. This is why the voids are much bigger (in volume) than the mass they surround. 4. 'About Occam's razor, you state that I need to make my claim (I guess, my claim of simplicity of my model compared to Big Bang model) more scientific': May I ask you what you mean by 'more scientific'. It is not clear to me. Could you please clarify it some more? Thanks!
    Thank you again for your interesting, instructive & productive dialogue and I look forward to more of the same!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    1. 'You said that my recent post does not explain how universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed' : You are right. I did not explain it in my post, I just stated it. Actually the mathematical formulation of my model shows that. According to it, the uniform started to expand at the speed of light and now it is expanding at a speed greater than that of light.
    Can you show this mathematical model?

    3. 'You wanted to know how my model explains the formation of huge voids?': In my model, the matter is formed by the condensation of energy.
    What does "condensation of energy" mean?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    Finally, another argument that favors our model is the Occam’s Razor which holds that ‘if there are two competing theories or explanations, then, all other things being equal, the simpler one is more likely to be correct (Ref. 2).
    That is not what Occam Razor says. And I am disappointed if that is what Simon Singh says.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are so many problems with this that I am not going to try and comment on all of them.
    Hi Strange: Thank you for your thorough & thoughtful review. It is greatly appreciated. You have raised several interesting questions which I will try to answer below.


    Where do you get the idea that the universe is "flat in shape". It very obviously isn't. (I suspect I know what you are confused about, but this does not bode well.)
    Response: If you say it is not flat, that is good because it means one less point to contest in my model. Also, I would like to mention that I have education in engineering ( & not physics). So I had to educate myself along the way about Big Bang model and therefore all my ideas about Big Bang may not be strictly accurate &/or up to date.

    If the universe is spherical, that suggests there must be something beyond that sphere. What is that and why isn't it part of the universe?
    Response: It is like a balloon. Just as a balloon is confined by its skin, same way the universe is. The only difference is that the universe's skin is made up of condensed energy. Beyond the sphere of the universe is space (call it 'extra universe space' if you will).


    Obviously, you have no evidence for these two universes. Do you have a mechanism for the energy being transferred from one to another? Do you have a mechanism for this process reversing at some point?
    Response: Well, there is no way to prove (or disprove) the existence of two universes directly because no instruments or techniques currently available can detect it directly. There can only be indirect evidence for it & that is the explanation of all/most observed phenomenon based on this model.
    Well, the energy from the contracting universe (sphere) is released into the space between the two universes (spheres) and from there it is drawn into the expanding universe due to lower pressure in it. So the drawing force for this energy is the pressure differential. This process reverses when the pressure differential in two universes reverses & this happens when all energy from the contracting universe is withdrawn.

    The evidence shows that the universe used to be extremely hot. So that contradicts your hypothesis.
    Response: Not really because my model also predicts that the incoming energy is heated to a temp of the order of 10^13 or higher by the heat produced by the fusion of the antiparticles with an equal amount of particles.

    Also, by "expanding at the speed of light" do you mean that the outer edge of the universe is moving away from the centre at the speed of light?
    Response: Yes.

    This is contradicted by the evidence because we see galaxies moving away from us at more than the speed of light.
    Response: Not really because my model states that the universe started to expand at the speed of light but since then it has been expanding at ever increasing speed. So at present, it is expanding at speed greater than that of light.

    It would also seem to imply that we are at the centre of your universe, is that correct?
    Response: No, not at all. My model makes or needs no such assumption or assertion.

    Again, this is contradicted by the evidence that the universe has cooled from a hot dense state.
    Response: Not really because the incoming batch of energy in my model is also heated to a high temp of 10^13 or higher (as explained above) and then it cools down initially by turbulent convection & radiation and later by conduction & radiation but its density is maintained due to the addition of new energy/matter.

    The equations do not (necessarily) say that. The idea of accelerating expansion comes from observation not from GR.
    Response: Actually both observations & equations say that but this point is not worth further discussion.

    What is the mechanism for this energy being converted to anti-particles? And why is it just a small proportion?
    Response: Actually the rotating strings of incoming energy curl up/condense into elementary particles & antiparticles. The particles & antiparticles are formed due to the rotation of these strings in opposite directions. Why only a small proportion of the incoming energy is converted into antiparticles is explained by the shape of the entry point for the incoming energy.

    Where does the temperature of 10^13 degrees come from?
    Response: It is explained above


    As you say the density of the universe is constant, why isn't it still at a temperature of 10^13 degrees?
    What is the mechanism for cooling if the density stays constant?
    Response; This is already explained above

    I have ignored your comparisons with the big bang model as they appear to be based on a profound misunderstanding of that model. And are not really relevant to the correctness of your idea.
    Response: Once again thank you for your thoughtful and in depth review of my recent post. I look forward to your thorough reviews of my future posts as well.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    Response: Once again thank you for your thoughtful and in depth review of my recent post. I look forward to your thorough reviews of my future posts as well.
    Thanks

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    So I had to educate myself along the way about Big Bang model and therefore all my ideas about Big Bang may not be strictly accurate &/or up to date.
    It looks like you need to learn a lot more about current cosmological models.

    Response: It is like a balloon. Just as a balloon is confined by its skin, same way the universe is. The only difference is that the universe's skin is made up of condensed energy. Beyond the sphere of the universe is space (call it 'extra universe space' if you will).
    What is "condensed energy"? (Energy is a property of things, not "stuff" that can be condensed.)

    Why doesn't your balloon universe continue to expand (until it bursts?) like a real balloon would in a vacuum? Why does it need energy from another universe to make it expand?

    Well, the energy from the contracting universe (sphere) is released into the space between the two universes (spheres) and from there it is drawn into the expanding universe due to lower pressure in it. So the drawing force for this energy is the pressure differential. This process reverses when the pressure differential in two universes reverses & this happens when all energy from the contracting universe is withdrawn.
    What form is this energy in? (Remember, energy is a property of things, not "stuff" that can exist in empty space.)

    Why would it be drawn into the expanding universe?

    Why is the pressure there lower than in the empty space between the universe?

    Why is the pressure lower in the small universe than the larger one?

    Why doesn't the energy flow stop when both universes are the same size (and density and pressure)? If you connect two balloons with a tube, they will quickly reach an equilibrium. What causes the continuous cycling in your model?

    Why are there only two universes like this?

    Not really because my model also predicts that the incoming energy is heated to a temp of the order of 10^13 or higher by the heat produced by the fusion of the antiparticles with an equal amount of particles.
    How do you calculate this temperature?

    If energy is continuously coming into the universe from outside, why isn't the temperature always 10^13 degrees?

    Response: Not really because my model states that the universe started to expand at the speed of light but since then it has been expanding at ever increasing speed. So at present, it is expanding at speed greater than that of light.
    How large is this sphere?

    How fast is the outer edge expanding?

    How do you get round the problem that nothing can move at more than the speed of light?

    It would also seem to imply that we are at the centre of your universe, is that correct?
    Response: No, not at all. My model makes or needs no such assumption or assertion.
    Then why don't we see asymmetrical expansion?

    Your model consists of nothing but ad-hoc assumptions and assertions. Unless you can show the math that makes some testable predictions. Can you do that?

    Response: Not really because the incoming batch of energy in my model is also heated to a high temp of 10^13 or higher (as explained above) and then it cools down initially by turbulent convection & radiation and later by conduction & radiation but its density is maintained due to the addition of new energy/matter.
    You have not explained the temperature, you have just a asserted it.

    Do we see any turbulent convention in the universe?

    How is heat conducted through largely empty space?

    Where is the heat radiated to?

    The equations do not (necessarily) say that. The idea of accelerating expansion comes from observation not from GR.
    Response: Actually both observations & equations say that but this point is not worth further discussion.
    The equations only say that because they were modified to match the observations.

    You have yet to show us any mathematics behind your "model" (it isn't a model without math; it is just guesswork.)

    Response: Actually the rotating strings of incoming energy curl up/condense into elementary particles & antiparticles. The particles & antiparticles are formed due to the rotation of these strings in opposite directions. Why only a small proportion of the incoming energy is converted into antiparticles is explained by the shape of the entry point for the incoming energy.
    You can't explain something just by making up more word salad.

    What are these "rotating strings"?

    How does the "shape of the entry point" explain the proportion of antimatter?

    What is this "entry point"?

    What is the shape of this entry point?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It looks like you need to learn a lot more about current cosmological models.
    Hi Strange:
    Thank you again for your thorough review and thoughtful comments. From your comments, it appears that you are very brilliant with a scientific (logical and systematic) mind. I will answer your questions below, but I am first posting a picture of my model. Hopefully, this sketch will make it easier to visualize my model.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	BBM image.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	23.4 KB 
ID:	23919




    What is "condensed energy"? (Energy is a property of things, not "stuff" that can be condensed.)
    First of all, according to my model, the incoming energy is Electromagnetic (EM) energy. With that in mind, by ‘condensed energy’ I mean the strands of this energy forming a “fabric of energy” (just as cotton threads make cloth).

    Why doesn't your balloon universe continue to expand (until it bursts?) like a real balloon would in a vacuum? Why does it need energy from another universe to make it expand?
    This balloon-like sphere of the universe does not burst because this “fabric of energy” stretches itself because the constituting strands of energy can be stretched.


    What form is this energy in? (Remember, energy is a property of things, not "stuff" that can exist in empty space.)
    All these questions pertain to the presence of second universe (sphere). May I suggest at this point to focus on the expanding sphere only (that is, our universe) and later we will come to this other sphere. This will simplify our dialogue somewhat and will keep us focused on the important sphere (i.e., our universe) right now.

    Why would it be drawn into the expanding universe?

    Why is the pressure there lower than in the empty space between the universe?

    Why is the pressure lower in the small universe than the larger one?

    Why doesn't the energy flow stop when both universes are the same size (and density and pressure)? If you connect two balloons with a tube, they will quickly reach an equilibrium. What causes the continuous cycling in your model?

    Why are there only two universes like this?
    Your above five questions pertain to the presence of second universe (sphere): May I suggest at this point to focus on the expanding sphere only (that is, our universe) and later we will come to this other sphere. This will simplify our dialogue somewhat and will keep us focused on the important sphere (i.e., our universe) right now.

    How do you calculate this temperature?
    The temperature is calculated by using the following equation:
    Heat produced by the annihilation of antiparticles with equal amount of particles = Mass (equivalent) of incoming energy x Its specific heat (Cp) x Increase in temperature


    If energy is continuously coming into the universe from outside, why isn't the temperature always 10^13 degrees?
    The temperature drops from 10^13 degrees due to heat loss by turbulent convection and radiation.


    How large is this sphere?

    How fast is the outer edge expanding?

    How do you get round the problem that nothing can move at more than the speed of light?
    The radius of the spherical universe and the speed of expansion depend on the age of the universe. Some values calculated from my model are:
    Age (By) Radius (Bly) Speed of outer edge
    10.0 10.44 1.14C
    13.8 15.0 1.27C

    15.0 16.54 1.32C
    20.0 23.76 1.59C

    30.0 43.62 2.48C
    40.0 75.49 4.05C


    Here By = Billion years
    Bly = Billion light years
    C = Speed of light

    Note the outer edge is moving faster than the speed of light because it is the edge of the space that is moving. Therefore it does not violate theory of relativity.


    Then why don't we see asymmetrical expansion?
    Because a sphere will always expand symmetrically in order to maintain its spherical shape.

    Your model consists of nothing but ad-hoc assumptions and assertions. Unless you can show the math that makes some testable predictions. Can you do that?
    Any model has to start with a picture (model), so some assumptions are necessary in order to describe the picture.
    I have already given above some numbers calculated from my model.



    You have not explained the temperature, you have just a asserted it.
    I have already explained it above.

    Do we see any turbulent convention in the universe?
    We don’t see any turbulent convection in the universe because it is present only in a small region near the entry point of the incoming energy (shown as shaded area in the diagram above). We call this region ‘furnace’. The edge A of this region went out of horizon at 14.2 million years (according to my model). So we don’t see or feel the effect of this turbulent convection in the visible universe.

    How is heat conducted through largely empty space?
    This is because the space inside the universe is not empty but is full of dark energy which conducts this heat although slowly but sufficient for us.

    Where is the heat radiated to?
    The heat is radiated to the space outside our universe.


    The equations only say that because they were modified to match the observations.

    You have yet to show us any mathematics behind your "model" (it isn't a model without math; it is just guesswork.)
    For it, I have already listed some numbers calculated from my mathematical model.


    You can't explain something just by making up more word salad.
    I am not making up any word salad though it may seem to be so. These terms I already have in my model. By ‘strands of energy’ I mean long strands of EM energy. These strands then break down into very small rotating segments (due to the high shearing force created by the rapid expansion of the universe) which I call ‘rotating strings of energy’.
    All this happens within the furnace.


    What are these "rotating strings"?

    How does the "shape of the entry point" explain the proportion of antimatter?


    What is this "entry point"?

    What is the shape of this entry point?
    Any questions about the shape of the entry points I will like to answer later.


    Thank you once again for your interesting and constructive comments. I look forward to more of the same about my future posts also.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    Any questions about the shape of the entry points I will like to answer later.


    Thank you once again for your interesting and constructive comments. I look forward to more of the same about my future posts also.
    Please learn to use the quote tags properly. Your responses should not be highlighted in the same box as the questions. Your inattention to this formatting makes it very difficult to follow the exchanges.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,632
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Please learn to use the quote tags properly. Your responses should not be highlighted in the same box as the questions. Your inattention to this formatting makes it very difficult to follow the exchanges.
    Seconded.

    Quote Originally Posted by sksuneja View Post
    First of all, according to my model, the incoming energy is Electromagnetic (EM) energy. With that in mind, by ‘condensed energy’ I mean the strands of this energy forming a “fabric of energy” (just as cotton threads make cloth).
    Again, you are just trying to justify your assumptions by making up more stuff.

    What is "electromagnetic energy"?
    What evidence is there for "strands" of electromagnetic energy?
    What evidence is there for a "fabric of energy"?

    Why don't we see any of these things? What experiments could we do to test whether this "fabric" exists?


    This balloon-like sphere of the universe does not burst because this “fabric of energy” stretches itself because the constituting strands of energy can be stretched.
    Well, that's lucky.

    Why would it be drawn into the expanding universe?

    Why is the pressure there lower than in the empty space between the universe?

    Why is the pressure lower in the small universe than the larger one?

    Why doesn't the energy flow stop when both universes are the same size (and density and pressure)? If you connect two balloons with a tube, they will quickly reach an equilibrium. What causes the continuous cycling in your model?

    Why are there only two universes like this?
    Your above five questions pertain to the presence of second universe (sphere): May I suggest at this point to focus on the expanding sphere only (that is, our universe) and later we will come to this other sphere. This will simplify our dialogue somewhat and will keep us focused on the important sphere (i.e., our universe) right now.
    No,. These questions were all explicitly about the "first" universe (this one). Please answer them.

    The temperature is calculated by using the following equation:
    Heat produced by the annihilation of antiparticles with equal amount of particles = Mass (equivalent) of incoming energy x Its specific heat (Cp) x Increase in temperature


    When you say "its specific heat" what is "it"?
    And you have "increase in temperature" as one component contributing to the increase in temperature: is that supposed to make sense?

    The radius of the spherical universe and the speed of expansion depend on the age of the universe. Some values calculated from my model are:
    Age (By) Radius (Bly) Speed of outer edge
    10.0 10.44 1.14C
    13.8 15.0 1.27C

    15.0 16.54 1.32C
    20.0 23.76 1.59C

    30.0 43.62 2.48C
    40.0 75.49 4.05C
    Please show how you calculate the values. (I am fairly sure they are contradicted by observations but we can come back to that.)

    Note the outer edge is moving faster than the speed of light because it is the edge of the space that is moving. Therefore it does not violate theory of relativity.
    You said that the edge consists of a solid (but stretchable") fabric. So this fabric must be moving faster than light in your model. This would appear to be a problem.

    Then why don't we see asymmetrical expansion?
    Because a sphere will always expand symmetrically in order to maintain its spherical shape.


    But in your diagram, all the "heat" is coming from one side of the sphere. That is not what we see.

    You have not explained the temperature, you have just a asserted it.
    I have already explained it above.
    No. You have just claimed that it is based on some calculations. Unless you can show those calculations, it is just another empty assertion

    We don’t see any turbulent convection in the universe because it is present only in a small region near the entry point of the incoming energy (shown as shaded area in the diagram above). We call this region ‘furnace’. The edge A of this region went out of horizon at 14.2 million years (according to my model). So we don’t see or feel the effect of this turbulent convection in the visible universe.
    But before it was beyond the event horizon, it would have made the universe's temperature distribution asymmetrical. This is not what we see.

    This is because the space inside the universe is not empty but is full of dark energy which conducts this heat although slowly but sufficient for us.
    What is this dark energy that can conduct heat?

    You have yet to show us any mathematics behind your "model" (it isn't a model without math; it is just guesswork.)
    For it, I have already listed some numbers calculated from my mathematical model.


    Again: You have yet to show us any mathematics behind your "model".

    I am not making up any word salad though it may seem to be so. These terms I already have in my model. By ‘strands of energy’ I mean long strands of EM energy. These strands then break down into very small rotating segments (due to the high shearing force created by the rapid expansion of the universe) which I call ‘rotating strings of energy’.
    All this happens within the furnace.
    So you claim you are not making stuff up, by making up some more stuff to justify it.

    I suppose you can make any model work if you just keep inventing more stuff that has no evidence, to explain the lack of evidence for the other stuff.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •