Bang all the time

[Handy andy]

In an expanding universe why do so scientists claim the following

"

In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by the Planck satellite, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang, and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.

"

Why do scientists not state the big bang is happening continuously in space all the time causing the universe to continue expanding, as we see it today.

 

http://www.auniversefromnothing.com/index.htm

 

A universe from nothing with matter continuously coming into existence works with a continually expanding universe in a more believable way than all matter coming out of some singularity x billion years ago.

 

Is Cosmic back ground radiation not more logically explained by a continual big bang happening in space all around us, at approximately the same rate, giving of radiation at a constant rate.?

 

Space coming into existence expands space between galaxies causing them to free fall away from each other at 3c, is gravity not better explained by space going out of existence and causing matter to free fall towards planets.

 

Big topic enjoy.

[Lord Antares]

The big bang is just a name for the theoretical event which expanded a static singularity into space we know today. You're just using different words to say ''the universe is explanding'', which we already know. Yes, the expansion is a result of the big bang but there is no reason to call the expansion itself ''the big bang''.

 

It's like saying a supernova exploded and years later, the debris flying through space is also called the explosion. No, the explosion is the event which started it and the debris is the result of it.

[Handy andy]

There may be a lot of things I understand or not as the case may be.

 

I do know this, Supernovaes are not singularities, and nothing to do with the big bang theory, although they may contribute to background radiation and the spreading of heavier elements through out the universe.

 

The Big Bang Theory gives a nice beginning of time for the catholic priest who worked on it. Not all physcicists agreed with it. Alfen being one who won a nobel prize for his work http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n he was not always appreciated and a bit of an outsider partly because he did not agree with the Big Bang as the origins off all matter x billion years ago.

 

The universe is continually expanding Agreed by all! What I am driving at here is "matter is continuously coming into existence and has been doing so for an eternity on a very small scale" as evidenced by cosmic background radiation. I am also stating that a expansion and contraction of space ie the fields or quantum foam creating space are the source of gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_foam

 

There was no original singularity, at the beginning of time, producing all matter and energy. There is no space without fields of one form or another. Singularities are constantly exploding on the quantum level and occasionally producing new matter in space. A universe from nothing is constantly happening, The bang and expansion and contraction of space is continuous, it did not all happen x billion years ago, it is continuos on a much smaller scale.

 

Any new matter produced virtual or otherwise from the quantum foam will likely have a longer lifetime in space and have more time to form into stable particles. I state this because muon lifetime is longer in freefall as is given for proof of relativity.

 

From the discussion of what is space by Mordred I asked the question can space exist without fields. Parphrasing the answer it cant. No field or quantum foam = no space. No space = nada diddly squat. His answer was a lot longer

Edited July 15, 2017 by Handy andy

[Lord Antares]

You missed my point. Supernovae have nothing to do with the big bang; I was using an analogy to say why your point about the big bang doesn't really hold water.

 

The same way why the explosion is just an instant in which something explodes and not everything that happens afterwards, the big bang is the name for the theoretized explosion of the singularity which is thought to have happened about 13 billion years ago. It does not make sense to say that the big bang is still happening because of that. We are seeing the aftermath of it. The debris, if you will. The big bang was an instant and these are the consequences of it. What you are seeing now is referred to as simply the expansion of the universe.

 

As I understand it, you are also doubting the validity of the big bang theory. While this is healthy, you are in no position to do that. You quoted one person who disagrees with it and not the heaps of scientists who don't. The theory was constructed over years of research and accumulated evidence, you can't just come in and say ''nah, it doesn't sound right to me''.

 

I understand that it is hard to believe that all of space sprang into existence from a singularity. It is hard for me to believe that the universe exists at all, but so it does. It is senseless to criticize a scientific theory without any evidence against it.

[swansont]

The universe is continually expanding Agreed by all! What I am driving at here is "matter is continuously coming into existence and has been doing so for an eternity on a very small scale" as evidenced by cosmic background radiation.

 

The CMB as evidence for the Big Bang is based on physics analysis, i.e. a model, and the measurement agrees with it.

 

Where is your model of continuously created matter accounting for it?

 

I am also stating that a expansion and contraction of space ie the fields or quantum foam creating space are the source of gravity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_foam

Where is your model for this, and the evidence which supports it?

[Handy andy]

http://www.auniverse...g.com/index.htm

 

A humungous big bang as the origins of all matter and time is not required to create a universe from nothing.

What I have stated is not in disagreeance with a universe from nothing, it follows reason that it can happen continuosly, this is evidenced by a continually expanding universe, and cosmic background radiation, as was pointed out by Alfen.

 

Ref we should believe highly educated priests and not think for ourselves, or come to our own conclusions based on what is observed UM!. Nah I dont agree, where is the fun in that, I have a brain and occasionally I use it.

 

I think the topic is interesting, my line of thought is logical, and the links support my understanding, they are written by or about ideas held by actual scientiscts not me.

The model is a mathematical curve fit, with an an end point in time as the correlation. The rest is based on a priests desire to prove there was a beginnning of time. A big bang is not required x billion years ago. see links above.

[Lord Antares]

it follows reason that it can happen continuosly, this is evidenced by a continually expanding universe, and cosmic background radiation, as was pointed out by Alfen.

 

 

WIll you please read what I wrote? Yes, the universe is expanding, we know that, but that doesn't mean the big bang is ''happening continually''. That's a misuse of the term.

 

You have no evidence for your contrary claims. And no, science doesn't claim it created the universe from nothing. It simply doesn't have a say in what was before the big bang.

[beecee]

http://www.auniverse...g.com/index.htm

 

A humungous big bang as the origins of all matter and time is not required to create a universe from nothing.

What I have stated is not in disagreeance with a universe from nothing, it follows reason that it can happen continuosly, this is evidenced by a continually expanding universe, and cosmic background radiation, as was pointed out by Alfen.

Alfen was the formulator of the Plasma/Electric universe hypothesis if I recall correctly, and yes I also read the book based on that by Eric J Lerner called "The BB Never Happened"...the points he raised supposedly discrediting the BB was just fabrication and do not match observations near as well as the standard BB model.

 

 

Ref we should believe highly educated priests and not think for ourselves, or come to our own conclusions based on what is observed UM!. Nah I dont agree, where is the fun in that, I have a brain and occasionally I use it.

 

I think the topic is interesting, my line of thought is logical, and the links support my understanding, they are written by or about ideas held by actual scientiscts not me.

The model is a mathematical curve fit, with an an end point in time as the correlation. The rest is based on a priests desire to prove there was a beginnning of time. A big bang is not required x billion years ago. see links above.

 

The highly educated priest you speak of George LaMaitre was an astronomer and a physicist, and he simply applied the scientific methodology to arrive at the BB: While it certainly left the door open for the Catholic church and other religious sorts to hang their hat on and claim some ID beginning, it is a credit to cosmology that they did not let such unsavoury tactics sway them......They simply followed the line of evidence.

 

Another point you made need to consider is that most physicists today do not accept the mathematical point singularity as valid, but rather just a level where current laws of physics and GR are non applicable.

The BB was the evolution of space and time, [as we know them] henceforth known as spacetime, from a hot dense state and 13 .8 billion years later we are left with the fossil heat at 2.73K.

 

 

It of course is quite admirable to think for ones self and have an open mind, but remember, lay people like you and I do not have access to the Planck satellite, or COBE or WMAP, or any of the other state of the art equipement that the professional cosmologists do.

 

And of course the BB singularity, or where our models break down are at t+10-43 seconds, back from that we are only able to speculate, but in saying that much of the scientific reasoning and logic follows that the BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam>That seems to be the nothingness that they say the BB arose from, certainly far more reasonable and logic then any form of ID.

Edited July 15, 2017 by beecee

[Strange]

Why do scientists not state the big bang is happening continuously in space all the time causing the universe to continue expanding, as we see it today.

 

 

They do when the distinction needs to be made.

 

For example, there was some recent research that suggested that there was no singularity (not surprising) and so the universe is infinitely old. This was softened headlined in the press as "No Big Bang". One very good article describing the research drew a clear distinction between the big bang meaning some "initial event" (for which we have zero evidence) and the big bang model that explains the ongoing expansion from an early hot dense state (for which we have a ton of evidence).

 

A universe from nothing with matter continuously coming into existence works with a continually expanding universe in a more believable way than all matter coming out of some singularity x billion years ago.

 

Most physicists disagree.

 

 

Is Cosmic back ground radiation not more logically explained by a continual big bang happening in space all around us, at approximately the same rate, giving of radiation at a constant rate.?

 

There is no physical mechanism for that. That is why the discovery of the CMB was the end of the various steady-state models.

 

 

 

Space coming into existence expands space between galaxies causing them to free fall away from each other at 3c

 

Stop posting meaningless nonsense and stick to asking questions.

 

"Space coming into existence expands space" That is completely tautological. Space increasing/expanding between things means exactly the same as "space coming into existence". So you are saying that expanding space causes expanding space.

 

And galaxies do not free fall away from each other. And the speed of separation is only 3c at one specific distance.

Ref we should believe highly educated priests and not think for ourselves, or come to our own conclusions based on what is observed UM!. Nah I dont agree, where is the fun in that, I have a brain and occasionally I use it.

 

Making up stuff is not the same as coming to a scientific conclusion based on all the evidence. If you did that, you would end up with a model like the big bang model.

The Big Bang Theory gives a nice beginning of time for the catholic priest who worked on it. Not all physcicists agreed with it. Alfen being one who won a nobel prize for his work http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n he was not always appreciated and a bit of an outsider partly because he did not agree with the Big Bang as the origins off all matter x billion years ago.

 

Alfven was wrong about several things including this and the nature of quasars.

 

 

 

The universe is continually expanding Agreed by all! What I am driving at here is "matter is continuously coming into existence and has been doing so for an eternity on a very small scale" as evidenced by cosmic background radiation.

 

Although Hoyle never acknowledged it, this model was destroyed by the existence of the CMB. No one has come up with an alternative explanation for a perfect black body spectrum with that temperature.

The highly educated priest you speak of George LaMaitre was an astronomer and a physicist, and he simply applied the scientific methodology to arrive at the BB: While it certainly left the door open for the Catholic church and other religious sorts to hang their hat on and claim some ID beginning, it is a credit to cosmology that they did not let such unsavoury tactics sway them......They simply followed the line of evidence.

 

 

The odd thing is, I have seen very few religious people embrace the big bang model as proof of their creation story. Some seem to accept it as good science, some don't care either way, and a few reject it as some sort of atheist plot. I'm not sure I follow the logic of the latter view.

[Delta1212]

 

 

They do when the distinction needs to be made.

 

For example, there was some recent research that suggested that there was no singularity (not surprising) and so the universe is infinitely old. This was softened headlined in the press as "No Big Bang". One very good article describing the research drew a clear distinction between the big bang meaning some "initial event" (for which we have zero evidence) and the big bang model that explains the ongoing expansion from an early hot dense state (for which we have a ton of evidence).

 

 

Most physicists disagree.

 

 

There is no physical mechanism for that. That is why the discovery of the CMB was the end of the various steady-state models.

 

 

Stop posting meaningless nonsense and stick to asking questions.

 

"Space coming into existence expands space" That is completely tautological. Space increasing/expanding between things means exactly the same as "space coming into existence". So you are saying that expanding space causes expanding space.

 

And galaxies do not free fall away from each other. And the speed of separation is only 3c at one specific distance.

 

 

Making up stuff is not the same as coming to a scientific conclusion based on all the evidence. If you did that, you would end up with a model like the big bang model.

 

 

Alfven was wrong about several things including this and the nature of quasars.

 

 

Although Hoyle never acknowledged it, this model was destroyed by the existence of the CMB. No one has come up with an alternative explanation for a perfect black body spectrum with that temperature.

 

 

 

The odd thing is, I have seen very few religious people embrace the big bang model as proof of their creation story. Some seem to accept it as good science, some don't care either way, and a few reject it as some sort of atheist plot. I'm not sure I follow the logic of the latter view.

You know, it's actually kind of weird that more deeply religious don't embrace The Big Bang as part of their creation story. The surface of last scattering practically represents a literal "Let there be light!" moment.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Delta1212

[Area54]

I have a brain and occasionally I use it.

Just not on this occasion.

[swansont]

I think the topic is interesting, my line of thought is logical, and the links support my understanding, they are written by or about ideas held by actual scientiscts not me.The model is a mathematical curve fit, with an an end point in time as the correlation. The rest is based on a priests desire to prove there was a beginnning of time. A big bang is not required x billion years ago. see links above.

If you are defending an existing hypothesis that makes predictions, then tell us what that is. As it stands, this does not meet the standards for discussion, and this closure should not be a surprise to you.

 

Only re-introduce the subject if you can present science. Your "logic" is not enough.