Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson  "The only thing missing is for main-line science to realize that a (relatively) steady state universe is now an acceptable alternative to a single BB with a ready made explanation for the formation of the galaxies." - Do you mean the same explanation as the one used for the single Big Bang that you reject? Wouldn't that reject the many Big Bangs also? |
I don't reject the concept of a BB, or the mechanism - just the concept that there was a single BB at the beginning of the universe. The formation of the galaxies is a clear indication that the single BB concept is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson What could possibly have pushed all the existing matter and energy together in the first place with nothing to push against. It seems that you have a one sided equation of force with no equal and opposite force. It makes no sense what so ever. |
Perhaps it makes more sense if you consider what the matter/energy does inside a BH. If it is condensed back into the source from which it came then it will not be matter as we know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson If we shot out from the Big Bang to where we are now, wouldn't we have to be out in front of any "light" from the Big Bang. Otherwise wouldn't all the light from the Big Bang have long ago passed us and gone out beyond us. Or did we somehow get out here by traveling faster than the speed of light and now we have somehow slowed down, so that the light from the Big Bang 13 billion years ago is just now able to finally catch up to us so that we can see it finally. Neither of these makes any sense. If we are basing the BB theory on the straight line comparison of galaxies twice as far away in one direction are twice as red shifted, that is all well and good, but because we are spinning around out galactic center that further galaxy that we are using in the comparison is/was actually in a completely different direction at the time the light left it maybe even from the opposite direction. How does that mesh in any way with the notion that everything can be shrunk back in a straight line model to a common point of origin? |
I can't find any reasonable explanation for these problems and agree that the current model makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson If Gravity or "Mass" sucks, would someone please explain just how it is that it does that? |
See my article 'The Dance of Shiva' which illustrates the relationship of mass and gravity in simple terms which accords with both GR and QM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson I do not believe that anyone has yet come up with a definition of singularity that makes any sense either. If singularity implies everything being in one place or state of equal position or equal potential, then all the data would seem to disprove it by the sheer diversity of states, positions and potentials. The diversity is most evident and prevalent if anything is true. This would have to hold true at every potential state of compression in a black hole or even a total universal compression/collapse, which is just unjustifiable to my mind. |
You are envisaging a BH as containing ordinary matter/energy in a highly compressed state. It's not going to be like that. The everyday laws of physics will not apply inside as the construction will be different. My concept is that the gravitons will get so constricted that they are reabsorbed back into the masons. When this happens there is no matter and no gravity - just a solid concentration of masons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson I will be making a strong case for the red shift being simply associated with greater distance in one of my papers that make up my ToE. |
I agree - it's the most obvious explanation.
regards
Felix
Apologies to Joseph for hijacking your thread!