The Cosmic Egg

5221 views
16 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September, 2004
The Cosmic Egg
Posted by brooksquest on Monday, June 02, 2008 6:04 PM

 The apparent expansion of the universe is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. The BBT goes a long way to explain observations but the theory does not explain itself, its origin. Since no one was around to witness the "bang" event, a cosmic egg was inserted as the beginning of it all to provide some sort of explanation.

Jeff and others have expressed a concern about not looking at the bang as a "burst" type explosion. Well, this is hard to due when the expanding universe implies both a time and place for an explosion to take place. We cannot say that the universe is expanding because it started with an explosion and then turn around and say that it never did really explode.

According to the BBT the universe had to be dense at its origin so there is no way that the bang could have happened everywhere at once unless we agree that "everywhere" was created at the time the bang occurred and that everywhere somehow continues to expand.

If it wasn't an explosion of something (the entire universe) that was at that time very small ( a point) and very dense, and very very hot, then how would we explain what we observe now? One of the problems here is our geocentric bias. We only observe from here what "was" going on then. And our then only goes back to how far away we can observe. Without having a universal data link reference point we cannot know where are relative to the point of initial expansion and will not be able to determine the shape or size of what the universe would "currently" be.

The cosmic egg that started it all must have come from another dimension because one minute it wasn't there and then Kazaam! there it was. This wasn't just some duck egg, it contained all the matter, space and energy in the universe. When it "exploded" it invented time which did not exist prior to the bang. Perhaps it waited until after the inflationary epoch to invent time so the epoch could happen exponentially faster than the speed of light.

So, I wonder how many folks who believe in the bang are aware of the cosmic egg that lies at the heart of the theory. This egg, should be the foundation but it can't be because it is an unexplainable part of the theory. Since nothing existed prior to the egg, the universe had to have come from within the egg. (another dimension?) This has to be the case because it would have taken a long time for the "previous" universe to gather at a point. This would lead us to a different "recycle" type theory.

Perhaps you might have a current explanation of the egg that you would like to share.

Cheers,

BQ 

 

  • Member since
    November, 2007
  • From: coastal south texas
Posted by MoFoYa on Monday, June 02, 2008 6:42 PM

brooksquest
The cosmic egg that started it all must have come from another dimension because one minute it wasn't there and then Kazaam! there it was.

the BB was the 'inflation' of 3 dimensions that were previously very small. up - down, left - right, and in - out if you will.  string theory hypothesizes the existance of several other dimensions that remain very small. 

the reason for the inflation of the familliar 3 dimensions rermains a mystery, as does the origin of all the matter, baryonic or otherwise. 

perhaps it takes an enormous ammount of energy to keep a dimension curled up very small.  in that case, inflation would release all that energy in it's equivilant form of matter via E=MC^2 once there is enough 'space' for the matter to condense from the energy.  just a fleeting thought; probably a little off in left field.

in any case, we can never measure any data from before the BB.  there could have been a giant turtle that layed a giant egg that hatched into our universe and we could not ever know about it.  since no data can traverse the threashold of the BB, anything that existed before is irrelevent.

"you don't know me, let alone my intent; actions do not always self represent." - NOFX
Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Monday, June 02, 2008 6:54 PM

brooksquest

 The apparent expansion of the universe is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. The BBT goes a long way to explain observations but the theory does not explain itself, its origin. Since no one was around to witness the "bang" event, a cosmic egg was inserted as the beginning of it all to provide some sort of explanation.

Jeff and others have expressed a concern about not looking at the bang as a "burst" type explosion. Well, this is hard to due when the expanding universe implies both a time and place for an explosion to take place. We cannot say that the universe is expanding because it started with an explosion and then turn around and say that it never did really explode.

It was not an explosion in the sense that most people imagine when they hear that word.

  1. There was no pre-existing material (that we can know about) that suddenly exploded, as with a conventional chemical explosive.
  2. There was no pre-existing space (that we can know about) into which the explosion expanded -- the event actually created space (and time).

So, it was an explosion only in the sense that:

  • It was very brief -- much briefer than a conventional explosion.
  • Everything moved outward from the origin -- much as in a conventional explosion, but much more rapidly.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    September, 2004
Posted by brooksquest on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 6:41 PM

The american scientist desk reference states that in a very small fraction of a second after the BB, the universe was the size of a pea. Now this may seem funny but if all the "stuff' in the universe was packed into a pea sized space (and at the time was super hot energy), then as it expanded at or beyond the speed of light, I think it would be safe to say that it was an explosion (or extremely rapid expansion). The argument that there was nothing before the BB thus telling us "nothing" can't explode is intersesting but it is also the same argument that killed steady state theory as it could not explain how new matter came from nothing to fill in spaces between galaxies. The BB is simply a larger example of the same idea where our universe filled a space between a ??? unknown and unknowable ???

Wherever this pea was should tell us where the center of the universe is. There was nothing outside the pea then so there should be a nothing outside the expanding universe now. Inflationary epoch states that the pea expanded 10e50 times in a brief moment. This along with the assumed slower expansion that followed epoch until now would give us a "big" but not infinite universe. What would the nothing outside our universe look like? Nothing would have to be much less than our current understanding of what nothing is. No space, no matter, no energy, no "time"... NOTHING!

The method we use to measure how long it would take for all the galaxies to come back together for an age estimate is flawed because it is geocentrically bias. I do not see how we can accept BB with its origin being such a huge unknown. I know data and observation can be interpreted to support it but the issue of the egg requires a huge leap of faith that I consider completely non-scientific borderlining on supernatural.

Regardless of what we believe, this is really one of the most interesting topics in cosmology. It is a mystery that I hope we will eventually solve. There must be some way to find the clues.

Cheers,

BQ 

 

 

 

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:41 PM

brooksquest

... The argument that there was nothing before the BB thus telling us "nothing" can't explode is intersesting but it is also the same argument that killed steady state theory as it could not explain how new matter came from nothing to fill in spaces between galaxies. ...

Not precisely ... one of several things the steady-state theory failed to explain was how matter could continually be produced ... that is, there was no direct evidence for such a mechanism. This is an old argument we need not rehash here, however. A little Googling will find many places where it is explained (con as well as pro).

... What would the nothing outside our universe look like? Nothing would have to be much less than our current understanding of what nothing is. No space, no matter, no energy, no "time"... NOTHING!

That pretty neatly sums up my concept of nothing.

The method we use to measure how long it would take for all the galaxies to come back together for an age estimate is flawed because it is geocentrically bias.

Hmmm ... it does not assume any kind of centricity ... it merely reverses the currently observed flow. But, if what you mean is that the currently observed flow is geocentrically biased because we are observing it from the Earth, then I understand.

I do not see how we can accept BB with its origin being such a huge unknown. I know data and observation can be interpreted to support it ...

That's a good reason to accept it, scientifically.

... but the issue of the egg requires a huge leap of faith that I consider completely non-scientific borderlining on supernatural.

I agree. I don't accept it, either. I prefer the idea of nothingness preceding the BB epoch. It's much simpler, if less satisfying. However, that's not the point according to BB theorists: Many are happy to say simply that we can't specify the origin because -- if the theory is correct -- we have no way to find out about it (the origin is hidden beyond direct observation).

I can also accept that ideas like String and Brane theory don't really qualify as Theory unless, and until, they're testable (and have passed some of the tests). It's all well and good to provide a mathematical basis for ideas, but they're not accepted as Theory until such time as there are independently testable premises that satisfy the theory, and that the results from testers are repeatable. Hypotheses is the correct term for them, otherwise.

Regardless of what we believe, this is really one of the most interesting topics in cosmology. It is a mystery that I hope we will eventually solve. There must be some way to find the clues.

I like your hopeful outlook. Perhaps some day ...

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    September, 2004
Posted by brooksquest on Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:15 PM


My point about Something from Nothing in the Big Bang Egg is precisely the same as the creation of new matter in the Steady State only on a larger scale. The solar system is big, the galaxy is bigger, the known universe is bigger still, however it may be that the known universe is only a speck in a larger universe that we cannot (yet) observe.

The "explosion" of the egg you say wasn't chemical? I am not sure what the chemistry of the egg was but according to the BBT it was very hot at for a brief instant, very dense. Pure energy of a non-chemical nature? Perhaps, but keep in mind that at that moment everything that is now the universe was somewhere and it was very very hot. I say the method for bring everything back together is gecentrically bias because the method bring everything back to "Earth" which we cannot assume to be the center of it all. (It is however the center of OUR universe). If we are the center then fine, our age prediction could be close to accurate. But if it isn't then everthing would have to come back together somewhere else and that could increase the age of the universe by a degree of how far away that somewhere is.

In an expanding universe we cannot assume that the Earth is universally and relatively motionless. This is why our red-shift measure of distance should be offset in some direction and it could help us get a better idea of the big picture if we knew more about it.

The idea that the universe is not infinite a direct contradiction of the current model and its cornerstone cosmological principle. Explain how you can believe in the current model and not its cornerstone assumption. I would be interested in your thoughts Jeff. 

Cheers,

BQ 

 

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:17 PM

brooksquest

The "explosion" of the egg you say wasn't chemical?

What I mean by "not like a chemical explosion" is that it's not like -- for example -- the explosion of a stick of dynamite. The dynamite already exists in spacetime, so it has a place and time to expand into. The BB, however, is thought to have created spacetime ... so it's unlike the type of explosion we with which we're already familiar.

... I say the method for bring everything back together is gecentrically bias because the method bring everything back to "Earth" which we cannot assume to be the center of it all. (It is however the center of OUR universe). If we are the center then fine, our age prediction could be close to accurate. But if it isn't then everthing would have to come back together somewhere else and that could increase the age of the universe by a degree of how far away that somewhere is.

Yep.

In an expanding universe we cannot assume that the Earth is universally and relatively motionless. This is why our red-shift measure of distance should be offset in some direction and it could help us get a better idea of the big picture if we knew more about it.

We do not "correct" these measurements because we don't know what correction to apply. The extragalactic redshifts and blueshifts we're talking about here are radial -- that is, they are due to motion relative to the line of sight of the observer. With stars, which lie within the Milky Way, and with nearby galaxies, we can also measure the object's "proper motion" (tangential motion) over time. But these cosmic redshifts are for objects which we have not observed long enough to allow for proper motion to be detectable, since they are at cosmic distances. So, we have no way of knowing whether -- or by how much -- to correct them.

Some redshifts and blueshifts of nearer, yet still quite distant, objects are corrected for Earth's motion within the Milky Way, and for the Milky Way's proper motion relative to the distant object. But cosmically distant objects (high-Z objects) are, well, too far away ...

The idea that the universe is not infinite a direct contradiction of the current model and its cornerstone cosmological principle. Explain how you can believe in the current model and not its cornerstone assumption. I would be interested in your thoughts Jeff. 

The BB Theory states that the BB created spacetime. It assigns t=0 to the earliest instant, the beginning. Anything that has a beginning cannot be infinite, because the beginning marks a boundary.

One way to think about the universe -- as far as we can tell with today's technology -- is that while it may be finite (because it had a beginning) it might still be unbounded. A spherical shape, for example, is finite but unbounded. So, if the universe is spherical (or any other closed shape), it could appear to us to be infinite (in the sense of unbounded) while it's really finite (if we could know its beginning point we'd know it was finite even if we couldn't currently see that point, or travel to it with existing technology).

For all practical purposes, you can consider the universe to be infinite. Nevertheless, if it had a beginning then it doesn't fit the definition of infinite.

I don't know what you mean by cornerstone principle if you don't agree the BBT states that the BB created spacetime. My understanding is that the BB was the instant of creation and therefore the universe we know cannot be infinite.

All this new talk about extra dimensions, etc., makes the assumption that something lies "beyond" our knowable universe. In that context, which doesn't make testable predictions, you could consider that what we call the BB is one of potentially many such events, leading to potentially many universes, and that therefore (and because those extra dimensions exist in the first place) the universe in a larger context is infinite. Maybe so, but we can't know that -- we can only postulate. There is zero observable and testable evidence that is true. And that's why I relegate String and Brane "theory" to mathematical hypotheses, which they are, and not scientific theory (which they are not ... at least not yet).

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    September, 2004
Posted by brooksquest on Friday, June 20, 2008 4:32 PM

 The cosmological principle forbids a center or boundary to the currently modeled universe. A universe without a boundary is infinite. The CP is described as a cornerstone assumption of the BBT in all the references I have found. Homogenous and Isotropic are the observations which support the principle.

The only reason you cannot say the universe isn't infinite is because you think it had a beginning? Interesting. So I guess then if it had no beginning you could assume it to be infinite. Funny place this universe. Perhaps OUR universe exists in a small part of infinite space where atoms are. Who knows?

By the way Jeff I do not believe in multiple dimensions and all that blah blah and I agree that branes and strings are nowhere near theory status yet.

I did think of an interesting thing yesterday...

If you were 100 light years tall, what would happen if you snapped your fingers. A snap is pretty quick so I'm thinking light speed limit would be shattered. If we were bigger would time slow down? It seems it would in our minds because the snap of our fingers would be a split second while a distant observer would see it differently. How would bacteria rate the speed of our snap now? Assunming they could observe. Would it be fast or slow from their microscopic observation point?

 Its all relative....

Cheers,

BQ 

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Friday, June 20, 2008 5:00 PM

brooksquest

 If you were 100 light years tall, what would happen if you snapped your fingers. A snap is pretty quick so I'm thinking light speed limit would be shattered. If we were bigger would time slow down? It seems it would in our minds because the snap of our fingers would be a split second while a distant observer would see it differently. How would bacteria rate the speed of our snap now? Assunming they could observe. Would it be fast or slow from their microscopic observation point?

 

Neural pathways are like wiring, in that they transmit electrical impulses from the brain to the muscles. So, if our fingertips are about halfway the length of our bodies, then that pathway is something like 50 light-years long in a 100-light-year tall body (assuming such a thing could exist as an entity). Assuming that these electrical impulses travel at the speed of light, maximum, it would, therefore, be at least 50 years from the time this giant's brain thought, "snap, fingers" and the time the finger-snap would begin.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Friday, June 20, 2008 5:18 PM

brooksquest

 The cosmological principle forbids a center or boundary to the currently modeled universe. A universe without a boundary is infinite. The CP is described as a cornerstone assumption of the BBT in all the references I have found. Homogenous and Isotropic are the observations which support the principle.

Actually, it does neither: This principle simply states that on average, and at cosmic scales (scales larger than hundreds of millions of light-years), the universe is approximately (not perfectly) homogeneous and isotropic.

Such a place certainly can have a center. We may not be able to locate this center, since we're within the universe and have a cosmic horizon problem to deal with (technologically) as a limit to our observations.

Having a center likewise does not require that the universe have a known boundary in any particular direction.

The cosmological principle does not say, itself (though the Robertson-Walker metric does), anything about extent, shape, or boundaries. When you look at the RW metric, you're struck by the fact that the shape and extent of spacetime depend on the density which, in turn, depends on how you define expansion and inflation. Those parameters, in turn, depend on whether spacetime is closed, or open. Determining which applies requires settling on a value for the cosmological constant, which is still in debate: will the expansion we observe continue, or abate, or will it reverse? Space is infinite only in the case where expansion continues. Space is finite (and can be unbounded) in either of the other cases.

So, the odds are 2:1 in favor of finite if you boil these complicated measures down to simplest terms.

Yet we still don't know the answer for sure (and may never know).

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Friday, June 20, 2008 5:26 PM

brooksquest

The only reason you cannot say the universe isn't infinite is because you think it had a beginning? Interesting. So I guess then if it had no beginning you could assume it to be infinite.

No, it's not the only reason, just the simplest ... Smile,Wink, & Grin

If the universe is infinite, then it has no beginning and has no end. If it has either, then it is finite.

BBT says it had a beginning, though we can only approximate when that occurred. There is observational evidence that if it had such a beginning as proposed by BBT, then it fits what we currently observe.

There is lots of observational evidence that the universe is big, mind-bogglingly big.

But I'm not aware of any observational evidence that the universe is infinite. There are lots of mathematical hypotheses which show it could be infinite, but how does one square that with it having a beginning?

If we could logically propose the universe will have an end, then that also would suggest it is finite. But, as I mentioned earlier, that would require us to close the universe, settling on a value for the cosmological constant which is yet in doubt.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    September, 2004
Posted by brooksquest on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 6:46 PM


Is there a difference between everywhere and infinity? The BBT states that the event happened everywhere. Is this everywhere limited?

Point here is that if the cosmological principle is correct then you can assume infinity. If it is not correct then an edge between something and nothing has to exist. The CP says that if you were anywhere in the universe it would still look the same in any direction. The CP is a part of the BBT. So how can you believe the BBT without the CP??? You can twist the CP to mean anything you want but the definition I gave is the textbook one and is not a misunderstanding or false statement.

From my current observations I see that you like many others, choose what part of a theory you want to believe and make up the rest for yourself. That's kool as long as you say it loud and clear that you are a BBT flip-flopper. 

My idea of a cosmic egg is a really good omelet.

Cheers,

BQ 

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:02 PM

I can be wrong, but I'm rarely inconsistent. I am not flip-flopping.

Unlike many here, I can remember when the Big Bang Theory was first published in the popular press. I was young, but already reading. I remember quite well my Dad's astonishment at how simple it seemed. I also remember very well when the CMB was discovered how it seemed that finally we had a cosmology that not only made predictions, but was confirmed by them.

I have kept track of the BBT's development since about 1958, and studied it in detail in the early 1970s. I was lucky to have a college physics professor who was actually an astrophysicist (his research area was cosmic rays and gamma rays) and I really enjoyed his classes on optics and the nature of light.

I think I have been entirely consistent throughout my time studying the BBT.

There are many bits and pieces that have kind of been grafted onto the BBT. Some of them, like the CP, seem to me a bit too neat (in the logical sense). One thing I mentioned that I'm not sure you took as important as I meant it be is that the CP holds only at cosmic scales. On local scales it is demonstrably false (just look around the room you're in at the moment). It is meant to be taken as valid only at cosmic scales. It is reasonably accurate at those scales.

However, it in no way invalidates the BBT tenet that spacetime was created at t=0 of the original expansion. Slice that however you want, but as far as we can tell it's a beginning. If there was a beginning, the universe is finite. Period. You can't have it any other way.

However, it's a specious argument, because (as I said) in a practical sense the universe can be considered to be infinite. So, it won't upset me (or the BBT) one whit if you treat it either way, as long as you're consistent and don't swap scales on us.

Now, as to:

brooksquest

Is there a difference between everywhere and infinity? The BBT states that the event happened everywhere. Is this everywhere limited?

this should not be confusing. If the BBT is correct, and at the initial instant spacetime was very small (either point-like or string-like), then the original expansion at t=0 created everywhere, and it did it at the same instant. For a very short period (on human timescales), everywhere was only in one place. As time went on, everywhere expanded greatly and now things that fill it are very spread out. Not infinite, since there was a beginning and very well may be an "edge" -- not that we can see it or get to it.

Nevertheless, it is not inconsistent to say that the BB created everywhere yet the universe is finite. It is logically inconsistent to say that the BB created everywhere yet the universe is infinite.

Therefore, this everywhere (the BBT everywhere) is limited: it had a beginning (beyond which you can't go further "backward." I also believe, though I can't prove it, that it has an end (or an edge if you'd rather call it that). It certainly is logical that if it were created by the initial expansion and is still expanding that there is some kind of "outward" boundary (wavefront, edge, whatever ...).

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    September, 2004
Posted by brooksquest on Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:17 PM


Well...

A theory like the BB has evolved over time but the fact remains that the COSMIC EGG is part of it. The egg is a something from nothing event. (Exactly like the new matter event in the steady state theory except on a grander scale). If you do not like the cosmic egg then your belief rests mainly on the shoulders of an observed "possibly" expanding universe that you say is finite. It's all good.

We could argue the finer points of the CMB all day long but no one can tell us exactly what it is or where it came from. The guess that it is leftover from the bang is the best we have so far.

Inflationary epoch we have also discussed. I think it is a band aid and you don't. Fine, but it too is a guess that has been figured into the equation to validate the CP. The CP is part of the theory, you don't like it either because of local problems, but it is a cornerstone assumption of the theory. Not a  fleeting thought... a cornerstone assumption.

So...

Basically you believe in the BBT according to Jeff, which is good, just admit your ideas are different from the "current model". Which they are.

Search yourself and reply.

Cheers,

BQ 

 

 

Moderator
  • Member since
    July, 2002
  • From: Texas
Posted by chipdatajeffB on Sunday, June 29, 2008 10:57 PM

brooksquest

... We could argue the finer points of the CMB all day long but no one can tell us exactly what it is or where it came from. The guess that it is leftover from the bang is the best we have so far.

It's considerably more than a guess. It's actually a prediction made by BBT which was confirmed (decades later) by actual observation (once the technology to discover it became available). It's things like that which elevate hypotheses to theories.

Inflationary epoch we have also discussed. I think it is a band aid and you don't. Fine, but it too is a guess that has been figured into the equation to validate the CP.

No, it was figured into the equation because of new observations ... that is, it modified the BBT to fit new observations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing that. Happens all the time in science. However, I freely admit there are too many variations of inflation theory (dozens of them). It makes modeling too difficult. The big problem I see with inflation is not that it's part of the theory (since it helps explain current observations) but that there are so many different interpretations of it.

The CP is part of the theory, you don't like it either because of local problems, but it is a cornerstone assumption of the theory. Not a  fleeting thought... a cornerstone assumption

...

Basically you believe in the BBT according to Jeff, which is good, just admit your ideas are different from the "current model". Which they are.

I do not. My view most closely parallels that of Joseph Silk (2001). The perfect cosmological principle (latest version) is invalid if you accept the notion that the universe was denser and hotter at some earlier time -- which is a condition of BBT. So, that leaves us discussing either the Anthropic CP or the Copernican CP. The Anthropic CP does not satisfactorily explain why the universe is isotropic and homogenous at cosmic scales to such a degree as is observable with today's technology. So, the standard model that I follow (believe is the wrong word), incorporates the simpler Copernican CP. Does that help? There are lots of different models, and several parade themselves as "standard" ... but my thinking is aligned with Silk's.

Search yourself and reply.

It doesn't help to be confrontational. We won't get anywhere if I search myself. We might get somewhere by searching the literature.

However, since I'm already doing that daily, and since I'm neither convincing you of anything nor learning anything new here, I think I'll retire. I apologize for doing so, but I just don't find the time productive.

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. --- JBS Haldane

Come visit me at Comanche Springs Astronomy Campus (we're on Google Maps) in Texas.

www.3rf.org

  • Member since
    September, 2004
Posted by brooksquest on Monday, June 30, 2008 6:38 PM

 Jeff,

Sorry if I got in your comfort zone. I am merely pointing out that you and I both have things about the current model that we don't like. And, when it comes to theory, you will not always find answers or better ideas in "literature". Sometimes you can put your own thoughts out there and they may be correct (even proven one day). If there are parts of the standard model(s) that we don't like we can just as easily come up with alternatives as good as anyone else on the planet. Remember what     Einstein said about the future of science existing in the minds of those to come and not in the volumes in the library.

I enjoy a good discussion or argument you know but I do not wish to offend. Arguing the BB is really pointless but it is sometimes fun. I still do not know what you think. Perhaps hypnosis? I only know what you have read and agree or disagree with. Anyway, I'll lighten up.

Cheers,

BQ 

  • Member since
    May, 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 7:14 AM

 

The apparent expansion of the universe is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. The BBT goes a long way to explain observations but the theory does not explain itself, its origin. Since no one was around to witness the "bang" event, a cosmic egg was inserted as the beginning of it all to provide some sort of explanation.

The idea of a cosmic egg means that something created the egg in the first place and it's mind boggling to sugest that it came from another dimension since we can only begin to fathom what other dimensions are like. but how about this ponderance: How do you arrive at the concept of existence itself? Perhaps this supercedes the subject of cosmology.

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

ADVERTISEMENT

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Receive news, sky-event information, observing tips, and more from Astronomy's weekly email newsletter.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Find us on Facebook

Loading...