Thread: big bang

Originally Posted by John Partika

Oh, I forgot to add this to the last post.

I would also tend to say that the name "Big Bang" is completely useless. Considering it was coined by a man who was trying to prove Steady State Theory, I find no reason to continue using it. I've always preferred the term "Cosmogenesis", or even Alan Guth's "Inflation" frankly sounds better, and is more accurate, than Big Bang.

There was no "bang", nor was it "big". It was an expansion of space-time that happened everywhere at once. I find it to be a very misleading term that, in all honesty, is probably part of the reason a lot of people dismiss the BB right off the bat. They think of it as a creation ex nihilo out of an explosion, which is absurd. But I think even the average Joe, if they knew something about the theory, would want to stop using the term BB as well.

The Big Bang is one therory of Cosmogenisis. Inflation is another. I like Engorgement. We could then refer to the galaxies as Exudate. Or how about Protuberance. The universe is Protubering at an ever increasing rate, has a nice official ring to it.

The Big Bang and inflation aren't the same event, although they are intimately connected, so it is partially inaccurate to say that they are both theories of Cosmogenesis.

One thing I wanted to ask is if you have any hypotheses to put in their place. Any extra info would be amazing. Thanks in advance.

i read a recent article where Mr. Penrose found some kind of circles in the WMAP.he belives it may be evidence of "time" before the BB or the great expansion.he is saying it shows that the universe expands and contracts in a purpetual cycle.i'll have to reread the article for more details.

Originally Posted by John Partika

The Big Bang and inflation aren't the same event, although they are intimately connected, so it is partially inaccurate to say that they are both theories of Cosmogenesis.

One thing I wanted to ask is if you have any hypotheses to put in their place. Any extra info would be amazing. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by John Partika

The Big Bang and inflation aren't the same event, although they are intimately connected, so it is partially inaccurate to say that they are both theories of Cosmogenesis.

One thing I wanted to ask is if you have any hypotheses to put in their place. Any extra info would be amazing. Thanks in advance.

John, you wrote; "I've always preferred the term "Cosmogenesis", or even Alan Guth's "Inflation" frankly sounds better, and is more accurate, than Big Bang"

I did not feel that it was worth nit picking about. Since you are pushing it. Inflation is technically presented as a modification of the Big Bang not a replacement for or alternative to it.

However, there is no evidence of a point of origin or ground zero. There is no center to the expansion, no reason to believe that it "began" anywhere. Beginning and ending are 3D concepts that do not have corollaries in four dimensions. Our universe is four dimensional. We can only talk of the beginning or even the outside of our universe in our limited 3D language. In 4D those words have no meaning and no application to objective 4D reality. The concepts of beginning and outside do not carry over. There are no transformations like those of Laplace or Pontcarr'e to make them fit.

There is no way to twist the data from Hubble and/or the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation Mapping by NASA to support NASA's claim that the universe looks now or ever did look like a truncated watermelon as they claim on their web site. To think that one 2 dimensional representation could provide an accurate image of a 4 dimensional structure is absurd. That is comparable to building a model of an elephant, having never seen one, from a picture of the skin under its toe nail.

I can almost hear them hawking.
"From our super-sized picture of this skin we can conclude conclusively that an elephant is probably large, rounded and skinny, maybe even baggy."
Oooh, Wow! You guys just made my day.
"Wait! That is not all,folks, we have a simulation here. Yes folks, he looks a lot like a watermelon with one end cut off and a large ingrown toenail.

When I pull up NASA's site on the net, I feel like I'm at a carnival. Its all just good marketing. 4D physics does not look anything like that.