A new No-Big Bang Theory

[rigney]

Less than a novice in cosmology, 97% of the time I wander aimlessly looking for something about a cyclic universe. My own answers come as thoughts that on occasion seem to have merit, at other times, so so and some; Nada at all! Then I go on Google and find this, "Junk". These men are supposed to be accompolished scientists, or at least someone thinks so in order to get them in print. Personally, I find this "Pronking Theory" scarier than the Big Bang.

 

Actual Theory:http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html

 

 

 

In Reality:

Edited March 10, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

There is also this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

 

not much info here but it is also a universe with no big bang as it is often thought of.

[D H]

Actual Theory:http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html

That's not so new. Look at the date: 2007. This is just another cyclic universe theory.

 

This theory requires a Big Rip, but only in this case just an infinitesimally small amount of time before the Big Rip, something miraculous happens to make the universe spawn a spanking new universe instead of ripping itself apart.

 

Not one of these cyclical universe theories are testable (yet), so they are, in my opinion, not science. They're just creation myths masquerading around under the guise of scientific terminology.

[rigney]

There is also this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

 

not much info here but it is also a universe with no big bang as it is often thought of.

 

Believe you and I had a discussion on this concept some time back. Problem is, I just could never get my head wrapped around the brane theory.

 

That's not so new. Look at the date: 2007. This is just another cyclic universe theory.

 

This theory requires a Big Rip, but only in this case just an infinitesimally small amount of time before the Big Rip, something miraculous happens to make the universe spawn a spanking new universe instead of ripping itself apart.

 

Not one of these cyclical universe theories are testable (yet), so they are, in my opinion, not science. They're just creation myths masquerading around under the guise of scientific terminology.

 

The concept of a cyclic universe may only be a pipe dream, but our present standard model really doesn't offer that much either. Just about everything I read is an innuendo of, we think, pehaps, it has been calculated, maybe, or; the theory is? These two guys are doing the same thing. I personally think this universe has been around forever. Was there perhaps a restart around 13 or 14 billion years ago? I believe it may have happened. But for something to be compressed so infintesmally small, and to have created such a huge universe? No! I don't believe it. Yet many things will be discovered to shed shed light as to why the universe operates as it does. Energies such as, dark matter, anti matter, anti energy and anti energy are just a few. When scientists knows for a fact, exactly what role each of these 4 energies play, they will have a field day calculating the rest. Edited March 11, 2012 by rigney