[RascalPuff]

Revisionary Big Bangologist Politics: Reprise


Recently in the Theory of Everything internet enclave, the following - exemplary - excerpt was included in a post:

"Note that nowhere in the BB theory does it state 'the universe exploded into existence', or in fact anything to do with explosions!!"

This conceptual posturing is merely an example of the fact that the big bang theory has evolved from it's inception as a 'beginning explosion', into a Standard Theorist bunker of denials that any 'original explosion' commenced what is now popularly referenced as 'The Expanding Universe'.

Proclamations that there is no original explosion associated with the big bang theory have become the status quo. When someone proclaims or implies otherwise, they are promptly described as a 'novice', and 'corrected', as exemplified by the above quoted statement - denying any 'Big Bang Theory' explosion.

This controversy leads to the question of where the big bang theory originated, and, how it was described.
Here is the google acquired answer to that question:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ce/sc0022.html

In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae — exploding stars visible over great distances — to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing — a discovery which has since “shaken astronomy to its core” (Astronomy, October 1999).

This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on “a day without yesterday.”
After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists — including the mathematician Stephen Hawking — predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre’s contention that the Big Bang was in fact “a day without yesterday.” When Georges Lemaitre was born in Charleroi, Belgium, most scientists thought that the universe was infinite in age and constant in its general appearance. The work of Isaac Newton and James C. Maxwell suggested an eternal universe. When Albert Einstein first published his theory of relativity in 1916, it seemed to confirm that the universe had gone on forever, stable and unchanging.

The revisionary transition came about, because there is no common center from which the expanding universe, recedes. The dynamic structure of the expanding universe is such, that the recession of light sources is moving directly away from the observer, in direct line of sight, no matter what location the expansion is observed. 'The center is everywhere'. This is not the dynamic signature of an explosion - especially when it is learned that the expansion is proceeding ever faster: accelerating.

On the other hand the described dynamics are the signature of a repelling force acting out of all material bodies, 'just like gravity', except, in the opposite direction. Refer, 'the Cosmological Constant'. It appears to have been brought out of retirement, under the new name of 'dark energy'.

There are issues that anticipate, presume and even demand a ‘beginning and ending’.

"What was there before the ‘big bang’?
"Where did matter originate?
"Where was the universe before there was a God?"


Religion often answers such questions with the statement that there has always been a God.


Science is licensed to answer in the same reasoning.

There are non religious perspectives which proffer exactly that scientific answer to that religious question.

There has always been a (Steady State) universe of matter and all of its manifestations.


It is no less confounding to consider that matter has always been here than it is to propound that it ‘started, and/or, that it had a ‘beginning’ or ‘genesis’...

There is an outer (exterior) - macrocosmic - universe and an inner (interior) - microcosmic - universe, but this does not require that there is a finite ‘outside’ ‘universe’ and a finite ‘inside’ universe, discontinuous from the ‘single verse’.

The ‘outside’ of the universe directly implies limitations - that there was a ‘beginning’ of matter and all of its phenomenological components - electromagnetism, gravity, inertia, and, that there ‘must be’ a corresponding ‘end’ of the (contents of) the universe.
Whereas, matter dissolves into photons, resolve into matter, ad infinitum.


‘The surface’ of the sun, for example, constitutes the first impulses of energy that omni-directionally projected from its ‘beginning’. In the case of the sun, there likely was a beginning, but not in the consideration of the elemental material of which it is constituted - that’s always existed. Only changing its form and location, without beginning or ending, in accordance with the law of conservation of mass-energy.
A circulating ensemble of solid, liquid, gas and plasma.


In this setting, an electron, is a ‘standing wave particle’ of 4-D mass-field (the stuff of which all the sensory-evident material world is made), the ‘zero point’ - center - of which is just as inaccessible, just as infinitely remote and unreachable, as the outside parameter(s) of the collectively endless universe.

In accord with this theme: ‘Beginning’ and ‘ending’, as applied to universal micro-macrocosmic issues, may be colorful word spinach, cultivated, fertilized and maintained, in an existentially isolated, man made greenhouse.
------------------
"Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49

Although black holes have yet to be proven, they are nonetheless very controversial and have strangely taken the foreground of discussions in theoretical physics. Their cause - if they exist at all - is not controversial.
Presently, with the exception of allusions to the 'Schwartzchild radius' and this offering, there are not even any formally submitted guesses as to their cause. If black holes exist, until further notice, they are - ostensibly - the causative result of a contracting four dimensional space-time continuum; that is to say, a four dimensionally contracting material system, becoming ever smaller and more dense: to microcosmic infinity.
Another perspective of this same 4-D consideration, is concepualizing a ‘black hole singularity of infinite density’ as being 3-D matter, getting relatively ever smaller and more dense, in inverse proportion to the 4-Dimensionally expanding universe surrounding *it (*any given ‘black hole singularity’).

Does Absolute Zero Generate Involute Space?


Microcosmic test objects have been cryogenically subjected to 'temperatures' approaching minus 273o Centigrade. But the goal of 'Absolute Zero' has yet to be achieved, and Standard Theory suggests that Absolute Zero (Kelvin) may not be achievable; that it may not be possible to stop all motion - molecular or otherwise in any given test object. Though laboratory experimentation has come very close to inducing Absolute Zero in a given test object...

Question: How 'close' is 'very close' in this consideration?

Thermodynamically, it occurs to this record that in the offered circumstances and pursuit, 'an inch is as good as a (Zeno's paradoxical) mile'. My intuition (and perspective of relativity) suggests that if and when Absolute Zero is achieved - when all (molecular, atomic and subatomic motion) is stopped in a given test object, that entity will implode. Becoming as three dimensionally small and dense as the four dimensional universe around it becomes relatively large and tenuous, squared (forever). That is to summarize: the consummation of a Schwartzchild radius and the creation of a black hole...

May the Reader please tell me their thoughts on this consideration?

(To be continued.)