joshgreen

Meant to respond to something else. Don't know how to delete this. I've gotten a chance to look over your stuff. Very interesting. You certainly sound like you know your stuff. As valid as all this looks, the only issue I have with it is that none of his was written Edwin Hubble. The issue (of first order) here is, is observation enough to present a theory? "Edwin Hubble discovers that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Edwin Hubble uses the new 100-inch telescope on Mt. Wilson in Southern California to discover that the farther away a galaxy is, the more its light is shifted to the red." See http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/tl18.html and many other sources. The key is "Edwin Hubble uses the new 100-inch telescope." It's observation that pretty much kicked off the theory of an expanding universe. Most, if not all, of the metrics came later. My theory is at the stage that the big bang was in 1929. And I do present well-known cosmological facts that seem to corroborate my theory. Will it stand up upon further scrutiny? I believe it will, but only time will tell. But I do appreciate your input. You sound like quite a scholarly person. I'll be moving on. It's been nice. I came here to have a scientifically intellectual discussion. And to a certain degree, I did get that from the scholarly sounding Mordred. He presented some interesting data to bolster his points. That's the way it should be. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for STARNGE. A discussion with him is like telling someone not to stay on the sun too long so he doesn't get a sunburn, and he comes back with something like "prove to me that the sun is hot." Really? If you can't get past obvious, self-evident facts without being confronted with "prove to me," aside from stifling a conversation, it degenerate the entire discussion into a childish, "wise guy" type of discussion. In a classroom, an individual like STRANGE would be called an instigator and a trouble maker. To the moderator: You state "who has to show the maths, it is you." I don't know what world you live in, but in the real world visual observation does count as substantiating a claim. It is so in court and it is so in science. My theory is backed up by many observations and is as testable as the big bang was in 1929; by observation and other established facts. Math is only one method of testing. You seem to be plagued with the same confusion as STRANGE. Or are you actually STRANGE? Doesn't matter. I'm outta here. You may trash this thread; it does not have the value I'd hoped it would have. I did start this thread with nothing but an honest presentation of a theory and my response were nothing but polite (and that is testable, just refer back to the beginning, no mathematics required). It is responses such as STRANGE's that turn an intellectual discussion confrontational and childish. Moderator, you have my blessing to trash this thread. Have a nice life, ya all.

This is absolutely meaningless. Show me the mathematics.

You buy two microwaves with the same specs from the same manufacturer that regulate the temps inside to be the same, and you put in the same size cups of the same material filled with water. Show me the mathematics that show the results will not be the same. If you even question whether the results will be the same, it shows not only faulty logic on your part but also you're being short on a simple connection to reality. Physics is not for you. The causal connection between the two systems that are heated does not exist, neither here nor in a universe where fluctuating particles come into the universe (as they do today) throughout the cosmos. The universe itself, that spews these particles, is like the microwaves in the example. They are the setup, not the objects being heated. The objects that get heated in both case, in the nuclear collisions in the universe and in the cups of water in the microwaves, are not in causal contact with each other. Yet the results will be the same in the separately heated cups or particles collisions. Show me mathematically how in both cases the results will not be the same. (This is a rhetorical request. I don't expect you are capable of proving your claims mathematically or otherwise.) I have this strange feeling you don't even comprehend this comparison, let alone give any sensible support for your views.

In other words, anything you don't comprehend is not logical but must only "makes sense" to the person explaining it. OK, I can understand that. You're right that logic is A BRANCH of science. But logic is not always necessarily connected to mathematics, and certainly doesn't always need to be backed up by mathematics. Many scientific discoveries came out of pure logic and the mathematics, if any, came later. Logic comes before mathematics. Mathematics often only comes in to verify what seems logical, and sometimes is only needed for those who don't comprehend the logic.

There is no communication between the fires. Whatever other communication your talking about has no bearing on the experiment. You being on the phone with someone is not the communication we're talking about. Communication between the "systems" that are producing the heat is the key -- there is no such communication here. Without logic there is no science. You're pretty much misstating and misinterpreting much of what I say, and I'm spending too much time trying to unravel what your saying and addressing things that I never said or very obviously did not intend to say. There really is not much point in this type of conversation. If you want to eliminate logic and things that are obvious to the senses, we only wind up talking complete nonsense. Logic MUST be part of science. I've never heard of anyone trying to eliminate logic from a conversation.

x There is no communication between the fires. Whatever other communication your talking about has no bearing the experiment. You being on the phone with someone is not the communication we're talking about. Communication between the "systems" that are producing the heat is the key -- there is no such communication here.

To STRANGE --- Strange: "The origin of the CMB is everywhere in the universe" Me: The CMB is everywhere. It's origin was everywhere during inflation. At 20 billion light years away, for example, that's not the origin of CMB. That's an area that it expanded to with the expansion of the universe. I'm surprise you don't grasp this simple concept. Strange: "The CMB didn't exist at that early stage" Me: Again, you're just plain wrong. "The cosmic background radiation is radiation left over from early development of the universe," See http://www.universetoday.com/79777/cosmic-background-radiation/ and many other sources. Strange: "...if that were a valid explanation, it would apply equally to the big bang model." Me: Wrong again. In the big bang, matter was carried out along with the expansion. In a scenario where matter is created in place throughout the universe, its course would not at all be equal to that of the big bang. Let's forget that you're not showing any metrics to substantiate your claim either, but your argument doesn't even hold up logically. Strange: "There is no reason for a black hole to form. A black hole requires mass to be concentrated in a small volume. The universe had the same density everywhere; in other words, matter was distributed evenly throughout all space, not concentrated at one point." Me: This makes no sense at all. It's common knowledge (or belief) that at the moment before expansion all the energy/matter in the universe was concentrated at one point. Evenly distributed or not, all that energy/matter so densely concentrated would have been the equivalent of a massive black hole. Your response doesn't even begin to address this.

xxx You answer your own question and seem to present all this as a response to my almost tongue-in-cheek example about a fire in Albania. If there are so many variables, as you yourself state, of course the fires would be different. I'm talking about controlled fires where you ensure the conditions are identical; this is totally different. I find it hard to believe you even presented this as a response to anything. But thanks for the laugh.

You're making a general statement about energy that's in contradiction to the NASA explanation that I already quoted: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html "prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today." Do you mind explaining what vacuum energy is and how it existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." You can explain it with metrics or logically, I'll accept either. It's quite clear that a rudimentary form of energy that we're not familiar with existed in the past. I haven't heard any explanations or seen any mathematics or metrics on exactly how that energy came into being, what it is and how it decayed. While you're at it, show me the metrics on what caused our universe to expand in the first place. And with space between galaxies expanding but not the galaxies themselves, show me the mathematics on how the expansion is weaker than the galaxies' gravity. Aside from simple logic by some scientists (that, incidentally, make no sense whatsoever) I haven't seen anything coming close to a scientific or mathematical explanation on how galaxies are being held together despite the universe's expansion. I'd think that with all the requests I've gotten to prove with metrics what I'm saying, someone here would have shown me some metrics that prove I'm wrong. The big bang itself started with an observation. The metrics came later on. The v-bang is relatively new. I'm quite certain that once people sit and work out the metrics, a good part, if not all, of my theory will hold up. It certainly holds up in observation far better than anything I've seen with the big bang. And for the record, my theory does not include inflation; it has no need for it. I think we're playing with words when we say the CMB did not originate in one place. Inflation says that the CMB got smoothed out at that early stage. It couldn't get smoothed out at a point when the universe was already 50 billion light years in diameter; and that's precisely one of things inflation is supposed to solve. I'm wondering whether you're the ones who don't get this. So, in the v-bang, when you have the same occurrence happening simultaneously 50 billion light years away you do not need causal contact for the same results. You don't need metrics for this. It's simple physics. You can test this yourself. Call your cousin in Albania and tell him to start a fire under the exact same conditions you start one, and you should see both fires taking the exact same course. Why is this so complicated? As far as expansion goes, in my theory, the universe had enough energy to expand once, and it stopped once it exhausted all the energy that produced matter and energy as we know it. I have no more of an explanation or metrics for why it stopped than anyone has for why it started. But the logic for why it stopped makes more sense than the logic for why it started. (Actually, there is no logic for why it started.) You're making a general statement about energy that's in contradiction to the NASA explanation that I already quoted: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html "prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today." Do you mind explaining what vacuum energy is and how it existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." You can explain it with metrics or logically, I'll accept either. It's quite clear that a rudimentary form of energy that we're not familiar with existed in the past. I haven't heard any explanations or seen any mathematics or metrics on exactly how that energy came into being, what it is and how it decayed. While you're at it, show me the metrics on what caused our universe to expand in the first place. And with space between galaxies expanding but not the galaxies themselves, show me the mathematics on how the expansion is weaker than the galaxies' gravity. Aside from simple logic by some scientists (that, incidentally, make no sense whatsoever) I haven't seen anything coming close to a scientific or mathematical explanation on how galaxies are being held together despite the universe's expansion. I'd think that with all the requests I've gotten to prove with metrics what I'm saying, someone here would have shown me some metrics that prove I'm wrong. The big bang itself started with an observation. The metrics came later on. The v-bang is relatively new. I'm quite certain that once people sit and work out the metrics, a good part, if not all, of my theory will hold up. It certainly holds up in observation far better than anything I've seen with the big bang. And for the record, my theory does not include inflation; it has no need for it. I think we're playing with words when we say the CMB did not originate in one place. Inflation says that the CMB got smoothed out at that early stage. It couldn't get smoothed out at a point when the universe was already 50 billion light years in diameter; and that's precisely one of things inflation is supposed to solve. I'm wondering whether you're the ones who don't get this. So, in the v-bang, when you have the same occurrence happening simultaneously 50 billion light years away you do not need causal contact for the same results. You don't need metrics for this. It's simple physics. You can test this yourself. Call your cousin in Albania and tell him to start a fire under the exact same conditions you start one, and you should see both fires taking the exact same course. Why is this so complicated? As far as expansion goes, in my theory, the universe had enough energy to expand once, and it stopped once it exhausted all the energy that produced matter and energy as we know it. I have no more of an explanation or metrics for why it stopped than anyone has for why it started. But the logic for why it stopped makes more sense than the logic for why it started. (Actually, there is no logic for why it started.) One question I've been asked here (don't remember exactly where) is do I have anything to show how the initial stage of the universe, before the big bang itself, would have been a black hole. I'd like anyone to explain how when all the matter in the universe was focused at one point, how, contrary to everything we know today, that would NOT have produced a black hole.

My model better explains why they're there. But the "breakthrough" is not in this one point. My model explains a whole host of observations relatively easily that the big bang has difficulty with. One thing I haven't even touched on here is the observations of a varying fine structure constant. I don't know of any explanation for this with the big bang. The v-bang does explain it -- in the book. I think if my v-bang theory explains only half of what I claim, it's a breakthrough. But I think it explains a lot more, including dark matter and dark energy (neither of which I believe exist). They're illusions based on factors I don't think I've touched much on in this forum.

-"Energy does not exist on its own." This is not so even with the big bang. Here's NASA's explanation of inflation: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html "prior to the more gradual Big Bang expansion, during which time the energy density of the universe was dominated by a cosmological constant-type of vacuum energy that later decayed to produce the matter and radiation that fill the universe today." Apparently, according to the big bang, it is believed that "vacuum energy" existed before "matter and radiation that fill the universe today." -"So please post the metrics on how the universe containing just energy, expands rapidly stops then forms particles. and sow how many efolds occur within the time constraints of your model " I don't have mathematics or metrics. The part of the universe expanding and having energy (not In a form we're familiar with) is the exact same is in the big bang. The main difference is that in the v-bang the universe stops expanding. For the halt to the expansion I present (here and in my book) observational and logical evidence as to why the halt of the expansion answers more than a universe that's still expanding. This requires no more proof than the "proof" of what caused our universe to start expanding in the first place. Aside from the fact that we're here, I don't know of any evidence of why or by what power our universe started expanding into a universe. Yes, I know, we have theories of multiverse and such. But all that is unverifiable conjecture. In short, the universe stooped for the same reason it started; we don't have the answers, short of observation that suggest it. How matter came into existence is explained in detail in my book and to some degree on this forum. I'd like to post my entire theory if I could get the admin's permission (it's almost 26,000 word).

Do not have any metrics yet.

Virtual particles may exist on borrowed time, but they can become real particles under certain conditions. -Can you show (quantitatively) that these conditions existed in the early universe described by your theory? The key behind virtual particle pairs becoming real particles is a strong force that separates the pair. Being near a black hole would be one such case. "Virtual particle pairs are constantly being created near the horizon of the black hole, as they are everywhere. Normally, they are created as a particle-antiparticle pair and they quickly annihilate each other. But near the horizon of a black hole, it's possible for one to fall in before the annihilation can happen, in which case the other one escapes as Hawking radiation. See: "http: //math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html --- The expansion of the universe would have been the strongest force ever to exist in the cosmos' history and would certainly qualify as being a strong enough to separate virtual particles and turn them into real particles. Even the secondary forces, the formation of the celestial bodies set into motion, would, I believe, still be strong enough to create real particles. --- I believe energy, in some primordial form, permeated space in the moment of creation, and it's this energy that manifested itself by giving birth to the massive amount of particles that filled the universe in the first moments. -How is that different from the big bang model? --- In the V-Bang, energy (as we know it) and matter were created in two stages. In the first stage virtual particles were simply carried out into the newly created cosmos with the expansion (similar to the big bang). In the second stage, new virtual particles that entered the universe after the universe stopped expanding collided with those particle still speeding outward as a result of being catapulted by the expansion. This resulted (as I've described) in the initation of the development of celestial objects more or less in their relative positions as we see them in the sky today. One implication of this is that the distance of a celestial object from us has nothing to do with its age or the age of the universe. Furthermore, the V-Bang's scenario of star and galaxy formation explains one of several things that are difficult to explain with the big bang: "The European Southern Observatory (ESO) recently reported a surprise while observing two extremely distant galaxies; at a very high redshift (z = 3.57); so far away that they are seen as they were a long time ago: only 1.8 billion years after Big Bang. "The surprise was to discover that the cool gas in these presumably young galaxies was very rich in heavy elements (all called metals), a chemical composition usually only seen in older galaxies because it takes so long to make heavy elements ... " ... the metallicity is almost ten times higher than the metallicity of objects measured at the same redshift. "... It is difficult to understand how such a high density of heavy elements could have been formed in such a short time [since the big bang]." See: http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/observation-of-two-early-mature-galaxies-rare-objects-or-is-big-bang-model-inaccurate/ in the V-Bang distance has nothing to do with age. --- In my "sphere" matter is not uniformly distributed. -Why not? The random collsions of particles that produce massive black holes may possibly form an almost perfect circle as they fly outward. However, the trajectory of such individual bodies will not necessarily be evenly spaced. The same distribution scenario is what we see in the universe today; the distribution of matter is not smooth in the deaitl level. So it was with the initial massive black holes, which would cause gravitational fields of different intensities throughout the universe. Quote With the big bang the CMBR and whatever other force or radiation was generated was done so in one central location and then spread throughout the universe. -This is totally wrong. It seems you do not understand the model you are criticising. I don't believe this is wrong. Perhaps my wording is confusing you. Berkeley Univesriy's description of the CBM: "The CMB is, in effect, the leftover heat of the Big Bang itself - it was released when the universe became cool enough to become transparent to light and other electromagnetic radiation, 100,000 years after its birth." See: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/The_Cosmic_Microwave_Background.html I think you'll admit that the universe is (according to the big bang) older than 100,000 years. So if the CMB was created at that time, that means the CMB radiation was spread out, stretched, whatever term you want to use, to all corners of the universe, billions of light years away, from that time and place. What is it that you misunderstand? Quote - quantify "clumpy": "When looking at the data collected by WMAP, scientists noticed that, in one distant region of space - toward the constellation of Eridanus (about ten billion light-years from Earth) -- the CMBR showed evidence of a large 'hole' in space ... where the temperature in the CMBR varies from the usual temperature of 2.7 above absolute zero. " Quote ... my book was written a couple of years ago. These figures [of the size of the universe] seem to change every now and then. -That figure has not changed for many years, as far as I know. Can you provide a source that supports your figure? Or is it another error in your book? You're right that it hasn't changed recently, but you're wrong about my figure being off. Although we believe the universe is probably around 92 billion light years in diameter, I'm referring to the observable universe. And my approximation is not off at all. The observable universe "...appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter." See: http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html "the size of the Universe that we can see is about 28 billion light years in diameter" See: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/237-How-big-is-the-Universe- "the size of the observable universe is nominally 13.798 billion light years [in each direction]" See: http://www.quora.com/How-big-is-the-observable-universe Furthermore, for my V-Bang theory the actual size of the universe is immaterial.

Strange, you ask some good questions. And I actually would like to answer them. It should give me an opportunity to add stuff that I hesitated to put into this article because I was afraid it was getting too long. But time constraints don't allow me to answer too quickly. I hope I can get to them soon. I'll just say one thing here. My explanation "it gives off a reddish color called a redshift" was meant to be "understood" in a simple way. Should I have taken the time to explain it more on scientific terms? Perhaps. Hope I can get to the others soon.

- I notice that in you book you mention "galaxies that appear to be older than the universe". Can you provide a reference to these, as there is no such thing, as far as I know. When my book was written a couple of years ago there were a few examples, but some have been explained since. Here's something more recent from NASA: "If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate" See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html - You also say that "the universe is now believed to be roughly 30 billion light years in diameter". Even allowing for the fact that you mean the observable universe not the universe, that figure is about a factor of three too small. Do you have a source for that number? Again, my book was written a couple of years ago. These figures seem to change every now and then. (Your description of redshift is ... well, embarrasing. "Not even wrong." I definitely won't be recommending this book to anyone.) I'm not sure what you find was incorrect. An example would help. I find that some of what I say is being misunderstood and some people are not that up to date on some nuances of astrophysics (and I am also perhaps sometimes guilty of this). Also, remember my book was written in the hopes it would be understandable to the laymen and some explanations are meant to be simple.