(Mick Malkemus) wrote in message
...
A logical alternative to the Big Bang theory.
http://community.webtv.net/hotmail.c...heBigCollapseA

I didn't have the time to carefully go over all your ideas
but if what you described was electrons simply moving
closer to their nuclei (outside their normal "jumps"), this
WOULD cause observable effects (as it would disrupt the
electromagnetic/weak force and material objects would
become unglued all around us turning bats into sawdust
in the middle of the seventh inning). You may wish to take
a closer look at the standard model of atomic particles
(which is rather a neatly workable/relatively proved solution
to start from). Just don't bother with purely mathematical
daydreams such as string theory (which are utterly divorced
from reality and should really play no part in science at all).

Your idea as you seem to have stated it violates some laws
of energy conservation, as it divorces (inside what is to all
practical effects one closed system) the energy values of
one part of said system from the energy values of another
part of the same system without explaining why/how such
a divorce would be managed (your atomic nuclei and, I
assume, electrons, remain unchanged while their "orbital"
distance is changing): Does this mean you think that matter
is fundamental and the energy of the universe is exclusively
confined to the energy values of electron orbits?

It's much more logical to assume that either the entire
universe is imploding at its every level, or it is not
imploding at all (if even one thin pin in the universe is
not imploding then it would eventually become bigger than
the universe). But you are moving in the right path. What
you have to do is trust the laws of physics more completely.
And always try to follow everything to its logical conclusion...

The erroneous idea that matter is fundamental (current
before Einstein's time) forced Einstein and his generation
of theoreticians/astronomers to make fundamental mistakes
about how the universe worked (most famously of which
are Einstein's lambda and, after Hubble's discovery that
the galaxies are receding from each other "faster the more
distant they are," that their recession was the result of a
primordial explosion, or "big bang")... because there was
simply no way for an imploding universe to make sense in
the context of matter being thought fundamental... except
to imagine that it would produce a "pile up" of "materials"
at the "cosmic center" not much different from a pile of
junked cars. After Hubble the "only thing" that remained
to be solved was wherefore the big bang (something which
necessarily remains to be resolved to this day for the simple
reason that since there never was a big bang... there can
never be any wherefore for it).

Proof that the universe is imploding is all around us and
comes in many forms: The photon, in one example, is a
structure which, although "shrinking" like all other forms
of matter, is not being dragged along like more massive
forms and therefore it "appears" to be moving "across" the
universe everywhere at always the same "velocity" (this
"appearance" is a violation of the laws of physics in a
universe not imploding, and there have indeed followed
many hypotheses for the constancy of c violating the laws
of physics in the intervening years). The Hubble constant
is another effect which appears to violate the laws of
physics in a universe not imploding (giving rise to the
hypothesis of a big bang itself); but when placed in the
context of an imploding universe it becomes clear that "the
recession of the galaxies from one another" is one of its
fundamental requirements (because all forms of matter
tend to collect into spherical shapes, creating "space"
between them---something compounded with/over distance).
As is also the effect of stars "orbiting" galactic
centers much faster than allowed by the observed galactic
mass (and giving rise to the therefore not unreasonable
hypothesis that up to 90% of galactic mass "must" be in
the form of some unseen "dark matter" in them). BUT

All such errors arise from jumping to a conclusion before
all the facts are in and then elevating the initial error
to the level of a religious dogma. It is a human foible,
of course... to hear the trumpeting of an elephant coming
from a suitcase and therefore assuming that the ONLY solution
MUST BE that there is a miniature elephant inside the suitcase.

Well, I am trying, in my own humble way, to suggest that a
miniature elephant in the suitcase violates the observed
laws of nature... and that the likeliest solution may just be
nothing more than the taped sounds of trumpeting: Confidence
that the universe is also logical, reasonable, and utterly
straightforward (and not as utterly insane as the conventional
astrophysics establishment seems to think it is) is the thing
above all which has led me to the discoveries I've made (and
I am convinced that this willingness to trust the laws of
physics is the thing which above all has produced the greatest
insights throughout all of history).

So far ALL the observations fall much more fittingly on the
side of ours being a universe in implosion, rather than on
the side of ours being an inflationary universe. ALL of them.

(Bill Sheppard) wrote in message
...
Who all remembers 'SD Rodrian' who used to post here incessantly and
then abruptly quit? This model sounds almost identical to Rodrian's
"shrinking in place" theory of galaxies.

You will need to explain what you mean by "shrinking
in place," you ole coot. That could mean almost anything.
I have explained what I mean by an imploding universe in
many previous posts ( http://physics.sdrodrian.com ). And
I post because I will not submit my work to troglodytes who
might actually have the gall to believe themselves my peers.

Given what is known about nucleosynthesis of the primal
elements and the presence of deuterium (which cannot be created in
stars), there is no "logical alternative" to the Big Bang.

Another hotdogger woweeing at the elephant in the suitcase.
There's one born every minute! And no end to the buggers:

The age of the big bang is postulated by working backwards
from some assumed size of the VISIBLE universe. It's therefore
irrelevant, as the universe may be many orders of magnitude
bigger than we can even suspect it is from what we see of it.
Already we can SEE quite "modern" galaxies closer to the
mythological big bang than the theory permits for them to be
there. And it wasn't that long ago that we believed our galaxy
was all the universe there was.

Assume an imploding universe and the age of the universe can
stretch back far enough to contain all the evolution of the primal
elements as comfortably as the stretching of the lifespan of
planet earth into 4.5 billion years allowed... from the 4000 years
or so assumed by the biblical scholars of the early 1800s. Your
point is moot & void, ole coot. Sorry. But the big bang
(inflationary) universe can only be explained by twisted logic
and unreasonable reasons. The imploding universe is natural
and elegant. And not only does it evolve from one single
thermodynamic principle (explaining gravity, which is otherwise
inexplicable), but all its natural predictions describe the cosmos
around us... at every level, exactly as it is and/or should be.

There may yet come a larger, overarching cosmology
that subsumes but does not negate the BB (much as the galacto-centric
idea was subsumed by the larger model). It sure as heck is not the
"shrinking in place" explanation.
oc

The answer is there for those who clear away their historical
prejudices from their eyes before looking, but as sure as heck NOT
for those who assume there's a miniature elephant in the suitcase
at the first trumpeting, Bill. Sorry: It's a recording, ole friend.
Or some other trick. But it is not a miniature elephant.

Trust the laws of physics.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://democracy.sdrodrian.com

In sci.astro SDR wrote:

though I didn't see the original theory that sparked this reply
snip truly fine reply and example of galactic right-thinking

Trust the laws of physics.

AMEN. But are you SURE there is no such thing as a miniature elephant?
There was a time when they said nukes couldn't fit into a suitcase too!

bjacoby

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://democracy.sdrodrian.com

--
Due to SPAM innundation above address is turned off!

SDRodrian wrote,
You will need to explain what you mean
by "shrinking in place," you ole coot.
That could mean almost anything.

You seem to have a short memory, you old doofer.

I've barely 356 brain cells left alive, so I'm
lucky I can still remember my name, for Heaven's sake!

In your posts at least, you presented a sidebar to your
"imploding universe" theory to explain the redshift; the
observed redshift (paraphrasing) is caused not by
cosmological expansion but by galaxies 'shrinking in place'
thus *appearing* to be receding.
If you remember, I asked the question, if 'shrinking in
place' is true (where a galaxy is tipped nearly edge-on
to us), why do we not see a redshift-blueshift differential
between the far edge and near edge of that galaxy? The far
edge should be approaching us faster than the near edge. But
no such differential is observed (although we do see a red-blue
differential between the *horizontal* arms. indicating rotation.

And I'm sure I answered a goofy question with some goofy reply
or other. But don't rack your old brain, y'ole coot. Rather, just
think of the universe as doing the same thing everywhere at once
(shrinking, expanding, farting) but NOT just on any one level of
matter organization (stars, galaxies, cookies)... rather AT EVERY
LEVEL. Then perhaps your ancient brain will dimly begin to glimpse
the first hints of how goofy your confusion really is: We are not
talking about imploding stars or soufflés but about the entire
universe imploding at every level of its existence (even the photons
conveying redshifts/blueshifts are themselves imploding even as
they "travel" along). And if you still can't "see" it in that old
brain of yours, imagine how hard it is to actually catch it on film!

God looking at the imploding universe (were it the size of a
soccer ball perhaps) would not see it deflating (as if air were
running out through a puncture): What makes you believe
(outside some goofy reason your own) the universe would
distend anywhere here inside it as you seem to think it would?!?
No, old coot: Look ye upon the cosmos! What you are looking at
is an imploding universe. [Galaxies really are receding from
each other exactly as Hubble describes them, and the standard
interpretation of red/blue shifts are exactly what should be
expected there.] Everything you see happening in our universe
is what happens in an imploding universe. Now, understand THAT.

In any case, your theory is still rooted in the mainstream's
void-space paradigm(VSP).

My philosophy is and will remain: "If it ain't broken, don't
make up a lie about it just to be a smartass." Happy Holidays,

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://democracy.sdrodrian.com

Happy Holidays to all
oc