Our time is based on our sun. Time in other galaxies have different times.
0 Replies
Leadfoot
1
Sun 28 Feb, 2016 06:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
If there is no change at all you have no new information and thus are unaware of anything going on because there is nothing new going on.
That's my complaint about a static universe in a nutshell. If only I were unaware of the incessant ticking of the cosmic clock on the wall I'd buy it.
0 Replies
neologist
1
Sun 28 Feb, 2016 06:39 pm
Must have been a contracting universe leading to the singularity.
Sorry I don't have time to explain.
0 Replies
edgarblythe
1
Sun 28 Feb, 2016 07:38 pm
Maybe it's like the TV game show, Let's Make a Deal. You don't know what's in your case until the very end. Meanwhile, cases open up at random, bestowing good and ill consequences.
My suspicion is that every explanation you've ever seen of inflationary cosmology is so simplified for public consumption as to be quite different from the actual theories. For example, here is a tutorial for Physics graduate students:
Is it possible that the Big Bang occurs when a super massive black hole has absorbed so much material it hits a saturation tipping point and releases that as a new Big Bang in a new dimension thus creating infinite bubble universes?
What bothers me is the little red arrow with the legend "You are here."
0 Replies
dalehileman
1
Tue 24 May, 2016 11:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
...what came before, by asking what caused it?
Yea Finn that'n bothers me too
0 Replies
dalehileman
1
Tue 24 May, 2016 11:38 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
without invoking a supernatural being
Yea Ori it's soooo obvoous. Yet I'd retain hope for something we don't yet understand that some can call "God"
0 Replies
dalehileman
1
Tue 24 May, 2016 11:41 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
why hasn't it long since run out of fuel for stars?
Very good Q, Ora, the one paradox that leaves us hanging. I'd suppose it's just that there's something subtly wrong with our idea of equilibrium
0 Replies
dalehileman
1
Tue 24 May, 2016 11:43 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
It has existed for 13.8 billion years
. But later after the big crunch everything starts all over again. Evidently the crunch restores all that energy
0 Replies
dalehileman
1
Tue 24 May, 2016 11:46 am
@FBartolu,
Quote:
new Big Bang in a new dimension
Yea Bart; escept I'm not sure just what that "new dimension" means. I'd guess next time much the same rules apply
I've often wondered whether that "saturation point" is a kind of nothingness
0 Replies
InfraBlue
1
Tue 24 May, 2016 01:30 pm
From the article cited:
Quote:
No singularities nor dark stuff
In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.
Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.
In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.
So, where does that leave the singularity of the Big Bang? Or is it that it wasn't a singularity at all; we merely perceive it as such.
0 Replies
Agneta
1
Mon 4 Dec, 2017 01:54 pm
What if the theory of Big bang and relativity is wrong? It seems much more logical and likely that the Universe has always been here since energy can only be transformed and not created or destroyed.
