[Whys]

"If the fabric of 'space/time' is expanding then it will not be measurable by us as our clocks and rulers will be expanding at the same rate." -- Felix

Not true. You assume all portions of the fabric stretches equally. I believe matter is in fact folded space/time composed of complex wrinkles and knots that are much more resistant to expansion.

It is also possible that the black holes at the center of active galaxies are untying these knots as they consume matter. The resulting "slack" may be released back into the universal fabric, actually causing the galaxies to move away from one another. :)

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Whys;52683I

I believe matter is in fact folded space/time composed of complex wrinkles and knots that are much more resistant to expansion.

Dear Whys

Draw me a picture.

Felix

[pagan3142]

I cannot believe this Thread is still going.
And no one Has seemed to agree with any other. All have different Views of the Universe.
I started this Thread hoping to make others think differently.
Perhapse we are all in our own unique bubble of reality.
And each of us see the Universe in a Different way ( or Viewpoint ).
Some people are colourblind, maybe some people are closed to new ways of looking at things.
I don't know the answer. But I love the People who try to rationalise the crazy Universe.
Each with their own Viewpoint.
Keep up the good work.
Regards

[Whys]

Felix,



;)

[Felix Schrodinger]

Dear Whys

This would appear to suggest that matter only exists in conjunction with a BH? Is the accretion disk a representation of a galaxy? Have you written this up elsewhere or as an article?

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger

Dear Whys

This would appear to suggest that matter only exists in conjunction with a BH? Is the accretion disk a representation of a galaxy? Have you written this up elsewhere or as an article?

Hi Felix;

I assume that the BH stands for the Big Hiccup, could a cool cat like you buy into that model, since it's somewhat less than a Big Bang?

Best to you,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat

I assume that the BH stands for the Big Hiccup, could a cool cat like you buy into that model, since it's somewhat less than a Big Bang?

Hi Profpat

You have touched on one of the great mysteries in astrophysics which I have been questioning for a long time now - what is the difference between the single singularity of the BB and the multitude of singularities that we call Black Holes? If we only had one BB in the world we experience, then what are the little ones doing or going to do?

It was this question which led me away from the BB as a viable theory as it does not adequately explain the formation of the galaxies. However the creation of a galaxy from a singularity at its centre does make sense (to me at least).

This is why I support the steady state (as per Fred Hoyle) but it's not a steady steady state! If each galaxy arose from its own singularity then the state of things is ever changing. New galaxies will emerge from their singularities presumably as star nurseries (or white holes) and old ones will collapse into their central BHs. The question comes down to what a BH consists of - is it the blob of the current explanation or is it really a hole which has an entrance and an exit? Currently we assume that it's just a blob of singularity but that's not good enough for me - I expect it to do something.

regards
Felix

[dleviwing]

Observational evidence indicate that an event occurred that started the process of an evolving universe; it was NOT an explosion so maybe we should just change the name to the “Big Swelling” so we don’t need to constantly explain that “Big Bang” is just an erroneous name and not a descriptive one that infers an explosion; of course media graphics of the event in science programs don’t help with the problem; they keep showing the event as an explosion also. I wonder why so many are confused; I guess a swelling just doesn’t play as well in the media.

Now the singularities we here so much about are nothing more than the avoidance of having to say “I don’t know”; there is no evidence of any such entity. IMO there never will be. I thought Stephen Hawking’s paper was crap in 1968 and have not changed my mind; his interpretations of BHs is close to the same opinion. I guess that’s what happens when you start believing your press agent.

[Profpat]

Hi David;

I believe it was Fred Hoyle who came up with the term " Big Bang " and it stuck. So now when we describe that event we use the term " Big Bang ", which I believe is acceptable.

Now there very likely wasn't a "bang", but there sure was a BIG inflation, if you buy into Alan Guth's theory of spatial inflation.

Best to you,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Now the singularities we hear so much about are nothing more than the avoidance of having to say “I don’t know”; there is no evidence of any such entity. IMO there never will be.

So, David, are you saying that there are no BHs or no singularities?

Yes, Pat it was FH who termed the phrase BB, almost as a term of abuse. I'm not really concerned with what it's called as I don't believe it ever happened. Expansion may or may not be right but there are other ways to explain it.

Felix