beecee

A singularity is simply where our current theories cannot explain: They are not necessarily infinite, but may lead to infinite quantities. Most physicists today do not believe any singularity within a BH leads to any infinite quantities. Plus the BB singularity, was a singularity OF spacetime, while any BH singularity, is a singularity IN spacetime. Anything else, like the BB singularity being a white hole from another universe, and BH singularities, leading to other universes, is just speculation...interesting speculation, but essentially just speculation.

From my experience on a past now defunct science forum, sometimes we have certain people, obviously self indulgent or with an agenda, that simply refuses to learn, and totally ignores the scientific methodology. Obviously their only outlet and yearning for notoriety are forums such as this. You missed it because you are obviously not in tuned with what data has been discovered, how to interpret that data, and ignorance of the knowledge that leads to today's cosmological models. Disagreements, inconsistencies and misconceptions, occur all the time in all disciplines of science, but in time most are fathomed out and agreed upon, by further observations, further experiments, and continued testing, by the professionals with access to the state of the art equpiment which you and I do not have.

The reasoning powers that have modeled our universe, is based on observational and experimental data, from state of the art equipment that has retrieved this data, professional astronomers and astrophysicists that have interpreted this data, and many others at the coal face with their heads down and backsides up, certainly not from anyone on any public science forum, opened to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Those are the facts.

My apologies....I was being facetious. If that were/was the case, You would be in line for a Nobel. In reality, while you may have a "model" it is not a scientific model. and appears to be a muddle of ad hoc ideas you have dreamed up, [under some paranoid pretext of being able to think for yourself] without one iota of observational or experimental data. No, no no! I have mentioned it now in various posts and threads, that the 96 L/years diameter is because and a result of spacetime expansion. It has nothing to do with how old the universe is, which is still 13.83 billion years. Really, do your self a favour......get hold of some reputable book on cosmology, by a reputable author, or check out some reputable scientific papers from "arXiv" and you may become aware of the models that physicists have adopted, why they have adopted those models, the observational and experimental data that lead to those models, and the myriad of space probes and 'scopes, both Earth based and space based, that discovered such data...state of the art equipement like COBE, WMAP, Planck, HST, Chandra, Spitzer, and many more. Then you may see that cosmologists/astrophysicists and scientists in general, do not just drag our present incumbent models out of their butt.

Do you write fairy tales for a living? I mean really, that is a load of codswallop...we have zero evidence to support anything like that, and no reason at all to believe in such fairy tales. Again the observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

The observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter: You have not allowed for expansion. The Universe is around 13.8 billion years old.

No, you have things confused. DE is our explanation to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate of spacetime. which happens over the largest scales. DM is invoked and evidenced to explain rotational curves of galaxies over obvious galactic scales. They are not related.

The universe [spacetime] expands over large scales where mass/energy density is less........ Over smaller scales like our local group of galaxies, and even further afield, the gravity from these more dense regions, overcomes the expansion and those regions are gravitationally bound.

GR disagrees with you, sorry. And that has a pretty good track record. But hey! If you believe you have found a genuine anomaly or error, then prepare a scientific paper for appropriate peer review.

agreed.

And how or why does mass/energy alter the geometry of flat spacetime. My mind wanders to one of the greatest experiments on Earth being conducted now at the LHC and the "Higgs particle" and Higgs field......I'm fairly raw on knowldege of the Higgs particle and field, but hypothetically, could this be why mass/energy warps spacetime? I hope this isn't sidetracking, but I'm attracted to the possible "Superforce", when all the forces were united just after the BB with the extremely high energy levels existent at that time. Is there a possible connection between the Higgs and associated field, and the Superforce and graviton? I know we havn't yet achieved a QGT, but there does seem to be some evidence as to why the aforementioned hypotheticals maybe valid....

Shouldn't we be calling it spacetime? "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". Hermann Minkowski My own view on this is that space, time, spacetime, while certainly not physical, are real....just as a magnetic field is real. Space is what stops everything from being together. Time is what stops everything from happening together. Spacetime is the unified multi-dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, irrespective of their relative motion. Each frame of reference when considered separately, sees space and time differently, but spacetime is invariant. Spacetime is geometry. In GR gravity is described in terms of curvature of spacetime. Space, time, spacetime while being real, are not made of anything.....space and time, "as we know them" came into existence at the BB. Anyone see anything wrong with those definitions?

Wow! A very interesting article to say the least.

So far I don't believe we have any evidence or reason to believe that our solar system is part of a binary system. Unlike the majority of systems, it appears the Sun is our only star. All I see in this thread is plenty of ifs and buts and supposes and what ifs. Along with of course an example of dabbling in science fiction.

I don't believe that is correct. You have not allowed for expansion over the period of 13.8 billion years since the BB. The universe from memory is around 96 billion L/years in diameter.

While I am fond of the Panspermia idea re how life got started on Earth, It doesn't invalidate the only scientific answer to how life in the universe got started, that is, Abiogenesis. Panspermia imo, goes hand in glove with Abiogenesis.

All I will do is offer a video of who in my opinion is one of the greatest educators of the 20th century.......... Your answer of course is given at around the 1 minute mark

While I have no real argument with DrKrettin, my own views do align with your own more closely. I see Newton's gravity model, as simply less accurate then Einstein's GR: We could use GR instead of Newton's model, for all calculations here on Earth, and for all space endeavours, and get far more accurate answers, but we don't. We don't because Newton gives us answers that are totally adequate for the job. A carpenter for example, uses a measuring tape to construct a window frame and window...he gets a precise fit adequate for the job in hand......he has no need to use a micrometer or vernier caliper to achieve the far more accurate results that they would give. Likewise an Astronomer once told me that any future QGT or BB extension theory, would most like encompass the BB. Again, though I do understand what DrKrettin is saying.

The theory of evolution is as close to being a fact as one could hope for. But just as the BB is incomplete in that it tells us how spacetime/universe evolved rather then started, so to is evolution incomplete in that it tells us how life evolved on Earth, rather then how life started. My preferred question is along the lines of "is there any real scientific alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis?"

Yes, IF they happen more often. The point I am making though, and I'm sure you understand, is what I said previously....

Accepted.... Thanks for that......Obviously I have my horizons mixed up somewhat. Bingo!

You seem to have contradicted yourself somewhat there.....Understandable since english is not your first language. You agreed with my point 1, and then you conclude in saying gravitational collapse should stop. Irrespective, evidence supports what I said in point 1...Once the Schwarzchild radius is reached further collapse is "compulsory" Plus the "Dying Pulse Train" effect as predisted by GR, also supports total collapse. http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_1/death_spiral.htm

Tar: Firstly from my observation, we maybe getting off topic...maybe more cosmology than the thread title. As a lay person, I will always support what I have claimed, and as I have done in this thread, with appropriate links. While sometimes those links maybe pop science oriented, they may possible also be misleading, although so far, in this thread, I don't believe so. I also welcome any correction to any incorrect interpretation of mine. I don't believe that you have yet offered any link supporting your interpretation. Thinking for ones self is admirable to say the least, but so also is the realisation that sometimes one still needs expertise within that discipline. Your posts at times, also seem mildly confusing and mixed up, but perhaps that's just me. If the light source is beyond where the recessional velocity of the object is "c" then I believe no light at all will reach us. Again, the same reason light does not get out of a BH.

Yep, we are finding new galaxies everyday, but in time, they will also move beyond our observation/s. The CMBR pervades all of our universe. Recessional velocity at or greater then "c" will see them in time, disappear. When recessional velocity exceeds "c" no light will reach us. This is the same reason why light cannot escape the EH of a BH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmological_horizons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon