[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Hi Llyod, The CMBR has not decayed in 13 billion years. Will it decay between bangs?? I doubt it...

Stephen Hawking already calculated its decay at 10^137 years, back in the seventies. 10^137 years is a far cry from 13.7 billion years. The entire finite universe is much longer existing than most realize, when total atomic and sub-atomic decay is considered... If you do that 10^137 years math, you'll find it's trillions of trillions of years... Oh it's true the stars will burn out long before that time, but decay of the remaining matter, cmbr and other radiation will be around a very long time... Then maybe, if the universe is lucky, there'll be another re-constitution of this micro-state phase space matter into another big-bang... Hello, new universe...

Regards,
Lloyd

[dipayankar]

Now coming back to the original discussion... if we find a phase difference in the CMB at some point in time, I think we can safetly guess that there were multiple bangs. If there is no phase difference, then there has to be only one bang and the theory proposed by Turok will be a dead duck.... what do you think???

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Stephen Hawking already calculated its decay at 10^137 years, back in the seventies. 10^137 years is a far cry from 13.7 billion years. The entire finite universe is much longer existing than most realize, when total atomic and sub-atomic decay is considered... If you do that 10^137 years math, you'll find it's trillions of trillions of years... Oh it's true the stars will burn out long before that time, but decay of the remaining matter, cmbr and other radiation will be around a very long time... Then maybe, if the universe is lucky, there'll be another re-constitution of this micro-state phase space matter into another big-bang... Hello, new universe... Regards, Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Now coming back to the original discussion... if we find a phase difference in the CMB at some point in time, I think we can safetly guess that there were multiple bangs. If there is no phase difference, then there has to be only one bang and the theory proposed by Turok will be a dead duck.... what do you think???

No, I do not accept that any phase or matter/density differences of cmbr will show any evidence of one or more big-bangs, as I stated, in order for another universe to form, IMO, it would have to first completely decay, as thermodynamics is not powerful enough to overcome such existing cmbr. It must decay to allow thermodynamics the power to reconstitute a new universe.

This original idea of variations in cmbr was proposed to check if the inflation's model's predictions were correct. If the newest sattelites are able to verify two phase spaces of cmbr, this will only verfy the inflation model, of different stages of universal expansions, since the big-bang. This is the one I accept. CMBR, IMO, can not be used as a guide to how many big-bangs existed, for the already mentioned reasons... Also, just think of the math this would involve in years alone. 10^137 years of light travel___there's no satellite capable of such observations, and cmbr at that number of years mass and light travel would be so far distant, only a three toed Martian could answer such absurdity. Then, before I believe in Martians, show me their droppings...

Regards,
Lloyd

[dipayankar]

Does it mean Turok's theory does not stand?? Then what would be your views on Multiverse or Baby Universe sprouting from our Universes???

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie No, I do not accept that any phase or matter/density differences of cmbr will show any evidence of one or more big-bangs, as I stated, in order for another universe to form, IMO, it would have to first completely decay, as thermodynamics is not powerful enough to overcome such existing cmbr. It must decay to allow thermodynamics the power to reconstitute a new universe. This original idea of variations in cmbr was proposed to check if the inflation's model's predictions were correct. If the newest sattelites are able to verify two phase spaces of cmbr, this will only verfy the inflation model, of different stages of universal expansions, since the big-bang. This is the one I accept. CMBR, IMO, can not be used as a guide to how many big-bangs existed, for the already mentioned reasons... Also, just think of the math this would involve in years alone. 10^137 years of light travel___there's no satellite capable of such observations, and cmbr at that number of years mass and light travel would be so far distant, only a three toed Martian could answer such absurdity. Then, before I believe in Martians, show me their droppings... Regards, Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Does it mean Turok's theory does not stand?? Then what would be your views on Multiverse or Baby Universe sprouting from our Universes???

IMO, Turok's theory does not stand. As far as multiverse, the devil is in the definitions. If by multiverse you mean, as Tom Manz has described it, universe means from big bang forward, and multiverse means this universe plus what existed before this universe, then I accept his definition. If you mean multiple universes of the big-bang type, then no. IMO, only one completed cycle universe is possible, because of our universes need for such a large expansion radius, 10^137 years of matter, radiation and light, that our universe would never be affected by any possibility of other such universes, so, since there is no evidence possible, I ignore such speculations. As to baby universes sprouting from our universe, I would say show me the evidence___there is none. Although, we do witness past galaxie and star birth through the Hubble Telescope, they are far distant in our past, and likely burned out before our planet was even formed. These observations are 8 to 10 billion years old. Time has erased the initial births, completely, I would have to say. As far as Galaxies and stars still forming, the evidence is still being interpreted. A cosmologist named Hardison, I belive, that I read in the `80's was the best information I ever came across on these questions. He viewed it all through the light cones ability of expansion over time___I think his and Hawking's are the best assessments. I don't know where his book or information can be found, though he was quite profound at basic grounded logic of universal realities.

Regards,
Lloyd

[mkirkpatrick]

I tend to think that there was one big bang,that emerged from within a singularity,one
seems to fit the bill for me.


regards michael.

[dipayankar]

Thanks Llyod for the assessment. I will try getting hold of the book. However any idea what could have caused the Big Bang??? What would have been the matter / Energy in the singularity?? And why did it explode???

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie IMO, Turok's theory does not stand. As far as multiverse, the devil is in the definitions. If by multiverse you mean, as Tom Manz has described it, universe means from big bang forward, and multiverse means this universe plus what existed before this universe, then I accept his definition. If you mean multiple universes of the big-bang type, then no. IMO, only one completed cycle universe is possible, because of our universes need for such a large expansion radius, 10^137 years of matter, radiation and light, that our universe would never be affected by any possibility of other such universes, so, since there is no evidence possible, I ignore such speculations. As to baby universes sprouting from our universe, I would say show me the evidence___there is none. Although, we do witness past galaxie and star birth through the Hubble Telescope, they are far distant in our past, and likely burned out before our planet was even formed. These observations are 8 to 10 billion years old. Time has erased the initial births, completely, I would have to say. As far as Galaxies and stars still forming, the evidence is still being interpreted. A cosmologist named Hardison, I belive, that I read in the `80's was the best information I ever came across on these questions. He viewed it all through the light cones ability of expansion over time___I think his and Hawking's are the best assessments. I don't know where his book or information can be found, though he was quite profound at basic grounded logic of universal realities. Regards, Lloyd

[dipayankar]

Thanks for the detailed assessment. However some questions still linger in my mind. What caused the matter / energy to come into a singularity?? Why did it 'explode'?? What was the matter / energy that formed the sigularity?? Was it some earlier version of any space time???

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie IMO, Turok's theory does not stand. As far as multiverse, the devil is in the definitions. If by multiverse you mean, as Tom Manz has described it, universe means from big bang forward, and multiverse means this universe plus what existed before this universe, then I accept his definition. If you mean multiple universes of the big-bang type, then no. IMO, only one completed cycle universe is possible, because of our universes need for such a large expansion radius, 10^137 years of matter, radiation and light, that our universe would never be affected by any possibility of other such universes, so, since there is no evidence possible, I ignore such speculations. As to baby universes sprouting from our universe, I would say show me the evidence___there is none. Although, we do witness past galaxie and star birth through the Hubble Telescope, they are far distant in our past, and likely burned out before our planet was even formed. These observations are 8 to 10 billion years old. Time has erased the initial births, completely, I would have to say. As far as Galaxies and stars still forming, the evidence is still being interpreted. A cosmologist named Hardison, I belive, that I read in the `80's was the best information I ever came across on these questions. He viewed it all through the light cones ability of expansion over time___I think his and Hawking's are the best assessments. I don't know where his book or information can be found, though he was quite profound at basic grounded logic of universal realities. Regards, Lloyd

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dipayankar However any idea what could have caused the Big Bang???[{First, this is all my own theory and facts, that I can substantiate with mathematical reasoning and a thorough going logic of the entire universe's cycle...} It had to explode, or we'd have no light. The other causes are below.] What would have been the matter / Energy in the singularity??[Most likely, the quantumization of linear motioned hydrogen/helium/hydrozing condensates of trillions of trillions of years of the fundamental thermal matter space storms and resulting radiation heat.] And why did it explode???[Light{low velocity} thermal motion implosions, creating extreme{high velocity} thermal motion compressions, creating first small storms and hurricanes, then giant storms, hurricanes and tornados, ever increasing in size and pressures toward a center. Rotations meet and change directions on opposing axis when turning the same or opposite directions, so extreme heat from all initial and final motion would have been concentrated in centri-petal, centrifical, centrifugal and centrifusal forces, forming em waves, gravity waves, super-gravity, etc. When these combinations of motion forces reached high enough velocities, [what we call relative velocities], actually thermal radiation stage of molecular motion into entropy stages of mass, where it must radiate its mass to increase in velocity, and thus the collapse stage 1 of a true building black hole singularity. Further stages of collapse would have continued for trillions of years, quantumizing enough fundamental matter, out of initial linear matter motion, only, to build the early universe. IMO, stars continue the process of quantumization of matter to this day.] What caused the matter / energy to come into a singularity??[Thermo-hydro-dynamic space storms of matter/motions/energies] Why did it 'explode'??[The same reason some stars still explode. Remember this was the first___one had to explode to creat any light at all, in the universe. It's just scientifically required, or we wouldn't be here and able to see light. The other reason is compression, just like a diesel engine.] What was the matter / energy that formed the sigularity??[That answer is found by seeing total finiteness as a single atom. Let it decay out to 10^137 Hawking years, and you have to have fundamental matter. It's required to eternally exist, by the very first law of thermodynamics, which LaPlace of France, proved in the 1700's___matter and energy can never be destroyed, only converted one to the other.] Was it some earlier version of any space time???[IMO, space-time is Einstein's metaphysical idea, it's not the reality. Space, yes. Time is mans concept layed on the motion of space matter. I only accept Newtons absolute space. It's the only way to escape the std. model's foolishness of coming from either a point or nothing. Einstein was a great physicist. He was a lousy metaphysicist. His physics and math are correct, but when he tried to figure out his own thoughts of the giant ideas, he failed miserably, and we've been locked in his false metaphysics, for over a century.]

True science would tell us it did not come from a point or nothing as the std. model and many quantum models accept. The singularity formed from the fundamental thermal matter motions of infinite eternal uncreated linear space. The way to know this must be true is to realize the existing universe, being perpetual motion, needs a source of finance for its matter/motions. This requires the infinite source of a prime mover, which is a simple uncaused cause. There's only one in the scientific arsenal___thermodynamics and the hydrodynamics of. Since we scientifically know we can't have motion or energy without something to move, a fundamental substance is absolutely required___thus absolute matter, which in turn requires an infinite space to exist in, since finite motion requires an external prime mover for its perpetualness, and thermodynamics being such a weak motioner, the infinite thermal matter motion space theory of matter/energy, before the big-bang is absolutely required. How did it work? It was, IMO, just the most gigantic weather system ever possible to imagine, and all heat radiation created by early motions would have been pushed to a virtual/eventually real center, for trillions of trillions of years, also heating and increasing the fundamental substance size. IMO, somewhere say 10^20 years before the final building of the hydrogen/helium/hydrozine highly compressed mass black gaseous/plasma ball, where quantumization was initiated, it would have started quantum tunneling out into infinite space, before the real explosion. As it exploded into a pre-quantumized finite space, it would have created the vacuum of space, as all explosions create vacuums at their centers. The tremendous violence of this explosion would almost be like imagining infinity itself exploding, even though it was only a small piece of infinity's center. Space storms of massive size would have existed before the final stages, leading to quantum spray, such as quasars, but nothing in intensity after the unimaginable forces of such an explosion. Hurricane and tornado force winds at near the speed of light, much higher then, due to lower mass density of the aether, in all directions, since such violent heat was exploding into virgin 0K. If you've ever seen and heard super-heated steam hitting freezing water, you'd have some idea what the violence would have been. Tornados and hurricans, before and after explosion are what, IMO, shaped the galaxies motions, cmbr and all space curvatures since. Smaller black holes would have been formed from the initial black hole, especially at the wall of the thunder head front, shooting black holes and initial galaxie forming matter in every direction, out and back in, in 360 degrees. This is why we still witness the Hubble speeds of planets at distance, which are really the burned out memories of super-light stars and super-light initial galaxies. Galaxie evolution would have progressed to produce the heavier stars and galaxies of today.

Hope this helps,
LLoyd

p.s.
A final note; The infinite eternal cold thermal is absolutely required to exist to continue the cooling equilibrium of the hot finite space matter motions described above. There is no other source of cold except the infinite linear field, the hot quantumized aether field exists in. The finite universe would have experienced heat death long ago, without the required infinite cold linear field permeating all of finiteness's hot quantum field.

[dipayankar]

Wow... that was great. Let me absorb this thing first... that was long..

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie True science would tell us it did not come from a point or nothing as the std. model and many quantum models accept. The singularity formed from the fundamental thermal matter motions of infinite eternal uncreated linear space. The way to know this must be true is to realize the existing universe, being perpetual motion, needs a source of finance for its matter/motions. This requires the infinite source of a prime mover, which is a simple uncaused cause. There's only one in the scientific arsenal___thermodynamics and the hydrodynamics of. Since we scientifically know we can't have motion or energy without something to move, a fundamental substance is absolutely required___thus absolute matter, which in turn requires an infinite space to exist in, since finite motion requires an external prime mover for its perpetualness, and thermodynamics being such a weak motioner, the infinite thermal matter motion space theory of matter/energy, before the big-bang is absolutely required. How did it work? It was, IMO, just the most gigantic weather system ever possible to imagine, and all heat radiation created by early motions would have been pushed to a virtual/eventually real center, for trillions of trillions of years, also heating and increasing the fundamental substance size. IMO, somewhere say 10^20 years before the final building of the hydrogen/helium/hydrozine highly compressed mass black gaseous/plasma ball, where quantumization was initiated, it would have started quantum tunneling out into infinite space, before the real explosion. As it exploded into a pre-quantumized finite space, it would have created the vacuum of space, as all explosions create vacuums at their centers. The tremendous violence of this explosion would almost be like imagining infinity itself exploding, even though it was only a small piece of infinity's center. Space storms of massive size would have existed before the final stages, leading to quantum spray, such as quasars, but nothing in intensity after the unimaginable forces of such an explosion. Hurricane and tornado force winds at near the speed of light, much higher then, due to lower mass density of the aether, in all directions, since such violent heat was exploding into virgin 0K. If you've ever seen and heard super-heated steam hitting freezing water, you'd have some idea what the violence would have been. Tornados and hurricans, before and after explosion are what, IMO, shaped the galaxies motions, cmbr and all space curvatures since. Smaller black holes would have been formed from the initial black hole, especially at the wall of the thunder head front, shooting black holes and initial galaxie forming matter in every direction, out and back in, in 360 degrees. This is why we still witness the Hubble speeds of planets at distance, which are really the burned out memories of super-light stars and super-light initial galaxies. Galaxie evolution would have progressed to produce the heavier stars and galaxies of today. Hope this helps, LLoyd p.s. A final note; The infinite eternal cold thermal is absolutely required to exist to continue the cooling equilibrium of the hot finite space matter motions described above. There is no other source of cold except the infinite linear field, the hot quantumized aether field exists in. The finite universe would have experienced heat death long ago, without the required infinite cold linear field permeating all of finiteness's hot quantum field.