It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So, You Believe In The Big Bang Theory, Huh?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Cool, so do I. But then again, what do I know? I just sit there nodding agreeingly whenever a new theory is presented of how the universe came to existence, but really thinking about some kind of pie I would like for dessert later.

Anyway, there's no doubt that the consensus of the science community is that the Big Bang is the best explanation for the origin of the universe. But there seems to be a growing crowd of doubters among the worlds astrophycisist community. This crowd is led by "Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan who has developed an innovative new description of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related in new kind of relativity."


Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the speed of light, neither of which need be constant. In other words, as the Universe expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice versa as it contracts.

The Shu universe has no beginning or end, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. In fact, Shu shows that singularities such as the Big Bang cannot exist in this cosmos. During a period of expansion, an observer in Shu's universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth.

Since the accelerating expansion of the Universe was discovered, cosmologists have been performing some bizarre contortions with the laws of physics to make the Standard Model work. The most commonly discussed x-factor is that the universe is filled with a dark energy that is forcing the universe to expand at an increasing rate. For this model to work, dark energy must make up 75 per cent of the energy-mass of the Universe and be increasing at a fantastic rate, ignoring the law of conservation of energy in an attempt to square this circle.

With Shu's theory there's no need to abandon conservation of energy. However, he faces a major problem explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background, the echo of the Big Bang, something that many astrophysicists believe to be the the strongest evidence that the Big Bang occurred.

Shu's approach may well explain the Type-I supernova observations without abandoning conservation of energy but it asks us to give up the notion of the Big Bang, the constancy of the speed of light and to accept a vast new set of potential phenomenon related to the interchangeable relationships between mass, space and time.


Source: The Big Band Never Happened

Very interesting in my opinion. But he does however fail to explain the strongest argument for the Big Bang in his theory though, as the article mentions. It will be interesting to see if he can manage to expand on his theory and pick up the loose ends so to speak.




posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
It's okay having Mass and time but how does this theory explain the Mass/Matter conversion process?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
It still bangs, but more like a weedwhacker than a dynamite stick. Does it run on hemp oil?



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Personally i think all the scientifically theories these scientists come up with are wrong.

There might have been a big bang when it all started, but not in the sense these scientists explain it.

Everything that exists, I mean everything no matter how small or how large. Everything must exist within the infinite dimension of Height. Length and Width.

The infinite must be a constant, its the constant G. That means everything else must be finite, even light. Light is a product of emitted energy from a finite source.

If you want to know how the infinite created existence. Pick up a rock and imagine how it was formed. A rock consists of compressed energies. So the rock must have been compressed into a rock somehow.

Than imagine how the different planets must have been formed in space. If a planet was to be formed by a Big Explosion, than the source that blew up must have been a very large solid block of rock. Than the question becomes: what formed the source?

Only the infinite could have created existence the way we perceive it. Because everything that exists can only exist within the infinite dimension. The infinite must have created the existence we know, by a compression. A compression of energy would probably create a very laud noise and a very bright light.

How existence can expand after a compression is easily explained by the expanding light. If there is light there is expansion of all energies.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventytwo
 


Interesting question, I would like to know the answer to that as well now that you mention it. I'll try to find it somewhere, but I don't even know if I'll understand it or even know it's the answer if I find it. Depends on how complicated this theory is formulated.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You can put it this way; science is about getting it less wrong.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Droogie
So, You Believe In The Big Bang Theory, Huh?
Cool, so do I. But then again, what do I know? I just sit there nodding agreeingly whenever a new theory is presented of how the universe came to existence, but really thinking about some kind of pie I would like for dessert later.


Hi Droogie, interesting subject is it not?

Personally I think very strongly that Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan and the growing chorus of doubters among the world astrophysics community could be very right here, despite I did also believe in the Big Bang theory for so many years.

Lou Baldin alias “sleeper” on ATS said in his thread “I’m coming clean on Extraterrestrials” the following interesting things about this subject way back.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


sleeper; posted on 10/5/07 @ 19:35

For the Big Bang to be true and the universe it hatched to be expanding---in which theoretically would then have to collapse back into the hole it came from we need a whole lot of Dark Matter, or any matter for that matter---lol---and they are looking for it so that their theories about the universe will make sense and everybody would be happy and someone would get the Noble Prize.

The problem is the Big Bang theory is way off base and never happened, and there is no need for Dark Matter, which is a good thing because there isn’t any.



Sleeper; posted on 28/6/07 @ 15:44

The big bang theory satisfies for some the need for a beginning and ending, but there is no such thing concerning the universe, the universe has always been and will always be, much like we see it today---the very little that we do see.


Then I did ask sleeper the following.

sleeper, you ones said,

“There was no Big Bang, the universe as we see it through the Hubble telescope has been here forever.”

The today’s perception of our mainstream astronomers is, and what they seeing through the Hubble telescope, that our Universe is expanding, and it looks that it’s expanding faster and faster.
Their evidence to proof that is their use of the “The Doppler Effect” what shows the so called blueshifts and redshifts exhibited by stars, galaxies and gas clouds also indicate their motions with respect to the observer.

My question is, is their view on this correct, is our universe expanding.

Sleeper answerd my question with the following.


posted on 28/1/08 @ 05:17 by sleeper

Hi visitor

The Doppler Effect is way off and inaccurate because it doesn’t show us the circular motion that galaxies are moving in because it can’t. This is another bit of info that will go ignored--but you can bet a cosmologist and perhaps an astrophysicist that reads this will run out and see if they can prove it somehow and then get the coveted Nobel prize

And if so, will this go on forever then, because as you said, there is no dark matter or dark energy that good stop this?.


Then this.

Lou said.


the universe has always been and will always be, much like we see it today---the very little that we do see.

The big bang theory satisfies for some the need for a beginning and ending, but there is no such thing concerning the universe


Shu said.


The Shu universe has no beginning or end


www.dailygalaxy.com...

Lou said.


The universe is like a hive of bees, the bees buzz around the hive or nucleus but some will venture off and then come back


Shu said.


, just alternating periods of expansion and contraction. In fact, Shu shows that singularities such as the Big Bang cannot exist in this cosmos. During a period of expansion, an observer in Shu's universe would see an odd kind of change in the red-shift of bright objects such as Type-I supernovas, as they accelerate away. It turns out, says Shu, that his data exactly matches the observations that astronomers have made on Earth.


www.dailygalaxy.com...

Quite interesting is it not.



[edit on 1/8/10 by spacevisitor]




top topics



 
1

log in

join