| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
rousejohnny
USA
220 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 08:54:59
|
The Big Bang violates the Cosmological Principle. Although they use the balloon experiments to play down this fact, no balloon I have ever seen did not have a center. In fact, the big bang requires a point of origin, which would be a center of the Universe. As I see it, BBers have two options, either ignore this fact (which they now do), or dismiss this principle as dogmatic science.
If the Cosmological Principle is true, the Meta Modal is the only model that stands logically. Any finite system has defined and special locations such as a center.
Tom,
This is obviously the strongest argument for your Model; to your knowledge is there any movement to eliminate this principle? If not, how do the Big Bangers get away with this glaring flaw of logic.
Johnny |
|
|
1234567890
360 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 19:42:39
|
| I'm confused about the Cosmological principle as well. If the density of matter is pretty uniform, how could someone at the edge from the original center in the BB not observe less stars than others? It's a very peculiar type of expansion anyway. Seems impossible. |
 |
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 21:10:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by rousejohnny
The Big Bang violates the Cosmological Principle.
It violates only the Perfect Cosmological Principle because it requires that we exist at a special time. However, in the BB, no point in space is special, and the universe looks the same from everywhere.
quote:
Although they use the balloon experiments to play down this fact, no balloon I have ever seen did not have a center. In fact, the big bang requires a point of origin, which would be a center of the Universe.
As you probably know, I'm no fan of the BB. But it has always had an answer to your objection. There is no center in 3-space. In Friedmann-Walker (BB) universes, galaxies have very little motion through space. Instead, all of them get farther apart because more new space is being continually created between them.
The balloon analogy works only in showing how all the galaxies (dimes on the inflating balloon surface) can all get farther apart without actually moving on the surface, and why none of them is in a special place. However, the balloon is a two-dimensional surface in the three-dimensional space, so it has a center in the third dimension. In BB, the universe just has three expanding space dimensions. It is expanding in time, but not into a fourth space dimension, so there is no center in space. -|Tom|-
|
|
|
|
rousejohnny
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 08 Mar 2004 : 23:47:32
|
Tom,
With all due respect, I have never seen a two dimensional balloon inflate. The analogy only goes to prove that in an expanding universe from the point of origin of a Big Bang or the hole of a balloon there is a special place, the point of origin.
In Meta Modal there is no origin or boundaries, thus no violation of the cosmological principle. The Big Bang on the other hand does not share such exception and requires special location that includes a center. Bang....expand, had to start somewhere and thus violates the cosmological principle in 3D space sense. |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2004 : 00:06:27
|
| Hey, don't force me to defend BB! It is what it is: a mathematical model with a poor physical interpretation that violates several principles of physics. But just because something is physically impossible doesn't bother many scientists who take their guidance from the math and attribute the rest to the limitations of our imaginations. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
rousejohnny
USA
220 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2004 : 07:59:53
|
Tom:
My intentions are not to force you to defend the Big Bang, in fact, I intended to help you accumulate ammunition against it. As popular cosmology stands today, until we can devise a method to observe the non-radial motion of galaxies, the cosmological principle stands and your model is the only one I have seen that upholds it. BBers should be attempting to observe such motion because the cosmological principle and the BB are not compatible. This issue must be resolved if a theory supports a finite Universe. One could use a circle and balloons to create an intellectual illusion that makes this issue disappear, but in reality this issue remains steadfast. |
|
|
|
Jan
Netherlands
287 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2004 : 08:51:27
|
The above Hubble photo is said to show some galaxies going back to 700 million years after the Big Bang. Now, it would not come as a shock to learn that the sky looks the same over there .... |
|
|
|
Jim
1582 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2004 : 12:30:42
|
| Jan, The picture you posted above is how far back(or how much red shift is seen)? Do you know where in the sky this picture was taken? It is so clear at so great a depth. |
|
|
|
Jan
Netherlands
287 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 14:23:44
|
Hi Jim,
quote:
Originally posted by Jim
Jan, The picture you posted above is how far back(or how much red shift is seen)? Do you know where in the sky this picture was taken? It is so clear at so great a depth.
They claim that the picture shows galaxies having a redschift of 6 or more. It could even show a redshift of 12 for some of them, according to some scientists. |
|
|
|
Jim
1582 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2004 : 16:15:19
|
| The redshift is no doubt correct but the cause of the redshift is not thats for sure. The clearity of this image is too good to be true. If some of the galaxies are really 13 billion light years from here would they be fuzzy a little more than nearby galaxies? I wonder if there is a map of which ones are redshifted how much? What about the location in the sky-anything on that? |
|
|
|
Peter
7 Posts |
Posted - 27 Mar 2004 : 10:44:35
|
The universe looks the same to every observer according to the cosmological principle. If the universe and the earth are outcomes of same set of scale invariant laws of interaction, then they should be similar at scales of theiry own [1]. The earth does not look the same to observers closer and far away from its surface. Then similarly the universe has to be not uniform with respect to its source. Here the cosmological princiciple breaks and a new picture of the universe is born.
1.Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.
|
|
|
|
n/a
56 Posts |
Posted - 06 Apr 2004 : 17:56:28
|
The big question is here about the "cosmological principle". Is reality first or the rules we have invented for it.
I thought really the experiments give what we can use. And our theories only have to follow, and if we do it otherwise we are only dreaming. And this applies to everything we call knowledge.
In the other thread we have no rules, we have guidance from the measurements that we accept, we have think principles like fractality but no rules for nature. And we have our own brains. Rules have to be a result, I think.
When there was no reality, were rules then present?
the night has fallen here and it's cold outside now 3 Celsius. I have cold feet.
Ed van der Meulen |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Cosmological Principle
