pantheory

BJC, That's the problem with theorists like myself, there material is never clear What I was trying to say was that Steady State models in general do not have to include an expanding universe, such as the models of yore and my own model for instance. Such theories generally involve a constant density of matter in the universe. Most of such models are infinite models concerning time, space, and matter, but not all.

Yeah you're right, not a very even distribution but theorists believe that since this only involves the observable universe, that on a larger scale that the overall homogeneity would become apparent. This brings us back to the OP question. Is there enough time in the BB model for such a structure to form? and how could it form according the the standard model? Answers to these questions according to the standard model may be more difficult to conjure and seemingly more speculative. .

Thanks for dropping by Chris. As to gravity I do have my own formulations which have modified Newtonian dynamics, called MOND. This is a unique MOND mathematical and theoretical version that unfortunately has variables which I had to include from my beginning formulation. As to calculations concerning solar system distances, I use Newtonian and Einsteinian calculations where applicable. The forces of gravity are accordingly the inverse square law of Newton but the vector inward toward the source, becomes accordingly non-linear (tangent vectors involved) at stellar and galactic scales. Einstein called it the warping of space, and my description of it is that gravity is a pushing force that works via fluid dynamics and vortex motion. The need for the variables that I use involve observed characteristics of galaxies. Two spiral galaxies, for instance, that seem to have nearly the same mass and appearance, have been shown to have differing rotation curves. In the standard model they throw more dark matter into the mix to enable differing calculations. In my calcs I change two variable to come to a similar conclusion. Neither system is good since you first need to make observations of the rotation curve to enable the calculation of it. This is ugly. It's called retrodiction, predictions after the fact. It is the system that we presently use. Essentially there are no predictions at all, only rough estimations can be initially made with the present system or my equations The problem, according to the proposed model, is that the fluid dynamics/ vortex motions of the aether (or you could call it dark matter if you prefer) moves in unobservable currents that eventually funnel into the galaxy with some variation in time, meaning that gravity in inter-stellar space at the galactic scale is not constant and accordingly varies to a greater extent concerning the outer galaxy independent of the matter within the galaxy. This theory asserts that dark matter is not really matter in the classical sense but its currents and acceleration are the pushing forces of gravity itself. It is omnipresent and we observe it in the lab as the Zero Point Field. These entities will be difficult to recognize because its constituents are maybe 10^-30 m. in length where a proton is about 10^-18 m radius. These strings vary in length but accordingly on average they are roughly a trillion times smaller than a proton but larger than a Plank length ~10^-35 m. According to this model they are string-like in form but this in not classical string theory and there are no extra dimensions. Of course this aspect of the theory I consider to be hypothetical since such string-like entities or particles have not been recognized. That's all for now Chris, keep the questions coming. The O.P. tells where the theoretical and hypothetical reading material is if you wish to peruse it. regards Forrest I agree. Before seriously considering the merits of any alternative model one needs to have a fair understanding of the mainstream view/ theory/model. In cosmology maybe 10's of thousands of individuals have worked on the present mainstream model for more than 50 years. From this initial study, perspective, and related understandings, a basis for asking better questions and related critical thinking can better develop, which is needed (in my opinion) to better evaluate the comparative merits of any alternative model in any field of study.

Hey greenj, What you meant to say was a void 3.5 G light years distance across, which is about 1/4 the radius of the visible universe which is roughly 13.5 G LY distance in any direction. Here G refers to a billion light years. Your quote: "there hasn't been enough time since the big bang for such large voids to form. Now, that's a problem." I totally agree with this statement but you should realize that this statement is only opinion by itself and standard model proponents would disagree with it totally. Well the implied answer is that the BB model is wrong, but you can bet your booty that standard model theorists were not surprised and have come up with some logical possibilities according to the standard model. Realize this was a 2009 observation. Hey you got it, V-Bang here we come, or not Such quandaries concerning the standard model have been around since its beginning and it's still here, so I don't think it will quietly go away until totally contradictory observations come up. Who knows how long that will take. Most presently believe never.

Sounds like there is logic to your model which is a good thing From one time frame to another space and time might compare to themselves differently, but in my model every time frame would observe space and time exactly in the same manner, measure, count, and proportions as we measure them today. Of course: .....There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Shakespeare: Hamlet In this case meaning that in my opinion it's still all up for grabs Just consider all of the proposed variations of the standard model alone But in the non-standard model being discussed, time and space are very simple entities that have no other meanings to them than this: Time is simply an interval of change between two instances. And space is simply the distance between matter or a volume wholly occupied by matter and/ or field (the ZPF). thanks for your question and keep them coming

As you might realize, if it cannot be explained verbally in a relatively simple and logical manner, I probably will not be too fond of it concerning theory -- but then again that's just me My belief (and theory) is that on the largest scale beyond the observable universe, that the matter densities as well as the field, will eventually start to fade off gradually into nothingness but this seemingly will be forever unknowable

BJC, I cannot make such an assertion concerning the observable universe in this forum but I would in the Speculation Forum I know of a few observation papers over the many years that have concluded that densities vary, but such assertions in my readings over the years, are few and far between. If you have such a link to a scholarly paper concerning observations where the conclusion is otherwise, I would need to read it. best regards

markearthling, Cool book fast-read 1970. Looking forward to the movie. Bet it will be good!

Thanks Kyle. A lot of good questions, in my opinion, are based upon what might trouble someone concerning the standard model or any cosmological model for that matter. It's a long book and the foundation material at the beginning is hypothetical rather than theoretical since the model is aether based. The beginning is a string type theory, aether theory; the math doesn't come in till later. So consider any questions you might ask are valid and that formality is not involved. And your knowledge of the theory may not enable you to ask a better question. It may help me more than you, enabling me to better spot where theory might not be adequately explained Everything that I explain should be found in the book, but when it's not I will try to tell you first since I would consider such answers to be more speculative. While reading the book, it would be better concerning any related questions that you might use wordings that anyone reading this thread might understand the question. I also will try to do the same thing since overly technical material can only entertain the very few Thanks for your interest, best regards, Forrest Noble BTW, I live over here on the west coast of the colonies, Los Angeles in particular P.S. I like emoticons, happy faces and lol's in particular since I believe lightheartedness and laughing in particular is one of the keys to a happy life, or not

<br>I am presently looking toward primarily two ways that might provide evidence for this model. One involves future sightings of the James Webb and related distant infra-red observations, to provide strong evidence against the standard model according to the O.P. assertions. The other method concerns the dissemination and criticisms of my type 1a supernova paper that I believe explains reality far better than the dark energy hypothesis. I also have another explanation for redshifts which preclude the expansion of the universe that is not known to many theorists. Within just 10 years I believe one theory will become stronger and the other weaker for the above reasons. In the interim I may choose "to fool with" highly speculative equations concerning aether conduction to at least suggest possibilities/ hypothesis concerning the uniformity of the microwave background, where presently such musings would be considered by most to be no more than speculation. The main problems with such math is that it might never be validly criticized until/ unless the nature of the aether, at least in part, is "discovered" such as discovering dark matter and its characteristics, for instance. <br><br>I know Maxwell developed the present mathematical theory of magnetism based on the aether, so maybe I should try to develop aether equations concerning "aether conduction" but also know they would lie dormant (no one would look at them) until I could prove the theory in some other way. I have proposed ideas and tests that might do this. <br><br> <br>It is a MOND type formulation that also incorporates GR for "close" calculations. It accordingly justifies this incorporation in that GR asserts the warping of space while similarly this model incorporates similar aether vortex motions. I personally dislike the use of Riemann geometry in place of vortex/ fluid motions but its hard to argue with success <img src="http://pub.scienceforums.net/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""><br><br>In the scope of galactic scales and the rotation rates of spiral galaxies like the Milky Way, for instance, my equations are functionally no better than the present dark matter hypothesis since there are variables involved, something like throwing dark matter into the mix. It is a vortex type model but it is accompanied by verbal theory that asserts that such variables can never be fully calculated because of fluid dynamic variables that exist within the aether field, so that all calculations would be statistical in nature, involving tolerances. At galaxy scales my expectation is that in time the tolerance range will be narrowed based upon discovered "hidden variables."Note that the same explanation would apply to the ZPF (which accordingly would be the aether) and the motions of quantum particles. Both the dark matter hypothesis and my own model's calculations, have their basis in retrodiction (in my opinion) -- which I am not too fond of but accordingly theorize that gravity involves unpredictable variables at the largest scales. These variables might accordingly become less significant concerning volumes of space as large as multiple super-clusters and voids and the observable universe.<br><br><br>Don't know how I goofed up the posting with the internal script <img class="bbc_emoticon" alt="" src="http://pub.scienceforums.net/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif"><br>

Again I agree, but have never considered such cosmologies seriously since, in my opinion, they would be contrary to Occam's Razor, but again that may be only me .

csmyth3025, Chris, the Hubble constant is no longer thought to be a constant. Instead it is thought to be a variable according to the Dark Energy hypothesis. These instruments can only observe redshifts. Only by inference is a recession velocity suggested. They can correlate distances with redshifts but the idea that redshifts are related to a recession velocity is assumed. There is no evidence (that I know of) to this effect. Tired light is primarily contradicted by the time dilation of supernova. For this reason few presently accept the tired light hypothesis including me. However I believe there is another explanation that I won't discuss here. If you Google "alternative theories explaining galactic redshifts" you will find a number of hypothesis. Mine is probably one of them although probably deep in the pile I agree yours is a good description according to the standard model, concerning its beginning stages and expansion in general. I also agree this may not be a good theoretical characterization of the initial conditions. I also think your theoretical characterizations seem accurate and reasonable. My own related theories are contrary to the standard model and belong in the Speculations forum if you wish to visit me there where presently I have an open thread.

ajb, I agree but imagining that 3 space is not homogeneous and isotropic within the observable universe, I think would be an exercise in futility, but that's just me

Present theory goes like this concerning the evolution of man. Man evolved from an ape-like creature roughly 2+ million years ago. The predecessors of apes in evolutionary theory were tailed monkeys. Before monkeys there were lemurs of some type. In the lineage of man there appears to be a number of intermediate species. Surprisingly there is much more fossils that accordingly relate to the lineage of man than there are those that seem to be predecessors of chimps, for instance. There is a great deal of evidence which supports the evolution of man from an ancient creature but to call it proof would be stretching it. Archaeology and anthropology concerning the fossil records are the primary evidence. DNA evidence presently relates to Neanderthals which have been shown to be (DNA evidence) very similar to present day humans but are presently thought to be another species that is not in the direct evolutionary line as modern humans.

Sounds good to me I think if length contraction did not occur it would seem to me to be illogical. Matter resists acceleration. Molecules seem like they would be more tightly compacted in the direction of accelerated motion. But as you mentioned, this is another subject. regards, Forrest

Yeah, I touch on this subject briefly, only about to the same extent as my last posting. Since my book is entirely theoretical (my own theories) I simply think the standard model theorists are barking up the wrong tree concerning the CMBR and its big-bang-remnant interpretation. I do not have any further insight on this subject (that I can presently think of) other than what I posted The subject theory asserts that we are seeing the temperature of the intergalactic medium, which consists of galactic radiation, cosmic rays, dust, dispersed gases, vapors, HI, electrons, molecular matter, stellar remnants, some stellar and planetary rogues, etc. What we are accordingly seeing is the mean temperature of all the matter within the observed volume. The primary question concerns the even distribution of the temperature. Hoyle had his cosmic whiskers (iron dust) which seems like a possible temperature distribution mechanism but in my model I prefer another mechanism which might be called "aether conduction." This being an aether model, the aether would accordingly be omnipresent, with aether flow by fluid dynamics and vortex motions. Accordingly there are also vibrations to it concerning temperatures, as in string theory, which through kinetic vibrations conducts with matter. Temperatures accordingly conduct within the field at speeds lesser than that of light. In time through galactic, and matter radiation along with this aether conduction process, the temperature of space accordingly becomes generally uniform. This aspect of the theory is considered an hypothesis and will remain so until an aether of some kind is discovered. The present front-runners for matter-like entities in the Zero Point Field (ZPF) are dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum sand, quantum foam, field strings, etc. Known entities in the ZPF are neutrinos, cosmic radiation of all kinds, electrons, positrons, etc. According to this model, the aether is also made up of particles/ strings of some kind along with the energy of its motions of varying types and causes which can be measured by the radiation of the matter within the field but not the field itself which accordingly does not radiate. To produce such mathematics/ theoretical physics when the primary mechanism is hypothetical would seem like an exercise in futility since I believe few if any would be interested no matter what the outcome Instead I have reformulated gravity and the Hubble formula to better match reality. The latter is a functional formula without variables, that accordingly explains away dark energy. This is the theoretical physics that is the spear-head of this model since it directly mirrors the model itself. regards, Forrest

tar, I know what you mean. That pesky time dilation also impedes my progress resulting in my not getting anywhere fast

ajb, I am not an expert on this subject either but I try to follow the related research. According to the model being discussed, the CMBR is asserted to be the temperature of the inter-galactic-medium (IGM) since accordingly there was no big bang or hot, dense beginning. Small differences in the temperature of the IGM due to anisotropy would be expected in this model, depending on the direction and distance we are looking, because the surrounding galaxies and HI distributions will always vary to some extent which would accordingly effect the observed temperature variations of background temperatures/ radiation observed. I would expect some observed variations are due to contamination by foreground HI. My best guess (speculation) as to bipolar anisotropy is related to our inter galactic motion. As to quadrupole anisotropy maybe its related to our relative motion within the local group as well as our inter galactic motion, or not

I believe the standard Big Bang model(s) will be overturned within maybe the next 20 years or so after the James Webb goes up. After this infrared telescope goes up what I believe will happen is that as far back in time that we will be able to see that we will see old appearing galaxies in the same portions that we presently see with the Hubble space telescope and that we can see in the local universe. Galaxies that appear as old as the Milky Way at maybe a few hundred million years old (according to the standard model), I think are a big contradiction to the BB model. In the model that I will be discussing, I believe there are practically no questions that cannot be answered, in deference to the standard model, since I wrote a book on this subject that is online free at Pantheory.com. So I am looking forward to your questions, whatever they may be and whatever comes to mind. Maybe the best questions will be those that you believe may not be adequately answered by the Big Bang model. regards, Forrest Noble

Love that story Chris. In a version of Greek mythology, as reiterated by Hawking: , on the back of another turtle, etc. In one version of Indian cosmology there was first an elephant that held up the world, that was on the back of a turtle, etc. I guess Alexander the Great spread Greek cosmology to India quote from your link above. The editor of my theoretical book on cosmology and physics clued me to "Turtles all the way down" about 3 years ago which I vaguely recalled was the basis of an ancient cosmology. His re-invigoration of the idea enabled me to relish it to the present day. Thanks for the reminder

killafur, Many believe that a BB beginning is wrong. A few theorists believe that the entire BB model is wrong. This is no surprise to anyone. . One could make such a proposal but for what reason? and what evidence would there be to make such a proposal. Obviously any evidence against the standard BB model is not strong enough to dissuade very many , otherwise there would not be so many theorists that believe in this model, right or wrong.

jbor, The point I was trying to make was that the theory that Stonehenge was constructed for astronomical purposes sounds like a good one to me. But to pay for such monuments, religion most always came first concerning recorded history. Maybe a type of astronomical, observational structure to tell what the best timing would be to sacrifice virgins (or cheating harem members) to the gods, for instance -- or some religious reason(s) less dramatic

Owl, Time dilation in concept is quite simple. Matter that moves against the forces of a gravitational field, its atomic/ molecular changes will occur more slowly than they would in the absence of gravitational resistance. Your initial definition "the event duration between designated instants" hits the nail on the head. Why are you searching for another definition, meaning, or understanding when this one seems totally complete and comprehensible? -- and I believe it is totally the correct definition for time under any circumstance. .

Tis true, granted! The Hubble formula does not involve the geometry of space in its formulation but calculates distances independent of such geometry.

This bothers me too since I prefer what makes sense, and time progressing without any changes of any kind to anything makes no sense to me. Even so some theorists as well as others believe in this possibility