http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/ I don't even know where to begin... edit: Some have expressed disappointment over the lack of specifics in the article itself. I attempted to find an original publication about this, and I think this is it: Cosmological Models with No Big Bang Wun-Yi Shu (許文éƒ), Institute of Statistics, National Tsing Hua University http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf
Actually, this is more logical to me than a Bang. That theory ignores the existence of dimension 4 being infinite, past and future. This shows that the fourth dimension itself has some sort of equivalent exchange of the time it holds to the space held in dimension 3. This is fucking fascinating.
I need to see Shu's work instead of an article talking about it. I understand the idea, sort of, but I need to see details, math, this article doesn't have any of it. That being said. Finally. The Big Bang is easily sciences laziest explanation of the cosmos, I understand it was pretty much our only explanation for the time being but it didn't add up, much the same to do with God making it. People always want to know particles that made big bang came about or "who created god" I think this ought to help clear up our inability to understand creation without origin.
Heres where we start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM This video sums it up pretty nicely, no?
Having read it; I'm a bit disappointed. I was looking forward to seeing some maths, all I got was a graph. It has no answer to CMB, even Family Guy have come up with an explanation for CMB. Albeit a ridiculous one. Then it slags off the big bang theory for bending rules and "sweeping conservation of energy under the carpet" yet it states c is not a constant and has to use a "tweaked" version of relativity to explain this. And who's abandoning the Big Bang? The article actually gave the impression that the theory has a fair amount of opposition. The work itself may be something brilliant, but this article does it no favours, it's unclear, hypocritical and has an optimistic title.
You underestimate this forum I think, but what do I know? I been here only a little while and there are a lot of dumb posters. I'll settle for wishful thinking.
I'm gonna try and google up something more specific. I think it's to be expected for an emerging alternative cosmology to have plenty of opposition and lots of critique, although it might be a bit too early to see very much of it in print. I'm not sure how long this has been around, or if it has even been published (I'm assuming it is and I just need to find it). I agree that the title is a bit bombastic. Dubbing this a "Model of the Universe" implies a wider scale acceptance of these ideas than is likely to be the case. It might be true in a technical way but probably not in a practical way for awhile.
I did a little bit of digging and found what appears to be an article about this cosmology from the cited author. I edited the OP to include an abstract and link for those who found the original content lacking. Hope that satisfies!
I didn't mean that they're "dumb". There's probably only a handful of people, in the entire world, that really understand that theory (I'm certainly not one of them), and the odds are that they probably are not reading Grasscity - or most anything else that isn't on a very high-level scientific level.
I think the bottom line summary should be enough to allow us laypeople to converse and explore the implications relative to the other things we know and think we know. You don't need to know any math to appreciate how far away stars are, though math was used to measure the distance. This idea that the universe may not have had a beginning - even if you don't have all the math or the article or anything else - is plenty fertile ground for discussions with people who commonly challenge established cosmology. Whether that's "evolution" (ie. cosmology and origins) or speculation about the ultimate fate of everything. Maybe you won't produce peer-reviewed literature from those discussions but you could probably produce some interesting ideas.
Sounds strikingly similar to Barry Setterfields plasma cosmology. How long does it take mainstream science to watch up with real science? Convert the space occupied by mainstream scientists into time and the answer is.... 0
I know what you mean, I remember watching some little 60 second news thing in between family guys on BBC3 and they showed footage of a trillion FPS camera where you could actually see light travel as if it was all new. And I was like, "my physics teacher showed me this MONTHS ago". Why is it suddenly more exciting now than when it was first shown? Sent from my Nexus 4 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
You're not seriously still going on about plasma cosmology are you? Plasma cosmology has already been debunked and will never become accepted since it's just plain wrong. You're doing this dude's research a disservice by comparing it to plasma cosmology. Although, I don't think this idea will pan out either as I find the lack of explanation of CMB and the non-constancy of the speed of light to be hard to reconcile with the current evidence.
There is so much evidence the speed of light isnt constant if you choose to believe it is thats on you. Cmb is also described by plasma cosmology. So yes i am still stuck on it because i find it to be the most straightforward solution without the need of ad hoc theories. Whoop, gtg back to work ill be back.
Excuse my ignorance if I get a bit off topic or contradict myself. I remember reading and getting the impression that "time" maybe described as a constant as a result of E=Mc2. Sounds reasonable, the universe expands and time unfolds along with it filling the gaps of length/space between then and now. It may or may not be a force of it own, possibly just a descriptive term that we use to keep sum form of perspective on the ongoing creation of movement, occurrences etc. Then theres the state of the universe prior to the "big bang" I take it that "singularity" means that no time existed. There was no mass, no energy, no speed of light, therefore time cannot exist without sum form of change to give it relevance. For this to be true would also require that nothing else existed prior or alongside this "singularity" because nothing can exist within a timeless state. Science cannot explain the state of the universe prior to the "bigbang" as the laws of physics do not apply. Maybe science has just worked its way backwards to a point it cant explain scientifically, the concept of a "singularity" is just a state that had to exist based on current understanding rather than existing.