Black-hole

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

In fact with an age of 13.5 B years you would expect the universe to be polluted with them but even that is a bit weird.

This is a concept I have trouble understanding. With the age of the universe being 13.5 billion years does that make Olber's Bubble to have a diameter of 27 billion years? Why is it that it would appear the age of the universe would coincidentally be the radius of Obler's bubble? Is there some limit to our perception that as we recede from the origin of the big bang we can see farther ahead of time too, but only as far as the radius of olber's bubble is.

How can this theory be tested without very VERY precise instruments for redshift measurement.

Somebody said the CMBR was gradually getting weaker. Is that relative to our phase in time? Because that could prove the radius of Olber's bubble would be constant relative to our phase in time (which is ever-changing, which is the point).

Any thoughts?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday - Oblers Bubble - I had to Google for it but very good - thanks.
It seems there is now a clear difference between the definition for 'Universe' (what can be seen) and 'Cosmos' (what lies beyond what can be seen). Also, there is an alternative explanation for the Cosmic Radiation Background, which means the Big Bang is not necessarily the only option and not even a preferred option at that. However, what was made clear was the need to by-pass the present notion of the awkward construction of the first atomic nuclei. I still think there is a good clue in the way the Laser 'belts' out a stream of particles from an electro/magnetic source of energy (perhaps via the golf ball analogy), i.e. some kind of a big shatter seems infinitely more reasonable than a big bang. Yep, an encouraging read.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Holiday - Oblers Bubble - I had to Google for it but very good - thanks.
It seems there is now a clear difference between the definition for 'Universe' (what can be seen) and 'Cosmos' (what lies beyond what can be seen). Also, there is an alternative explanation for the Cosmic Radiation Background, which means the Big Bang is not necessarily the only option and not even a preferred option at that. However, what was made clear was the need to by-pass the present notion of the awkward construction of the first atomic nuclei. I still think there is a good clue in the way the Laser 'belts' out a stream of particles from an electro/magnetic source of energy (perhaps via the golf ball analogy), i.e. some kind of a big shatter seems infinitely more reasonable than a big bang. Yep, an encouraging read.

Sorry but its all conceived not validated , experiments are in progress to try and dismiss the background noise as only from this universe but it has not been concluded.The accepted universe started with the BB and to dismiss it without measured reason is not science.

1 Reply

@xris,

Xris - The present model of the atom is no more scientific than a kitchen recipe for fruit cake. The model is supported by surprisingly few facts (it has an unbreakable centre - particles come and go from it) and yet this model spawns two more models that are supported by yet fewer facts (the Big Bang and Black Holes). The faith in these models is traceable to an as yet undetected force called Gravity. As models go they are useful but inviolate they are not, that is, unless of course they turn out to be reality, which seems highly unlikely to me.
Each generation trawls and teases the models of the previous generation and frankly more by luck or accident and due to the shear volume of interest, models are revised. This science forum should be more about challenging models and less about the process of thinking about thinking, which is what I find frustrating about philosophy in general.
To state categorically that the universe started with a Big Bang might seem perverse to the next generation. However, no one is dismissing your favourite model just yet but I thought it best to let you know how precarious I think the last generation's models really are.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know