Posted on 01/02/2014 9:11:49 AM PST by fishtank
For every astrophysicist there is a different model.n
Hawkings shift isn't all that dramatic. Hawking radiation is the escape of energy from a black hole, due to quantum effects. His modified stance is that the event horizon isn't a sharply delineated "surface," but somewhere, at a smaller radius, gravity rules. I would think that the same quantum effect can play at that smaller radius too, so energy has a way to work its way "outward" from the pull of gravity.
I guess that I'm having an Einstien moment, like when he said, “God does not play dice with the universe!” I do not like the limits the Big Bang imposes.
I’ve never been able to fathom how time started moving forward. I mean, what was time even one second before a so called ‘big bang’? How could time even exist without a starting point, and what the heck was time before that point? I don’t believe that can ever be answered by any human being.
It boggles the mind.
My mind boggles too.
What time was it before time began? What did the Big Bang singularity expand into, if there isn’t anything beyond our universe? If things that fall into a black hole can’t come back into our universe when the black hole evaporates, where do they go?
If everything that ever existed, time, space, information, and all, is destroyed with every Big Bang cycle, there’s no point to either the universe or us existing at all.
I just can’t believe that.
Lerner, Eric J., The Big Bang Never Happened,Vintage Books, 1991. I'm a bit dubious about his argument, since he appears to propose that the universe is infinite in both time and space. I think he dismisses Olbers Paradox too quickly (the night sky is dark; if the universe were infinite in time and space we would expect the night sky to be as bright as day).
Weintraub, David A., How Old is the Universe, Princeton U. Press, 2011.
Arp, Holton, Seeing Red, Apeiron, 1998. Arp argues that the "red shift" has nothing to do with velocity and the Doppler effect, but instead is a function of the age of the source.
Ratcliffe, Hilton, The Static Universe, Apeiron, 2011. The author argues that the universe is not expanding at all, but the red shift is due to light losing energy as it travels great distances, thus increasing in wavelength.
Obviously these books are at variance with the "standard model" of cosmology, but each points to discrepancies that the "standard model" doesn't explain.
I'm not a cosmologist. The arguments in each of these books sound plausible, and some seem to be supported by evidence. However, it's outside my field, and I can only say it sounds interesting and worth reading about.
**** “... he appears to propose that the universe is infinite in both time and space ...” ****
Like you, I’m not a cosmologist, but I believe that both are infinite. It just feels right.
As far as grey holes allowing matter to escape after that matter has changed into a different kind of matter, matter is still escaping from the hole. In my understanding that would preclude the formation of the Big Bang singularity, just as escape from a black hole would.
Plainly I don't understand the theories involved, but the subject is fascinating.
Galianni, P., Burbidge, E.M., Arp, H.C., Junkkarinen, V., Burbidge, G. and Zibetti, S., “The Discovery
of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319”, ApJ, 620, 88-94,
February 10, 2005.
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.