It seems to be the best explanation I have ever come across , However having seen so many it also fails to answer my question , I could accept it only if science postulated that there was an outside to the big bang .
How so? This implies that something (space) existed before the big bang. Which in turn implies that space is infinite in time. That is it had no creation. All the evidence, CMBR, hubble red shift, observed evolutionary changes in galaxies, lithium distribution, photon to baryon ratios is consistent with current Big Bang theories.
It also implies there is a center to the big bang which in turn implies there is an intertial frame of reference and so a 'special observor' who is at rest and can measure the absolute motion of objects. This is in contradiction to Relativity that has been extensively tested and verified experimentally.
I do not agree with science but having an open mind I believe that science is correct in its research according to how it has itself created it , here is where I believe gravity has been misleading science .
Again, how so? Can you be highly specific please? I suspect your understanding of Gravity and my understanding of Gravity as a consequence of the postulates of Relativity are going to be at odds.
I have my own theories which I hope to gradually explain but I also would like others to understand and consider that I too also seek an understanding , I have to ask myself if I am correct and can only do that by being brave enough to ask the world through sites such as this one , me being aware of this then I guess I seek to be proven wrong .
A commendable objective. The scientific method is not one of blindly following some ones word but of objectively analysing data and cross referencing theories to the data. Only the theories that match the data, or better, make predictions later found to be accurate are accepted. Plus points are made for keeping a theory as simple as possible, but not simpler. In this regard the whole of Relativity is based on 4 postulates.
A better theory would need to be based on 3 or less postulates and still explain every observation made in the last 100+ years.
If you truly wish to be proven wrong try posting to news:\\sci.astro or news:\\sci.physics.relativity. The active scientists on those groups are usually more than happy to oblige in disproving theories.
The big bang hypothesis goes against intuition
It certainly does. There is no a priori reason for the universe to obey a Humans concept of 'common sense'. To assume otherwise is folly.
what would be the cause to have accumulated the mass size of the primeval atom , how did it get there
A point often neglected in TV descriptions of the Big Bang theory is that it is a theory of what happened AFTER the creation event. The theory (based on known physics) can not explain what the cause of the Big Bang was. It is also neglected by pop-sci that the physics of the Big Bang is fully understood back to a few fractions of a second after the Big Bang. It is that first few milliseconds (or so) that eludes science. So called GUT and TOE theories may, possibly, provide an insight. To reieterate, Big Bang Cosmology is a description of what happens after the creation and is backed up by considerable observational data,
how could gravity give it cause to create a big bang 15 billion years ago
Because Gravity had nothing to do with it. I'd suggest you get a more up to date text book or stop watching PBS/NOVA specials on Astronomy, they rarely get the intricacies of it right. In writing for everyone some of the nuances and subtleties of theories are missed. My suggestions would be
Gribben, The First 3 minutes
P. Davies, The New Physics
Guth, Inflationary Cosmology
Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, Einsteins Outrageous Legacy
The expansion of the Universe is now thought to be the consequence of a Higgs Scalar Field collapsing from a high energy state into a ground state. This causes a negative pressure gradient that in Relativity can be interpreted as an anti-gravity affect. Hence spacetime expands at faster than light speeds. But this does not explain why the Bang occurred.
Recent BOOMERANG data are consistent with this theory and many accelereators are trying to find the elusive Higgs particle (from a different Higgs Field). At the moment the above theory is more a hypothesis as there is little corroborating evidence. It does, though, fix a number of real problems in the original Big Bang cosmology, probably being the one you are thinking of.
why not 16 or 100 billion years ago
If the Universe had a beginning it has a fixed age, why not 15 Billion years?
I know that these dates are not dismissed because one could say that the light has not yet reached us from that far back and so our vision is limited to our present horizon .
How so? again.
We know that Red Dwarf stars have a lifetime potentially longer than the current age of the Universe. If we found one star older than the current accepted age of the Universe we know there is a problem.
In fact, this had been observed but the oldest known stars are only about 15-18 Billion years old. Is this a problem? Observational data of values for the Hubble Constant are known to be error prone. Chances are that the Hubble Constant is badly known.
Anyway the fact remains that this big bang is what has been accepted but we cannot dismiss certain intuitive contradictions that goes against it ever occurring.
And if your intuition is wrong? Science only deals with real data and theories consistent with that data. Though all hypotheses start with intuition nearly all hypotheses are later found to be wrong.
Science states that there was no before the big bang , I understand but science does not want to accept a before because it would then be admitting the act of creation , the big bang then seems to take an atheist view of existence which really does not help the world at all , well that is my opinion .
How would accepting a Divine Architect help us. Which specific religion would you choose as the correct one. The Judeo-Christian God, Allah (blessed be his name), Yahweh or possibly a major religion such as Hinduism.
The major problem is that once you assume a divine creation and the myths that goes with it then the answer to any question is in those myths.
You were concieved in a womb and you grew for nine months due to having been fed through the umbilicle cord until eventually you were born .
You can consider that the womb is the endless void ,and the primevil atom is the cosmic egg that God created , the sperm then is the light energy of God and what I ask you to accept in my theory as the photon , now in order for you to grow you need energy which was passed on to you through the cord this then being the light wave that carries little packets of energy , the six days is to me the time that God took to concieve his creation and create light which on the seventh he rested and the nine months is the time that the cosmic egg had taken to be born which is the first expansion of the universe . In order to understand my point then I have to express further by saying what had God created that had caused him to take six days , it could not be a primeval speck else we believers would lack faith in his abilities , so what I believe is that he created a huge sphere containing the entire mass of the universe that resided in an endless void
Very prosaic but does it provide any way that it can be proven correct. What predictions do you make? How does this theory explain the photon/baryon ratio (a relic of the Big Bang), Lithium densities (a relic of the Big Bang), the Cosmic Microwave Background ...
Surely, a Divine Architect creating everything from a singularity is more impressive than an arbitrary large sphere.
he then shed his energy upon it until it ignited , this then became the star of creation , this star then after the first billion years ejected material through a coronal mass ejection that eventually formed one or more spheres and circled the star of creation which then heated these newly formed spheres and in turn they too ignited and continued to replicate onwards , therefore creating the structure of the universe and a consecutive expansion cycle where each expansion cycle became smaller and smaller .
This at least is testable. In your hypothesis there would be consecutively larger distances between episodes of coronal mass ejections. This is not found in the several surveys of galactic distribution. In fact, the Hubble Deep Field shows more, smaller, less luminous galaxies closer together. This alone immediately contradicts your hypothesis.
To expand on this then one could see that consecutive matter ejections is the cause to create hubble to think that the universe is expanding due to the red shifts of todays galaxies , the further he looked back then the bigger the stars were back then which would have ejected matter further .
I think your understanding of red shift and mine are at odds.
A very simplified explanation is that the wavelength for light (lambda) is equal to speed of light (c) divided by frequence (f), i.e.
lambda = c/f
(The real equations are a bit more complex but this illustrates the point.)
If the source of light is moving at velocity v with respect to us, then this equation could be modified to look like;
Lambda =(c +/- v) / f
But as the speed of light is a constant and the frequency does not change the wavelength must alter. If the source is moving towards us the wavelength increases (blue shifting), if away then the wavelength decreases (red shifting). What happens is that all the wavelengths shift by the same amount. The amount of redshift indicates the relative speeds.
If your coronal mess ejection theories where correct you would see material being coming towards us and away from us. That is, distant galaxies would be blue shifted. This is contrary to Hubbles findings and all subsequent galactic surveys. Again, this invalidates your hypothesis.
Today the universe has finished expanding and only the remnants of the last cycle of super huge stars remain , these then reside in the center of our galaxies
But then we expect to see massive luminous objects in all Galaxies. Recent surveys indicate there are massive objects but they do not give off light. Evidence is consistent with Black Holes.
the further one looks back then the wider the gap between the globular clusters of galaxies
See previous point on galactic distribution and Hubble Deep Field
and further still then nothing much than quasars which apparantly are either the remnants of the first cycle of stars or there after , or are the first huge stars .
Are you aware of the work done on analying the spectra of Quasars. Big Stars like S. Doradus have distinct spectra. Galactic spectra are different as they contain the light from millions of stars. A Quasars spectra is more like a galaxies (multiple sources). Did you know that Quasars are associated with BL Lacertae objects, Seyfert Galaxies and other Active Galactic Nuclei. All the evidence points to Quasars as Black Holes with jets and large clouds of highly ionised gas clouds orbiting the Hole.
The reason why today we have galaxies is because the consecutive cycle of stars upon reaching this final stage then were smaller so their ejected material could not concieve of ever reaching the tremendous distances like the first say ten huge star cycles or more .
See previous evidence on Hubble Deep Field.
These then orbit the central bulge of our galaxies to make up its structure that one can quite clearly see that such matter ejections has the ability to create the spiral arms of a barred galaxy or spiral galaxy or elliptical galaxy .
But how do you explain the variations in these galactic morphologies. Only a few Spirals have distinct arms, the Grand Design Spirals. About the same number have bars. The majority of spirals are called flocculent with little or no structure in the arms. Spirals have large amounts of gas dust in the arms with the arms revolving as rigid bodies. Ellipticals on the other hand have little or no gas dust in them and the motion of the stars is random.
Today stars are much smaller within our galaxies and one notices that matter ejections can only occur in the form of super nova , my reason is that I believe that all stars have cold cores and burn from the outside inwards , thus this spherical heat creates a pressure which then creates a continous increase in the core density thereby making the effective use of its fuel which eventually the heat would become intensified due to the star core increasing in density by shrinking .
So how do you explain the black body spectra of stars and more importantly, the solar wind, photons and neutrinos consistent with nuclear fusion in the core. The idea of the solar atmosphere being the source of heat and light was disproven 100+ years ago. The relaxation time of a gravitationally collapsing star is too short to explain stellar life times. It also does not explain everything else observed in stars.
The outer heat not letting room for the escape of spent fuel would eventually breakthrough to create the sunspots as with our sun cycle
Bzzt, How does spent fuel break through a region that is burning. Sun spots are black as they are cooler than the surrounding plasma. Their spectra is consistent with this and not some new form of dense material as posited. They are also related to regions of high magnetic fields as observed by coronal loops and mass ejections.
Did you know sunspots have been observed on Betelgeuse, a Red Giant.
Sorry my friend. If you are attempting to re-write the whole of Astrophysics, Physics, Cosmology and scientific discoveries since about 1910 then I suggest you first understand why the current theories where developed and how many other theories failed when the evidence was found.