The Big Bang

[Pro]

The Big Bang.

[Pro]

It's pretty much impossible for me to rewrite the protheory.com topics in full as I'd end up just making it too complicated so for now please just take a look at this original archive from my website and then you can ask me any questions below here

The Big Bang


Introduction

This theory describes the supposed creation of the whole universe.

We have not yet managed to prove whether or not there was actually a beginning to the universe, nor have we proved if there will eventually be an end.



Singular

The big bang is a model of everything that imagines a singular point in time when the universe began.



Distant

It suggests that at some point in the extremely distant past, all the matter and energy in what we now know as the universe was once concentrated into an unimaginably dense state.



Original

This original state is usually described as a singularity.



Contract

According to this model, at some relative time in the future the universe will eventually contract back into the dense nothingness from which it came.



Return

It will return to an original and singular state.



Crunch

This idea is known as the "big crunch."



Expanding

It is currently accepted by many that the universe is still expanding from this original singularity.



Cosmic

Cosmic background radiation implies that we can still detect radiation travelling through the universe from the same event, even though it supposedly happened countless millions of years ago.



Emanating

Red light emanating from distant galaxies implies that they are moving away from us and blue light implies the opposite.



Shifted

Red shifted light has been observed and this eventually lead to the idea that the universe seems to be expanding, or at least moving away from our relative point of reference at the current moment.



Summary

Is the universe currently expanding from an original singularity?

Is there a definite and singular beginning and end to the universe?



The Problem

Did some sort of massive explosion create the universe?



The Answer



Energy

All energy (everything) is not unchangingly "created" or "destroyed" it is changed.



Whole

The universe as a relative whole is change and as such a more accurate definition cannot be achieved.



Observable

You might say that change is the only observable property of the universe that doesn't change, so to speak.



Expanding

The universe may currently appear to be expanding but this is a relative observation that is subject to change of three types in three ways simultaneously.



Relative

Even if the universe seems to be moving away from us we must not forget that our earthly view is ultimately relative.



Unchangeable

There is no singular and unchangeable start or finish to our universe, there is change of three potentials, at all relative times.



Did a "big bang" create the universe?

1. A big bang created the universe.

2. A big bang did not create the universe.

3. There is a neutral possibility.

Simultaneously.



Am I wrong?

I simultaneously oppose, agree with, and neutralise all criticism ad infinitum.

My point is literal.

There is no point creating a theory of everything that doesn't work.

[Tina]

I am not an advocate of the Big Bang Theory. Two particular reasons throw the theory into doubt for me:

1) High red-shift has been observed in established blue-shift areas.

2) As an advocate of Protheory nothing can exist without corresponding positive and negative potentials -thus there can be no singularity.

I would appreciate your comments Pro as my grasp on singularity is limited.

[Pro]

Originally Posted by Tina I am not an advocate of the Big Bang Theory. Two particular reasons throw the theory into doubt for me: 1) High red-shift has been observed in established blue-shift areas. 2) As an advocate of Protheory nothing can exist without corresponding positive and negative potentials -thus there can be no singularity. I would appreciate your comments Pro as my grasp on singularity is limited.

Welcome back Tina, it's great to have you back with us

I've not seen any studies of high red shift being observed in blue shift areas but it doesn't surprise me to be honest There should be a neutral colour shift as well somewhere, purple or maybe green according to some things I've read I think.

It's these opposite shifts of light that form the whole basis or Big Bang theory and so if we now know that there's actually three potentials then we know the theory is not totally accurate.

It's an interesting idea for sure but it's not a TOE as it only gives us red and blue, no neutral shift. I also think it's interesting to note that the colours are primary not secondary. As you know there are three primary colours, three secondary colours. Bit of a problem for Newton's theory of the light spectrum but I've often wondered if he added an extra purple colour to the proceedings. There's indigo and also violet but there should only be three colours, three primary and three secondary in my opinion.

Apparently indigo is the point between blue and violet so this is why it's extra. If we thought of it as the neutral point between blue and violet we can see why it's extra as all other colour transitions should also have a neutral point too.

If we've got three colours, we've got three opposites (secondary colours) and we should also have three neutral points between each colour at the point of not being green or blue for example, but being a bit of both until we move further along the spectrum.

As it seems to stand we've got 7 colours defined when there should only really be three, three opposites, and three neutral points which makes 9, divided by 3 makes 3, 3 divided by 3 makes 1 singular. And that's Po theory. It seems to me like Newton missed the other two neutral points between colours, much as he observed gravity as a force devoid of its opposite and neutral potentials.

Also, if we think of the blue and red shifts we're only observing the universe in opposite directions. It's as though we're looking north and south only. If we added the secondary colours too we'd have north and south (moving towards or away) and also we'd have east and west (left and right). Just thought this was an interesting aside here.

So basically the universe just flows, has always done, and will always do so. What we consider as unchangeable just means slowly changeable. The universe doesn't take account of time or years I don't think.

From my Tao Te Ching topic:

The Tao pours out everything into life - It is a cornucopia that never runs dry. It is the deep source of everything - it is nothing, and yet it is in everything. It smooths round sharpness and untangles the knots. It glows like the lamp that draws the moth... Tao exists, Tao is but where it came from I do not know. It has been shaping things from before the first being, from before the Beginning of Time.

[soaralone1]

I have great difficulty in the theory of there being any one or many Big Bangs. All the work and continuing complex additional theories leave no room for Nature to be really very simple.

Suppose there is another explanation for what is being viewed as "expansion" and "acceleration"? Further suppose there are two easily developed equations, one for apparent expansion and the other for the apparent acceleration? These equations would be a lot more convenient to use, wouldn't they be?

soaralone1