I came across an article by renowned Astronomer Dr. Tom van Flandern about the top 30 problems with the bbt. BB top 30 problems Considering such problems I was wondering if anyone knew of some interesting alternatives to the classic big bang model. Ive been somewhat engaged in reading up on cosmological models but id love to see what else you peeps have come across.
Quasi-Steady-State, Plasma Cosmology, Meta Model, and Variable-Mass Cosmology are models named in the above link. Hope to hear more!
Hollow Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia makes no sense to me.. like none of the hollow earth theory does but its cool regardless.
I was thinking more like cosmological models. I had heard about the hollow earth but i, like you, disregard them haha. Too bad those underworld elves arent real
Inflation theory is a popular one, but i dont get it. For me, i have my own theory with bits taken from a few others and its the theory that the universe expands till its too large to support itself, then implodes causing a super-massive black hole in which everything is compressed to a singularity, and due to the quantum uncertainty principle, the singularity moves to a point in space and excretes the matter into a new universe. (for me, the universe is the observable matter, not the space around it, thats a dimension that has no physical properties about it and just acts as a host for matter.) In this theory the black hole has to absorb everything in the universe, before the singularity has to jump to another point and excrete it. Because space is infinite, it doesnt matter where the singularity jumps to, because that will be the centre of the new universe. Obviously this process takes an unfathomable amount of time, and we will never know for certain, especially since we're still in the expanding stage 13.8 billion years after it began. Also, this theory is easy to visualize. Imagine 2 standing sine waves (imagine 2 oscillations to get 4 full universe cycles) but at any given point, the amplitude of one is the complete opposite of the other (so as one goes up, the other goes down and then comes back to meet again at the zero crossing point at another point on the x-axis). Take the beginning of the graph as the beginning of the universe, take the max amp as the point where the universe meets its max size, and when the waves meet again, thats the singularity it compresses to, and starts from again. This theory allows the eradication of time, because to account for a beginning you would have to include time, which gives my theory an overall beginning. I believe that this process never began and will never end, time is relative to the current universe, the waves dont run on a linear time scale, time is only measured between the 2 zero crossing points, and is made relative (something i, or no one can do because we cannot witness multiple universe cycles). Another point to make is that no singularity relocation estimate is made on the graph, because the x-axis describes time (to a point, pun intended ) and the y-axis size, but only size from the singularity to max size, not relative to space (an infinite) therefore when the universe compresses then expands but in another area, because of the infinite-ness of space, it would be pointless describing where it re-begins, since nothing would be left in the original universe to give a meaning of distance or scale for the new one, hence everything is relative to each individual universe, but not all of them at once. Phew, that took a while! haha, there's probably loads of holes in it and some parts wrong but i like making theory's
[quote name='"Sam_Spade"']Does old world creationism could? It's the pinnacle of pseduoscientific thought![/quote] You mean count?
Joshg, sounds like you are describing the cyclic universe. Im currently reading a book about it now actually. If you are interested check out 'the endless universe: beyond the big bag' authored by paul j steinhardt and neil turok. Interesting read imo.
Woah so you're saying time is a quantity that has variable direction in different universes? Time flows in one direction in this universe, the opposite direction in another universe, and overall cancels out and therefore doesn't have to be externally accounted for? Since the direction of time in this universe is defined physically as the direction of increasing entropy, time running physically backwards (substitute -t for t) would entail decreasing entropy. So you'd basically be hypothesizing two types/classes of adjacent universes: one where the second law of thermodynamics exists, but one where it's inverted if so.
Yeah thats a possibility of it, although when the universe gets to max expansion it would mean that it has gone cold, and dead, meaning it would contract, so you could say that time travels both ways in a single universe cycle, meaning that the 'big bang' is the beginning of time, and the universe always goes back to it, before beginning again at the same point, which again gives time no meaning im struggling to get my head around it tbh haha.
I dont believe time does always "flow forward", check out time reversing mass with phase conjugation.
Does time even flow in any direction? It is possible that we simply perceive time as a flow because our brain's evolved to perceive it as such. It's possible that time is just another spatial dimension (or several) and that it is actually just simultaneous. Just my thoughts on that matter.
I wouldnt rule that out, or some variation of what you said. Time is something thats hard to define for sure. Being able to time reverse mass seems amazing to me, and is hard to wrap ones head around. Ive heard via phase conjugation, as i understand and imagine it, would be like surfing a wave but the wave only allowing the opposite direction, taking you back out to sea instead of toward the shore. Something to that effect i think. Im trying to imagine a better analogy to comprehend it myself. So the particle/mass doesnt proceed where it normally would but proceeds directly backward from where it came. As Priore time reversed unhealthy cells backward in time to their previously healthy state (dedifferentiation).
Has anyone said the black hole theory? I don't think they have. It could work with the big bang theory too though! I'm sorry, I'm drunk. Here is a NatGeo article, it may not even be what I'm talking about. But I'm pretty sure it is: Every Black Hole Contains Another Universe? Time isn't too hard to visualize imo, I just think of things degrading/decomposing. Occurs naturally! ,<Maybe I'm drunk though and aren't too focused on what you guys said about time, again, sorry, my main point is black hole theory.
Sound interesting! Some of that seems similar to dr. Russell Humphreys cosmology with some variation.
Except that the theory in the natgeo article is actually plausible while Dr. Russell Humphrey's ideas have been discredited and are known to be false.
From what ive read its really not that outlandish and at least mathematically its within GR. I dont know though, i wish i was a cosmologist so i could scrutinize the various models myself.
All young-earth creationist theories are outlandish. It is also not within general relativity. Here is an amazon review of his book Starlight & Time: