Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: But Thinking You Are Always Right Doesn't Make You Right Either

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by yelmalio/">yelmalio on January 19, 2000 10:48:34 UTC

Time still exhisted it was just maybe not moving, and their is also the theory that the big bang started out as one big blackhole, it would after all have been an anomily just like the ones in blackholes.

Current thought is that the Big Bang just happened, there was no existing Black Hole it came from. That is, the BB created spacetime, it was not an explosion of matter into space but an explosion of spacetime from nothing.

I wrote another long rant on this board about why Physicists do not infinities and the problems associated with them. This is why the above model was put forward.

Maybe (this is were my theory gets stretched to it's limit) when there was the bang time flowed out with the primodial matter, causing time to be flung to the furtherst reaches of the universe.

That is exactly what cosmologists think happened. The Cosmic Microwave Background is the afterglow of this explosion. The extreme isotropy of the CMBR is the evidence that spacetime came from the BB. Small anisotropies in the CMBR may be evidence as to why large scale structure is observed. Even stranger, the Big bang happened at faster than light speed as it underwent a "spontaneous symmetry breaking phase" where the energy of the explosion couples to a higgs field causing a false vacuum to collapse into a stable state. This collapse powers the inflation which expands the universe to billions of times its volume in a billionth of a second (hand waving). It is generally thought (its a consequence of Guths Inflationary Model as above) that the Universe we see is only a very small percentage of the whole thing.

There have been some very, very strange but serious models put forward that have yet to be disproven. Things like there being regions of space obeying different laws of physics seperated by domain walls and magnetic monopoles.

Theorists have the stranger ideas than is generally realised. They can outwierd anything I have read by interested lay people.

OR maybe the other theory holds true that small holes were formed during this bang, and they helped time "flow"

Hawking suggested that primordial Black Holes would be formed in the BB. He later calculated that the number density was so high (about one per cubic light year) that we should have hit several of them know. There is no evidence for primordial holes.

And as I said previously, your opinion, is not always right, I am happy to discuss, but don't discount till you have irefutable evidence.

I agree totally but you also have to look and understand all the existing evidence before putting forward a competing theory. The evidence for Relativity and Inflationary Cosmology is very hard to refute, once you know it.

Keep an open scientific mind, don't always believe all the popularly held theories.

I don't believe the theories, belief implies holding to an idea unthinkingly with no understanding of the evidence to back you. I have studied this field, cosmology, to the point of trying to find new cosmological models from the Einstein Field Equations. I would like to think I have a small understanding as to where the ideas came from, where they fail, the evidence for them and some of the competing theories that failed.

BTW, this does not make me right in any way. I just make mistakes with more accuracy.

100 years ago there was a very highly regarded theory that man would never fly at or faster than the speed of sound. well wat do you know?

I don't like this argument. It is used too often to mean "hey, I could be right as so many daft mistakes where made in the past". Comments like the above have to be put into context of when they where said. 100 years ago it was becoming obvious powered flight was possible but no one could envisage rocket engines. Saying that, SF authors could and did.

Yelmalio - just trying to enlighten people a little.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins