Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: New Theory on Big Bang alternative.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    119
    I have a new theory on how the Big bang is wrong.

    At the moment, It is agreed that we are moving through space with the other
    planets.

    This is thaught to have occured due to a 'big bang' which caused the planets
    to be formed, And for it all to come from one origin.

    What if there was no 'big bang'.

    I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space. In fact, I
    heard of a new space-ship, using 'sails' to propel it through space.

    If these 'winds' can transport a small object through space, then it is just
    as likely to transport a large object through space, namely a planet such as
    ours. In fact it could probably push large solar systems and galaxies through
    the universe on a 'wave'.

    This is just a theory, so could you please email me back, telling me if this
    is all wrong. If it is correct, then can you tell me the email address of
    someone who knows a lot about the sbject, and could provide me with an even
    greater insight into the topic.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    Just one question:

    How does that show that the big bang is wrong?

    And, welcome to the BABB.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    164
    On 2002-01-23 07:05, p9107 wrote:

    I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space.
    I do believe they are called solar winds.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,921
    The professionals here can correct me if I'm wrong or am missing something, but my understanding is that any alternative to the Big Bang theory needs to explain at least the following:

    - the cosmic background radiation
    - the apparent correlation between red shift and distance (Hubble's law)
    - evidence that the universe has evolved (quasars at distances only, galaxies in Hubble Deep Field clearly more primitive)
    - evidence that the universe is expanding
    - the relative abundances of light isotopes
    - the darkness of the night sky (Olbers' paradox)

    I'm not sure if your concept explains any of this (except maybe the expansion part), but then I'm not sure I understand it, either.

    A good online introduction to cosmology is Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial, from which I got much of the above information.


    _________________
    "... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-01-23 08:42 ]</font>

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,570
    Welcome to the Bad Astronomy Bulliten Board (BABB). While I'm no expert and not an astronomy professional, I'll take a stab at some specific answers.
    On 2002-01-23 07:05, p9107 wrote:

    At the moment, It is agreed that we are moving through space with the other
    planets.
    While this is correct it has nothing to do with the BB cosmology. The planets orbit (move through space) around the Sun due to a forces called gravity and angular momentum. This has been known for about 400 years. This happens on a scale that is sub-microscopic compared to cosmology which has to do with 100's of millions of galaxies, spread over 10's of billions of light years.
    This is thaught to have occured due to a 'big bang' which caused the planets
    to be formed, And for it all to come from one origin.
    While it is true that the BB was indirectly responsible for planet formation, it is generally accepted that planet formation is part of the process of star formation.

    The BB is generally credited with galaxy formation, galaxies with star formation and stars with planet formation.
    What if there was no 'big bang'.
    There is some rather lively discussion about this very thing elsewhere on BABB.
    I read about a year ago, that there are radiation 'winds' in space. In fact, I
    heard of a new space-ship, using 'sails' to propel it through space.
    What you are refering to is the Solar Wind. This is an outward flow of atomic particles from the Sun. There is currently a project to create a space craft that will capture the energy from the SW to propel the craft around our Solar System. Again, this is strictly a local, as within the Solar System, effect. It has nothing to do with BB cosmology.
    If these 'winds' can transport a small object through space, then it is just
    as likely to transport a large object through space, namely a planet such as
    ours. In fact it could probably push large solar systems and galaxies through
    the universe on a 'wave'.
    The Solar Wind effect is FAR TO WEAK to propel planets anywhere. For example; comets which come barreling in from the Oort cloud have only a tiny fraction of the mass of Pluto (our smallest planet), yet they readily over power the SW.
    This is just a theory, so could you please email me back, telling me if this
    is all wrong. If it is correct, then can you tell me the email address of
    someone who knows a lot about the sbject, and could provide me with an even
    greater insight into the topic.
    The Bad Astronomer is an excellent source of information. There are also other professional astronomers that frequint the BABB who, I'm sure, will be happy to give you better answers than mine. I encourage you to do a search on "google" for "solar wind". I'm sure you will find many interesting sites.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    The big bang has nothing to do with the formation of planets. It has to do with the formation of the whole universe (All 800 billion bilion (+/- 3dB) cubic lightyears of it).

    _________________
    TANSTAAFL!

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-01-23 11:39 ]</font>

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    119
    Ok...So I might be a little wrong. Thanks, everyone, for replying to this. To tell you the truth, I am 15 years old, and live in England. I don't have much 'real' knowledge on the topic, but I thaught of it when I was lying in bed trying to get to sleep. I am sure it is mostly wrong (perhaps even impossible) but it was worth asking

    Thanks again,

    James Wilson

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,570
    I am sure it is mostly wrong (perhaps even impossible) but it was worth asking

    Thanks again,

    James Wilson
    The only dumb question is the one you don't ask. Keep asking questions!

    I enjoy thinking myself to sleep also. I try to envision astronomical distances, black holes, Saturn's rings, etc. My wife calls it "boaring yourself to sleep". What does she know? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    In the past ten years, I have come up with many new theories. One is that the earth actually exhibits regular planforms of convection. Two is that the mantle is more viscous than many researchers believed thirty years ago, based upon their own data. Three is that claims that Subramanyan Chandrasekhar proved that degree one convection of the mantle was impossible are in error. Four is that anomalous splitting of the modes of earth vibration are a result of degree one offsets. Five is that core-mantle perturbations are responsible for anomalous length-of-day variation, as well as Chandler wobble excitation. Six is that there is more than one time dimension. Seven is that the disproof of Whitehead's alternative theory of relativity is not completely valid. Eight is that the Earth has no pear-shape. Nine is that astrology and biorhythms might have an evolutionary basis. Ten is that SIDs is basically rebreathing suffocation. Eleven is that Uranus was the star of Bethlehem. Twelve is that you can lose weight by changing your breathing. Thirteen is that...well, that's unlucky. There're many more.

    I spend my nights trying to disprove them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,138
    On 2002-01-23 12:04, p9107 wrote:
    "...I thought of it when I was lying in bed trying to get to sleep."
    A lot of fascinating ideas have been discovered that way. (You're in good company with a lot of famous thinkers.) Keep thinking, and welcome to this bulletin board. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    Chip

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    119
    Hello again,
    I don't know what your real name is, but Mr. GrapesOfWrath, how can there be more than one time dimension. I understand that there are many dimensions which exist in sub-atomic particles, but how can time exist in more than one dimension? Do you mean the 'Tesser' theory?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    You must be talking about Abraham Tesser, and social psychology, but no that's not what I mean.

    I'm not really familiar with Tesser's work, although I have seen discussions about multiple time dimensions in other contexts. Do you have some references?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    119
    No...I mean the tesser theory which states that it is possible for an object to travel from one point to another immediately, with no time spent traveling. It is a theory put forward by Jason Tesser, in the 1980's.

    Is this what you meant by there being more than one time dimension?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    50
    P9107, at least you understodd that much. I'll chew me banana whilst trying to fiugre out the first 7 of GrapesofWrath's 12 things to think upon. Erm...where is the dictionary... And to think to look up in the sky and see stars required so much friggin brainpower [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011


    On 2002-01-25 07:18, ChallegedChimp wrote:
    the first 7 of GrapesofWrath's 12 things to think upon.
    The first five are mostly geophysics, and I think if I went into detail, Code Red and ToSeek would get mad at me for mixing up astronomy and earth science. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    On 2002-01-25 04:24, p9107 wrote:
    No...I mean the tesser theory which states that it is possible for an object to travel from one point to another immediately, with no time spent traveling. It is a theory put forward by Jason Tesser, in the 1980's.

    Is this what you meant by there being more than one time dimension?
    I'm not sure, how does Tesser accomplish that?

    I tried to do a search, and couldn't find anything online about a Jason Tesser with such theories. Do you have some links?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    Hmmm... then I suppose such travel through higher dimensions would be a sort of... Tesser-act?

    (Sorry, couldn't resist)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    Resistance is futile.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    50
    Ook?

    PS
    (methinks I been assimilated)

    PPS (tis amazing what you can learn whilst dipping in the shallow end of you guys deep thoughts)

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    119
    Donnie-B, what wit!!

    GrapesOfWrath, you still havn't told me what you mean by there being more than one time dimension. How is this possible? I would really be interested to know...

    On 2002-01-25 12:09, ChallegedChimp wrote:
    Ook?

    PS
    (methinks I been assimilated)

    PPS (tis amazing what you can learn whilst dipping in the shallow end of you guys deep thoughts)
    I agree with your PPS. I have learned so many new things in the last couple of days.
    However, I am not so sure about the relevance of your other comments, is Ook, some sort of scientific anallergy?

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: p9107 on 2002-01-26 05:01 ]</font>

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    50
    Read some Terry Pratchett books, then you'll understand Ook. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    On 2002-01-26 04:57, p9107 wrote:
    GrapesOfWrath, you still havn't told me what you mean by there being more than one time dimension. How is this possible? I would really be interested to know...
    Simple really.

    It's my own personal theory of supersupersymmetry. Not only is there three space dimensions, but there are three time dimensions.

    Normally, you see the null-geodesics defined as x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2 = 0

    In this theory, it would read x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2 + T^2 + m^2

    Space equals time, in other words.

    Now, do you have that Jason Tesser link?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    119
    Um...no.
    I havn't found any links, but there was a book published a couple of years ago - I can't remember the title immeadiately, but i will have a look for it tonight. I will be able to tell you tommorrow.

    Sorry...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    No hurry.

    After coming up with the idea, I did a web search and found that Heinlein--who I had read up until maybe 1975--wrote a book about it in the late 70's, called The Number of the Beast. He called the three time dimensions tee, tau (Greek), and teh (Cyrillic).

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,732
    IIRC, in "The Number of the Beast", there were a total of six dimensions which were interchangeable. Choose one as your "time" dimension and any three of the other five as your "space" dimensions.

    _________________
    TANSTAAFL!

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-01-27 05:09 ]</font>

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    I don't recall anything like that. They could set an axis, and rotate about it, using a device invented by one of the characters. The key to using it was a powerful AI computer that could memorize coordinates and instantly zoom back to those coordinates, with offsets.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    64
    "In this theory, it would read x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2 + T^2 + m^2

    Space equals time, in other words."

    So do you get valid gravitational field equations al a General Relativity using this formulation?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    On 2002-01-28 05:58, NottyImp wrote:
    So do you get valid gravitational field equations al a General Relativity using this formulation?
    ::snaps fingers:: Sure, why not? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    <font size=-1>[Forgot to turn on smilies]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-01-28 07:30 ]</font>

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    119
    OK, i've found thye name of the book - it is called "A Wrinkle in Time".


    Space equals time, in other words."
    ...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
    How can time exist in any more than one?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,011
    I've read that book. I think we have a copy around the house somewhere. Is Jason Tesser a character in it?
    On 2002-01-28 09:32, p9107 wrote:
    ...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
    How can time exist in any more than one?
    Well, I don't see why not. Pretty much the same way that you can have more than three space dimensions--that's pretty common way of looking at thimgs nowadays.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    270
    On 2002-01-28 09:32, p9107 wrote:
    OK, i've found thye name of the book - it is called "A Wrinkle in Time".


    Space equals time, in other words."
    ...And Space cannot possibly equal time, because space exists in 3 axis (x, y & z)
    How can time exist in any more than one?

    One is then assuming that time is at least linear. Though there may seem to be a "direction" to time, that is largely for simplification.

    Since time travel cannot be validated, and seems to have completely destructive paradoxes associated with it moving in the opposite direction, for now, I'm assuming time is not a linear function except to linear-beings... like us.


    I'm heading more towards zero-point fields and string theory, which don't have such hangups.

Similar Threads

  1. My Theory on an Alternative to the Big Bang
    By Aethelwulf in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 2012-May-08, 05:38 PM
  2. My Theory on an Alternative to the Big Bang
    By Aethelwulf in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-May-01, 05:24 PM
  3. Iamcurioustoo's Idea - Alternative To Big Bang
    By iamcurioustoo in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2006-Sep-19, 05:25 PM
  4. Alexander Mayer & an alternative to the Big Bang
    By Nivag in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-13, 12:34 PM
  5. Big Bang Alternative
    By StarLab in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-20, 04:16 PM

Posting Permissions

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