General Revision of universal creation

[TJ McCaustland]

I have come here today to present a revised, and better version of the "Universal creation and rebirth speculation." My theory has several important points.

 

1. Black holes are relatives of the big bang. Essentially a black hole if large enough could create another big bang, although the amount of matter and energy this would take is enormous.

 

2. Particles with enough velocity (Theoretical particles (tachyons) and possibly neutrinos in special cases) can escape the event horizon because black holes do not have infinite gravity or mass. (Pet theory, Ultra-high velocity ejection)

 

3.The universe as we see it today is part of an endless cycle of universal implosions and black hole "explosions" due to the dark energy which repels matter dissipating over time (To be confirmed.)

Edited November 3, 2014 by TJ McCaustland

[Strange]

Do you have any evidence for any of those things? Or is it just a fairy tale?

[Mordred]

You still don't seem to understand the cosmological principle. Confirmed measurements show us that the big bang is not the result of an explosion. An explosion has a preferred direction and origin. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred direction or location.

 

Next point is nothing and that means nothing not even information can travel faster than c. So nothing not even Hawking radiation escapes a BH.

 

Hawking radiation occurs outside the EH not inside the EH. The negative particle falls into the BH the positive particle escapes.

 

All of this has been mentioned in the other thread

[TJ McCaustland]

I do have limited evidence but It is evidence nonetheless. One such piece of evidence is that the universe is infinite, If it is indeed infinite then time must be infinite itself via a time loop with different outcomes, this is supported by the fact that a universe without matter is a universe of nothing, and nothing cannot be something. Therefore I conclude that the heat death theory is invalid and that the universe must recreate itself at some point. I support my second point with the fact that there is a finite amount of matter, and with that comes the restriction that nothing in the universe can have infinite gravity or mass, however large either may seem. I support the first point with the fact that both a black hole, and the big bang are incredibly dense masses of matter, the only reason why the latter did not become a large black hole is that the universe is relative, and it exists around matter. Have it all in one place and you have a tiny universe, have it spread out and you have a large one, thus there was simply not enough of the universe at that time to permit the formation of a less dense singularity, it is the dark energy that pushed the universe's boundaries out.

You still don't seem to understand the cosmological principle. Confirmed measurements show us that the big bang is not the result of an explosion. An explosion has a preferred direction and origin. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred direction or location.

Oh but I do, you see that is why I put quotation marks around explosion.

Well you see If we look at C as the ultimate speed of the universe then the universe isn't really infinite now is it.

Because if a thing is infinite then all things it contains must be limitless as well.

Edited November 3, 2014 by TJ McCaustland

[elfmotat]

You have no math and no data to corroborate anything you said.

[TJ McCaustland]

Very well BRT with the evidence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDark_energy&ei=S9dXVLS4Cov7yASe94KABA&usg=AFQjCNF6O3fvO5xnNgU77xQW0wygt9n0_w&sig2=z5zCYD2a7gOwmep22xjikQ&bvm=bv.78677474,d.aWw

But without dark energy the rate of expansion would have reversed.

A group of theorists proposed a four dimensional star collapsed and created a black hole that exploded and caused the universe to be created.

 

It is not a matter of "I can't believe it" here, it is a matter of which theory makes the most sense.

[Mordred]

Yes I read that paper its called the 5d planck star if you search my posts I posted it once. Its at 5d star that explodes in a 4d fashion. That was to deal with the cosmological principle.

 

If you want to use that idea you will need to work the math of ADS/CFT corrrespondance into your model. A model without the math isn't a model its a conjecture.

 

If you want I have a few handy guides to learn ADS/CFT but I also recommend buying

 

Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose as the term dimensions itself is misleading.

[elfmotat]

It is not a matter of "I can't believe it" here, it is a matter of which theory makes the most sense.

 

No, it is a matter of which theory makes the best observational/experimental predictions. Whether or not something "makes sense" to you is irrelevant.

[Strange]

One such piece of evidence is that the universe is infinite, If it is indeed infinite then time must be infinite itself via a time loop with different outcomes, this is supported by the fact that a universe without matter is a universe of nothing, and nothing cannot be something.

 

Two problems with this:

 

1. There is no connection between the universe being spatially infinite (or not) and it being temporally infinite (or not).

 

2. If the universe is temporally infinite, then it does not imply any sort of "time loop". It could just exist eternally.

 

3. The last part is meaningless.

 

Therefore I conclude that the heat death theory is invalid and that the universe must recreate itself at some point.

 

But you are concluding this from a baseless assumption. So it can be ignored.

 

I support my second point with the fact that there is a finite amount of matter, and with that comes the restriction that nothing in the universe can have infinite gravity or mass, however large either may seem.

 

I think that if the universe were infinite, then it could contain an object of infinite mass (infinitely far away). In fact, it could contain an infinite number of such masses.

 

Well you see If we look at C as the ultimate speed of the universe then the universe isn't really infinite now is it.

 

Why not?

 

Because if a thing is infinite then all things it contains must be limitless as well

 

Why?

[Sensei]

You still don't seem to understand the cosmological principle. Confirmed measurements show us that the big bang is not the result of an explosion. An explosion has a preferred direction and origin.

Indeed. But word explosion has origin at Earth's chemical reaction- mixing of (usually) solid with Oxygen from air/2nd substance Oxygen-rich to form gaseous products.

In vacuum such reaction is impossible (as there is no Oxygen).

Typical explosion is isotropic - equal in the all direction, but has origin - place where is fuel. Direction of explosion can be controlled by 3rd party elements already present in space around it.

 

The universe is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred direction or location.

There are theories that are based on analyze of galaxy velocities showing it might be not the case, like dark flow:

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

 

Universe being homogeneous and isotropic was in fact assertion without analyze of enough of data.

 

If Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, it's CMB shouldn't look like it looks:

 

It looks as farthest from isotropic as possible.

 

 

Next point is nothing and that means nothing not even information can travel faster than c. So nothing not even Hawking radiation escapes a BH.

 

Hawking radiation occurs outside the EH not inside the EH. The negative particle falls into the BH the positive particle escapes.

 

Hawking radiation has never been observed, so no one should talk about it as something really existing..

It's based on idea that there is existing positive mass, and negative mass. Yet another not existing, not experimentally confirmed idea.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Sensei

[Mordred]

You have the definitions wrong.

Isotropic means no preferred direction. Homogeneous means one location is the same as another or no preffered location.

 

A preferred location is inhomogeneous a preferred direction is anisotropic.

 

The CMB map you posted I can't see completely so I assume your referring to the South pole temp. One must keep in mind the Planck data was questioned on a calibration error

. Secondly homogeneous is a scale dependant setting. At a sufficiently large enough of a scale roughly 120 Mpc the scale for homogeneaty is set. Obviously at smaller scales the stars galaxies do not appear homogeneous.

 

The dark flow hypothesis was never found conclusive. Both Bicep2 and the last Planck data found a strong agreement with the cosmological principle and subsequently the FLRW metrics of LCDM. The FLRW metric can only work with a homogeneous and isotropic system.

 

If you follow all the recent papers on arxiv. They still apply the FLRW metric. The only time they don't is usually in argument with LCDM.

Forgot to mention the temp differents between the blue and red regions is far less than 1 degree celcius. I can't recall the exact figure. The Planck papers cover it though and they can still be dowoaded

Forgot to mention the temp differents between the blue and red regions is far less than 1 degree celcius. I can't recall the exact figure. The Planck papers cover it though and they can still be downloaded

[Strange]

Typical explosion is isotropic - equal in the all direction, but has origin - place where is fuel. Direction of explosion can be controlled by 3rd party elements already present in space around it.

 

Which is nothing like the big bang model. So not an explosion.

 

Universe being homogeneous and isotropic was in fact assertion without analyze of enough of data.

 

It is not an assertion, it is a working assumption which is being tested.

 

If Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, it's CMB shouldn't look like it looks:

It looks as farthest from isotropic as possible.

 

You seem to be ignoring the scale of the differences. That diagram shows that it is very, very, very isotropic. Almost perfectly so.

 

Hawking radiation has never been observed, so no one should talk about it as something really existing..

It's based on idea that there is existing positive mass, and negative mass.

 

No it isn't. Maybe you have misunderstood the analogy, which doesn't accurately represent what is going o, anyway.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Strange