Ummmm.... You said 'monkey wrench'?
Posted on 09/30/2015 7:10:11 PM PDT by lbryce
Could the famed “Big Bang” theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.
Before getting into their findings, let’s just preface this by saying nobody knows anything for sure. Humans obviously weren’t around at the time the universe began. The standard theory is that the universe grew from an infinitely dense point or singularity, but who knows what was there before?
“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” stated Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada who co-authored the new study.
So what are the limitations of the Big Bang theory? The singularity is one of them. Also, it’s hard to predict why it would have produced a universe that has an almost uniform temperature, because the age of our universe (about 13.8 billion years) does not give enough time — as far as we can tell — to reach a temperature equilibrium.
Most cosmologists say the universe must have been expanding faster than the speed of light for this to happen, but Ashford says even that theory has problems: “The Big Bang was so chaotic, it’s not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on.”
(Excerpt) Read more at universetoday.com ...
Scientists have for centuries attempted to make sense of it all from an empirical perspective and most of what we think we know is based upon one very questionable aspect of it all. The speed of light. The speed of light is one of the very few irrefutable tools he can count on to help answer the question of how the universe began, used as a fundamental tool, an irrefutable component for which everything we think we know about the universe is based upon. In using their exotic quantum physics equations,the speed of light is inserted into their calculations and voila, the origin, structure of the universe is all there explained, elucidated, laid out with a few still unknown aspects.
But what has kept cosmologists up at night is a nightmarish thought that threatens everything they've espoused about the universe and its creation.
What IF, the speed of light has changed since the creation? At the beginning it was faster than for some inexplicable cosmic reason changed, slowed down to the current speed in which light travels. That would throw some humongous monkey wrench into the mix, make the creation of the universe even more of a confusing, inexplicable WTF scenario. And there's no way to know whether or not such a phenomena occurred.
The birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris.
After just reading the newest, most recent explanation for the creation of the universe, I have now abandoned all hope of ever knowing about how the universe came into being. (are you kidding?) given up on seeking the dynamics for how this vast expanse of inexplicable mind-boggling infinite abyss ever came into being. It was was at the point I realized that after all these years I will stop trying to gt a grasp on it all and wished the cosmologists all the luck in the world.
I pass the baton of ever hoping to get a grasp understanding the universe to yours truly
What if the creator created the light particles in place? What if He said, “let there be light” and then created the stars after the light was created?
I always come to the strange conclusion that there really shouldn’t be anything, and yet supposedly there is.
Universe came from a Black Hole?
Hello Reparations!
“Nobody knows anything for sure”
Bull.
If I walk in the backyard and get dog crap on my shoes and walk on the carpet, I KNOW I’m going to get yelled at.
And yet many, if not most will venomously dismiss the concept of a Divine Creator as superstitious nonsense.
one of my goals in retirement (20 years from now I project, sigh) is to do the math with C as a variable instead of a constant to see what results. I imagine it will be fascinating to conjecture.
The Equations that define the famous InterceptPoint Theory of the Origin of the Universe:
1 minus 1 equals zero
Our universe corresponds to the +1
Our unseen mirror universe corresponds to the -1
The Zero is what we started with
This isn’t Rocket Science.
“What IF, the speed of light has changed since the creation?”
Then it’s not a constant, and we should be able to detect its change. That change is most likely measurable because it would have to fit the history of the universe, starting with “the beginning” and scaling to what it is today. For what we see in a variable light speed universe would set boundaries on what could have happened (akin to my contention that the universe is not 10,000 years old because what we see can’t fit in a 10,000 light year radius).
Why are scientists allowed to study alternative theories to the Big Bang? There is a clear consensus, over 90% of scientists believe in the Big Bang, its settled science.
If this is allowed, it only give credence to people who demand something more than consensual assertions on man made global warming.
A climate catastrophe.
Ummmm.... You said 'monkey wrench'?
I have difficulty with the notion that God placed every particle with preset velocity vectors and then hit “Go” just to give the illusion of what’s where and how long it’s been there and what it’s doing.
I actually find Genesis more consistent with the Big Bang theory than the Young Earth theory. Nothing, then light, then separation of matter from energy, etc.
You make a good case jailing these heretics for questioning settled science.
“Also, it’s hard to predict why it would have produced a universe that has an almost uniform temperature, because the age of our universe (about 13.8 billion years) does not give enough time — as far as we can tell — to reach a temperature equilibrium. “
On the other hand, if the Universe is infinite and eternal, then the theory matches the data.
1 John 2:15
Do Not Love the World
15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life[c]—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
Sounds more like Keith Richards passed out on the toilet backstage.
“What if the creator created the light particles in place?”
That would mean that the history of each star is predestined.
When we watch a star explode from a million light years away, the light from that star was laid in its track at Creation and slowly played itself out until the fact of its exploding arrives. Less dramatically, the light history of a variable star would be preordained.
Yes!
Wall Street Journal had a fawning review of his new album, then I saw another review said it was poor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.