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 ...
What if... both are true ?
IF all that were true, then where do new stars come from ?
When you think about it, there is little difference between the two sides of the ‘creation’ story and the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
If in case of variable speed, the past would have caught with the future and historians would have been futurists.
The Creator stretched out space/time and filled it with matter.
This is all temporary. Yet out of the finite He created the infinite. US. Because He Loves us.
“then where do new stars come from ?”
What new stars? These are stars that we are just starting to see the light from.
All of the “stellar nurseries” are pretty far away.
I’m not advocating for the concept that the light history of stars was fixed at Creation, I’m looking at logical sequelae if that were true.
It's all in your head.
I would have guessed it was the other way around.
Good retort. Won't hold water, but it was a good try.
All of the “stellar nurseries” are pretty far away.
And yet we miss the real miracle... that the human eye can see something at a distance that is impossible to even grasp.
I’m not advocating for the concept that the light history of stars was fixed at Creation, I’m looking at logical sequelae if that were true.
I got that.
I think that our 'theory' on creation is biased and limited by point of view.
The idea that a pre existing universe consolidated into a black hole or singularity which subsequently exploded to become our universe is logically attractive except for two ideas. First there is the problem of inflation where physical laws and limits are suspended and secondly, our universe seems to be expanding into virtual non existence.
Not much difference. The universe is still a black hole that managed to expand even though black holes can’t expand.
“...birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole..”
Where did this star come from?
That's OK. "Progressives" know. they know all. Just ask them.
I like that idea of “out of the finite He created the infinite”. Excluding Himself which is infinite in both directions (Alpha and Omega).
But we are pretty sure that the Universe did have a beginning. And many scientists think that it will also end. But true - God created us out of the finite - and we will last forever.
As one involved in the sciences, I take the view from the old-school guys (Newton, etc.) that science is ultimately the study of God. And science is making theories, testing them, studying them, questioning them, etc. (like the theory in this article does). I do have to laugh though when someone says they have it ALL figured out - that the science is settled (like with global warming).
While Job was not questioning the science of God, I do like God’s response in question God:
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:
2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone—
Certain observational evidence is best explained (within the Big Bang / standard model) as indicating that our part of the universe (at least!) is already inside the event horizon of a gi-normous black hole.
Best way to tell one way or the other, my joints start to ache when I fall into a black hole.
That’s what Obamacare is for. For the aches and pains of falling into a black hole.
They will go on about how because of relativity there is no universal "now" so no way to get a snapshot of what the universe is or was or will be.
And with the ability of space and time to expand along with the matter and energy within space and time it's just impossible to even say if it's kinda sorta like an expanding sphere or shell or ...?
My concept of the creation of the universe is very simple.
GOD SAID “LET IT BE SO”, AND THUS IT WAS, IS, AND EVER WILL BE.
Wait, I thought Obamacare *was* a black hole?
The more we know, the more we look. The more we look, the more we realize we don’t know nearly as much as we once thought we knew.
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.