Does galactic redshift prove that the universe was once infinitely small and dense?

you can describe the bomb exploding as from a point in space and expanding from there. If you don't know what the bomb was made of you can still describe everything about the explosion up to just after it exploded. The bomb just sets up a situation in which the explosion you can describe is possible.

 

Yes knowing what happened right after the explosion is how we know the big bang happened.

we dont know what happened before, or from the start, or the cause, but we do know that the visible universe expanded from a small dense state

 

It is one piece of evidence that is used to try and express the Big Bang theory yes, it was the basis for Hubble's law using the Doppler effect. On it's own, however, it doesn't prove the singularity theory, because all it suggests is that the spectrum of light that we perceive is shifting to the red, I.E lower frequency and longer wave-lengths.
However, coupled with the microwave background, the inflation principle, Friedman equations and cosmic nucleosynthesis we can trace the Big Bang back to a few picoseconds after it occurred - detailed using the standard model we can see the different particle forms that would have arisen (with atoms not forming into nuclei straight away) and the early light elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium etc). We can also predict and demonstrate the pressure and temperature of the universe after the event, and this can explain how the first stars formed which through nuclear fusion went on to create the heavier elements we see today.

The theory of how the Big Bang came about, what caused it, and how something can be produced from nothing is still in debate. However, there are multiple theories which you can subscribe to. There are those that believe in the Big Crunch, or that perhaps our big bang was merely a black hole from another universe. I personally study superstring theory, or M-Theory, when it comes to the reasoning behind the singularity. Believing that it was focused in a planck's length density, perhaps from folded branes colliding to unfold the dimensions as we perceive them. As of right now it's all detailed conjecture that remains without experimental evidence, which could be difficult to obtain.

 

I don't like the idea that the universe was infinitely "small" before the Big Bang. "Small" relative to what? Last time I checked, the universe is the biggest thing we know of. There's nothing else to compare its size to.

 

There is speculation that before the big bang the universe was a singularity (a single point of infinite density). I don't understand it but it's apparently true.

 

The big bang is still a theory, though it is commonly accepted it is not yet law

 

That's not how scientific laws work.

The Big Bang is model based on facts and in this case, composed of laws.

 

There are other scientifically valid explanations for the red shift, Hubble's constant, and the cosmic background radiation. The expansion of space and the singularity fit some observational evidence, but there are enormous problems with the theory. In order to fit measurements, large movable parameters like dark matter and dark energy are required to make the numbers crunch correctly. Neither of these variables have been proven to exist or observed in nature. And it is said that 90% of the universe is chalked up to this? I'm sorry but it is completely illogical.


'Hubble himself, however, did not believe that the redshift meant expansion. "To his dying day", Sandage tells us in his presentation at the centennial celebration of Hubble's birth, "Hubble did not accept that redshift meant expansion." Instead he thought it was due to some unknown cause.- EDWIN HUBBLE 1889-1953 By Allan Sandage (1989, JRASC Vol. 83, No.6) '

"To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953)."

 

Well we only know 4% of the observable universe, that leaves...96%

 

How do u know its four percent

 

Just a thought off the top of my head:

Perhaps the "bomb" was just simply all of the elementary particles packed up as dense as the physics in this Universe allows. (Well, duh).

But with that in mind - I heard that if you packed all of the matter in the Universe into a singular object (with NO SPACES between the atoms), it would be small enough that we could see it (ridiculously small).

So maybe the bomb was everything packed together with no space in between the atoms. And then BANG!

Am I onto something?

 

This is an interesting appeal to authority.

 

ok so if your claiming that there are alternate explainations to the above mentioned, what conclusion do you reach from those alternate explainations and why?

 

Apologies in advance for anyone who has already heard the proposal.

A PhD who has worked for NASA, MIT and the UN has come across a new way to model subatomic particles which agrees with Nobel Laurette's original interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, matches Einstein's GTR on a quantum level, explains the origins of gravity, mass, charge, spin, inertia, and gives new insight into the cause of the red-shift, Hubble's constant, and the CBR, and more importantly, fits all observational evidence. Those claims alone make it worth investigating. He was well versed in the standard model for his entire career, and was equally shocked at the simplicity and elegance of this new paradigm shift. All of the math works out, and has yet to be contradicted by anyone in the scientific community. He himself has been trying to find ways to disprove it but has come up empty handed.

The theory redefines the structure of subatomic particles as spherical standing waves, instead of point-like bits of matter. It has been published in a couple peer reviewed scientific journals, and a professors from Cal-Tech has used the new model to redesign more efficient microcircuits, and this breakthrough is now in use by the Intel company. All huge shifts in scientific knowledge are fought against nail and tooth, so I wouldn't be surprised if this took a while to catch on.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO2PDF/V13N2HAR.pdf

^ That will do more justice explaining the red-shift than I could. But the concept is that the shift is a basic principle of the wave medium of space. Hard to wrap your head around if you are not accustomed to the WSM. If there is no expansion than there is no need for there to have been a Big Bang. Our observable universe, (Hubble's sphere), is the finite range in which other matter can interact with us. In order for us to see a star, there has to be an interaction between it's light and my eye. According to the theory, this constitutes an energy exchange, and if matter is too far away, a wave interaction cannot occur. The incoming waves from distant matter are absorbed or scattered by other wave centers, hence why we have a limited view into deep space. If our observable sphere is surrounded by other matter that we cannot see, than this would account for Einstein's gravitational constant, and explain why the universe does not collapse on itself.

The conclusions from the theory are that we live in a finite spherical universe within infinite space. The Hubble's sphere is the range in which other matter directly affects us, the red shift can be explained scientifically using a model based on the intersection of Hubble sphere's, and the CBR can and has been calculated as the average temperature of a body in space in the presence of radiation from distant stars. Hopefully this helps answer some questions. All of this will seem like heresy if you haven't looked into this theory before, so apologies about the long post. Check it out if it peaked your interest. Here are a couple quotes to keep in mind:

"At every crossroad on the way that leads to the future, each progressive spirit is opposed by a thousand men appointed to guard the past."[SIZE=-1] - Count Maeterlinck[/SIZE]

"You can always recognize a pioneer by the arrows in his back"

 

the problem with this theory is that it doesnt provide any information on how we got here, it just provides alternate evidence on how we didnt get here

 

It doesn't need to provide information about how we got here, look at the title of the thread. This is a theory which offers an explanation to the OP's question.

This theory still fits all other observed evidence and phenomenon. The processes of the Universe, evolution of stars and galaxies etc, still apply. A Big Bang isn't needed to describe how complex molecules, and life itself, formed. It isn't that outrageous to imagine an infinite amount of space, which acts as a medium for wave structures of matter. Motion is energy, and energy is matter. Just one vibrating web, dependent on the entire ensemble. Look at Mach's Principle, or how the GTR calculates the density of space-time at each point in space using the density of matter and energy everywhere else in the universe. This interconnectedness is undeniable. The theory seems to be more plausible than time and space being created from absolutely nothing, and expanding into.. nothing? I don't know, perhaps our sense of time is a result of in-coming waves becoming our out-going waves. This constant influx and than output seems to give us a directed, linear sense of time. The claims and apparent insight this new model gives us should interest everyone. I don't know why so many people are quick to brush it aside.