Universe's Beginning

[V-Man]

Hey,

I'm sure most of everyone here has heard of the Big Bang theory, and that the universe is expanding, etc. etc. But has anyone heard of the opposed theory, that the universe started out big and is imploding? I heard this for the first time a couple days ago and it took me by surprise. I didn't think any of it made a lot of logical sense at first. Then I kept looking around and found little snippets of info about how the red shift makes it seem like the universe is expanding when all it really indicates is that galaxies are moving away from us. Thus, it could be inferred in this theory that objects closer to the 'center' of the universe are falling into it faster than we are.

Any offerings of info/opinion?

[Kyrisch]

The Big Bang theory is often coupled with the Big Crunch theory; that the universe will keep expanding until it reaches a turning point and start contracting once more. Then it will keep contracting until all the matter in the universe is smashed together, thus the "Big Crunch." Afterwards, the Big Bang will occur once more in a neverending cycle.

[rocketboy]

Meaning that we have no way of knowing how many times this has already occured...wow...difficult to wrap your head around. I wonder how different each time is, I mean, wouldn't everything being condensed into "pre-big-bang" form be more evolved each time? Or does this matter at all after it's all compacted and ready to "bang"?

[john5746]

Hey' date='

I'm sure most of everyone here has heard of the Big Bang theory, and that the universe is expanding, etc. etc. But has anyone heard of the opposed theory, that the universe started out big and is imploding? I heard this for the first time a couple days ago and it took me by surprise. I didn't think any of it made a lot of logical sense at first. Then I kept looking around and found little snippets of info about how the red shift makes it seem like the universe is expanding when all it really indicates is that galaxies are moving away from us. Thus, it could be inferred in this theory that objects closer to the 'center' of the universe are falling into it faster than we are.

Any offerings of info/opinion? [/quote']

 

Since all galaxies in every direction seem to be moving away and the further away, the faster they are moving - this would tend to indicate expansion.?

[V-Man]

The theory explained the galaxy redshift away by saying that those closer to the 'center' would of course be falling toward it faster than us, and therefore all be moving away from us. They compared it to spaghettification in a black hole.

Also, the theory insists that this is not a cycle, but that somehow the universe was 'formed' statu quo before falling in upon itself, again comparing it to a black hole. This theory certainly does impress fractal enthusiasts!

[Thales]

Explaining away redshift as a function of a galaxies unique position relavite to some universal center is extremely counterintuative and a very unscientific approach. We can tell for instance, by looking at the ratio of redshifts at various distances that not only are these galaxies receding from us they are also receding from each other, thus space is expanding in a roughly homogenous manner regardless of your specific position. It is also isotropic on the largest of scales, meaning that no matter which direction you look you observe the same large scale characteristic structure. Both of these arguements counter the idea of a universal center.

 

As for the contracting universe, it too has flaws. For one we know the time scale of the nuclear burning cycle of stars and by measing the ratio of elements present in the spectra of star we can determine the age of the star with reasonable assurity. There are no stars, whose spectra have been studied, who have a lifetime of more than approximately 14billion years(within a reasonable error). Given there are no stars older than this it is slightly obtuse to assume the universe is much older than this. If the universe had been collapsing under its own gravity for 14billion years prior to reaching its current state then it would have to be larger than it is today by some astronomically rediculous factor. The idea of materialing such a cosmological expanse, into its status quo state and then de-evolving it is rather absurd. The theory works perfectly though if you reverse the direction of time. Funny that.

[ElijahJones]

Cosmologists, like Quantum Theorists, and Economists are sensitive about their assumptions. I can accept an expanding universe, but I did hear a theory recently related to quantum field fluctuations that the universe sort of emerged at a certain 'bigness' and then took off from there. I don't now. Does it matter? Will it ever matter? I am a math guy so the question of whether observing that alot of things are moving away from us means everything is, well thats a statistical issue. I mean you know they have not checked every visible galaxy. I leave it be, because its an irrelevant question when it comes to human happiness. If that ever changes I will pay more attention to it. Dems my thots.