Issuu on Google+

WHIMPER

WHIMPER An essay about the Big Bang by Joe Fisher At the ALL ABOUT SCIENCE website (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ maintained by the AllAboutGod.com Ministries)i, under the heading, “Big Bang Theory-An Overview,” there is an undated article written in layman’s terms by some anonymous writer, which gives an excellent simplified explanation of what the Big Bang theory consists of. The article starts promisingly enough with the paragraph: “Big Bang Theory - The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.” Now I can understand that prior to the beginning of the universe there may have been nothing and this nothing would presumably have been a shapeless eternal infinity. What I cannot quite grasp is that the moment the universe came into existence; nothing would have had to assume a defined shaped duration. It is all very well to claim that proof of the start of the universe has been discovered, the more difficult task would have been to find proof of the somewhat alarming alteration in the status of nothing. Post big bang nothing would have had to have been radically different from pre big bang nothing, a bit easier to spot for one thing seeing that there was now a clear comparative something example fizzing about nearby if not actually attached in some clever way to this smaller, but more distinguished chunk of nothing. The article then goes on to state:


WHIMPER

2. “According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure” . The article adds this statement, “After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. “ I have added the emphasis of the bold underlined italics. How scientists could prove that the universe began as confidently stated in the first paragraph without their knowing what a “singularity” was seems to me like a rewording of the conundrum, which came first, the chicken or the egg?. If they have proven the commencement of the Universe, why is there a difference in theories? I cannot help wondering if the 13.7 billion years time frame were old Roman ten-month long years or Gregorian 12 month long years. Could they have been perhaps Jewish years seeing that they have thriftily accumulated 5,769ii of them as of September 3, 2009? Were leap years included? Obviously, they were some sort of earth years. I think that the term “years” should actually be termed light years. In 1972, the American National Institute of Standards and Technology set the actual speed of light as 299,792,458 meters per second.iii An article written by Robert Roy Britt posted on 24 May 2004, at the website SPACE SCIENCE (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html) confirms that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and it is at least 156 billion light years wide. This 156 billion light years minimum width measurement would be the diameter of the Universe as of 24 May


WHIMPER

3. 2004, providing the Universe had thoughtfully assembled itself into a recognizable spherical shape having a flat normal geometrical aspect. The “years” mentioned in the article refer to the supposed distance that visible starlight travels in a year. Visible starlight only travels as fast as the surface that caused it to become visible in the first place. Starlight is a radiantiv that I think only becomes visible when it strikes a group of water molecules or a group of gas molecules, or a group of massed atoms. A fabricated beamed light such as a laser seems to be more dedicated than starlight. The speed of a laser beam is more controllable. Unfortunately, most of the experiments done to calculate a laser's beam speed have entailed the use of mirrors. When a light strikes a mirror, it becomes enhanced. By timing the start and stoppage of a laser beam, one seems only to be measuring the extent of a specialized condition of human linear measurement technological control. After taking a measurement with a ruler, one would not state unblushingly that one had discovered the speed of wood. Claiming that a laser beam linear measurement is a suitable example as being representative for the behavior of all light is tantamount to stating that the volume of the water in the Pacific Ocean could be accurately defined by carefully measuring a standard teaspoon full of its water. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration website (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html) “…there are two ways to scientifically measure the age of the universe. The first method is to look for the oldest stars and the second method is to calculate from the Hubble constant of the expansion of the universe”. To the naked eye, all stars look alike to me. It is my understanding that with a Hubble telescope, one can see billions of stars in the firmament. Surely, if the universe suddenly came into being in a singular big bang, every star in it has to be the same age. How did the astronomers conclude


WHIMPER

4. which stars were the oldest? According to the N.A.S.A. website, stars are thoughtful enough to gather in clusters. “The oldest globular clusters contain only stars less massive than 0.7 solar masses. These low mass stars are much dimmer than the Sun. This observation suggests that the oldest globular clusters are between 11 and 18 billion years old. The uncertainty in this estimate is due to the difficulty in determining the exact distance to a globular cluster (hence, an uncertainty in the brightness (and mass) of the stars in the cluster). Another source of uncertainty in this estimate lies in our ignorance of some of the finer details of stellar evolution. Presumably, the universe itself is at least as old as the oldest globular clusters that reside in it�.

I find it difficult to believe that stars would helpfully gather in a few arbitrarily selected chronological clusters, and that all of these chronological clusters could have been examined from earth. I find the conclusions of the Hubble constant for the rate of the expansion of the universe even less credible. Although Hubble could not locate any of the distant galaxies he had clearly observed on earlier occasions, he assumed that they had moved away at a constant speed. Hubble failed to ask the vital question, in which direction did the fleeing galaxies go? He took it for granted that the stars in the distant galaxies had moved away laterally. Stars differ from planets in that stars remain in almost fixed positions. The only way a star can move is either by expanding or by contracting. If the universe is cooling, all the stars in the universe must be shrinking. Of course every observed galaxy displays a Doppler red shift,v it is not because the galaxy is moving away in the sense of it moving into an expanding universe. It is because all the stars in the galaxy are shrinking and getting denser and getting darker to such an extent that in time, the galaxy’s light cannot continue to be detected.


WHIMPER

5. Unfortunately, astronomers have always concentrated on evaluating a star’s lateral motion or a galaxy’s lateral motion across the sky relative to the motion of the earthvi. Scientists know full well that any star, like anything else in the universe cannot remain in the same state indefinitely. Stars expand. Stars shrink. Jennifer Claerr, a contributor to the e How website http://www.ehow.com/about_4612796_howlong-do-stars-live.html answers the question “How Long Do Stars Live?” by stating, “Each star begins its life as a nebula, which is a diffused cloud of interstallar gas and dust. As time passes, the cloud collapses, creating a protostar. Then the star begins to shine, becoming a main sequence star. Stars remain in the main sequence phase for the majority of their life cycle. At the core of the star, hydrogen is converted to helium through nuclear fusion. When the available hydrogen starts to run out, the star contracts. Then it begins to expand again. Most stars become a red giant at this stage. Low mass stars shrink into white dwarfs, then cool and become black or brown dwarf stars. Massive stars, on the other hand, go supernova.” I have added the underlined bold italic for emphasis. Seeing that stars exist for millions of years, any astronomical assessment of their viability has to be based on fanciful assumption and not on any recorded observation. As for Hubble’s computed assessment of the rate of the speed of his disappearing galaxies, the problem with all mathematical expressions is that while they are theoretically perfect, most of them seem to be pragmatically flawed. For instance, theoretically, 1+1 does equal 2. Pragmatically, this is not true. The theoretical proof that 1+1=2 depends on the Peano postulates of natural numbersvii. However, if 1’s could be examined as thoroughly as snowflakes, it might be seen that no number 1 could ever actually be identical, or physically equal to any other 1. Just as no identical snowflakesviii of the trillions fallen have ever been recorded yet, although there


WHIMPER

6. have been multiple instances of indistinguishable appearance; each snowflake would appear to have a unique molecular structure. This uniqueness also seems to apply to Deoxyribonucleic acid, (DNA) fingerprints ballistics evidence, people, porpoises, planets, stars, galaxies, 1’s, and everything real or imagined. If the most fundamental mathematical equation of 1+1=2 is flawed, it follows that Hubble’s constant cannot be pragmatically proven. N.A.S.A. does confirm that although the universe could be only 9 billion years old, the scientifically accepted age is 13.7 billion years. N.A.S.A. also states at its website that our solar system is 4.5 billion years old. I can see that the clever astrophysicists could have easily used some sort of standard average earth year to cover the gap of 4.5 billion years when the earth was not readily available for calculation back to the exact moment of the big bang. What concerns me is where was the earth during this time? I thought everything, including our earth and everything in it and on it erupted out of the big bang. Am I mistaken? Do big bangs operate pretty much like earthquakes? Just as there are aftershocks after an earthquake, was there an afterbang 4.5 billion years ago that produced our solar system with all of us and our stuff in it? The ALL ABOUT SCIENCE website helps to clarify some of these puzzling points. “Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept, which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.”


WHIMPER

7. Apparently all the scientists know for sure is that was the only way the universe could have been created. I am missing something here. I thought that there was a state of nothing then suddenly there was a big bang and the universe popped out. Now I learn that there were a bunch of “black hole” cores one of which had a sort of oyster pearl producing proclivity and was busily compressing a chunk of nothing with just enough vehemence for the universe to pop out. Where did the “black holes” come from? Did the “black holes” come before the nothing? Am I to understand that precisely 13.7 billion earth years ago, a suddenly really huge hot blob came hurtling out of a “black hole”? And as this huge hot blob got a certain distance measured in earth years from the black hole, measured in earth year time, the rear end of the huge hot blob began to cool and small cooled lumps of the huge hot blob began to drop off and start spinning and radiating light? And fortuitously, exactly 4.5 billion earth years ago, the last of the huge hot blob cooled off so that there was just enough left of it to break into pieces and form our solar system and the very last little blob of all of this original huge hot blob was considerate enough to cool and form into our dear earth? Although this might seem to be a somewhat crude haphazard method for assembling a universe, it is vitally important to note that every single star in it is of a different size, and set apart from every other star at a different distance. Physicists have long known thanks to consulting the Pauli exclusion principalix that it is impossible for two electrons to occupy the same space. This law obviously applies to all objects and parts of objects from the size of galaxies down to the size of sub-particles.


WHIMPER

8. Douglas Scott & Martin White in their 10 February 2000, article at The Cosmic Microwave Background website http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/cmb_intro.html seem less sure of the age of the universe, and the exact way it commenced, yet they are emphatic about the proof that it did happen. “The big bang It is now generally agreed among both astronomers and physicists alike that the Universe was created some 10 to 20 billion years ago in a leviathan explosion dubbed the "Big Bang". The exact nature of the initial event is still cause for much speculation, and it's fair to say that we know little if anything about the first instant of creation. Nevertheless we do know that the Universe used to be incredibly hotter and more dense than it is today. Expansion and cooling after this cataclysm of the Big Bang, resulted in the production of all of the physical contents of the Universe which we see today. Namely: light in the form of "photons"; matter in the form of "leptons" (electrons, positrons, muons) and "baryons" (protons, antiprotons, neutrons, antineutrons); more esoteric particles like "neutrinos" and perhaps some exotic "dark matter" particles; and the subsequent formulation of the Universe's first chemical elements.� I have added the bold underlined italics.

The article goes on to explain that we know all this because in 1965, Arno Penzail and Robert Wilson two radio astronomers using a small well-calibrated horn antenna detected an appearance of isotropic radiation. Although they first were unsure of the significance of their finding, subsequent discussion with more knowledgeable radio astronomers confirmed that they had in fact found proof of emanations from the long suspected black hole. The main problem I have with that idea is that the small well-calibrated antenna was man made to record information that only a scientist could interpret and understand. All of the items mentioned, photons and protons and electrons and so forth are specialized items fabricated only by scientists to only be construed and manipulated by scientists. I suspect that reality might be constructed a bit more simply.


WHIMPER

9. I think that the only thing you have to do to find out what the universe is like is open your eyes and look at it. Of course, you will not see all of the universe; however, you will see the most important part of it. The vital bit you need in order to keep going. As far as I can see, the Big Bang theory, like most mathematical theories such as the one that states that 1+1=2, it is a perfectly true theory, and a pragmatic impossibility. There is no actual number 1 and there has never been one. The number 1 is a postulated number. The only actual number 1 that could possibly exist would be the universe itself. The first folk who practiced counting would have had to use real objects to count. Whether these would have been leaves of grass or colored beads, an accurate count would have been feasible. The problem began when the number 1 became a written down symbol. Not content with postulating the number 1, mathematicians lost no time in postulating that with an identical written down number 1, you could accurately prove that the number 2 was a valid number. Theoretically true. Pragmatically impossible. Remember the snowflakes. Although all written down number 1’s look identical, physically, just like the snowflakes, they are not. When the Arabic mathematicians introduced the 0; it did wonders for the human practice of arithmetic. It obliterated reality. The starting point for all calculations became 0. There is no actual state of 0 and the only ascertainable 1 is the universe. Not content with basing the fundamental concept of mathematics on an imaginary number 1, anonymous mathematicians wasted no time in devising a set of numbers that they thought that they could use to scientifically measure the full extent of everything in the universe including the universe itself. Mathematicians have always maintained that all numbering systems could only


WHIMPER

10. progress in identical increments of some sort. Not only that, any number could be broken down into identical fractions, or identical decimals, or be negative or could be positive. But as we can see from a considered examination of snowflakes, this fabricated manipulation of identical numbers is physically impossible to accomplish. Like Ahab and his manic pursuit of the white whale, mathematicians have chased through arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, calculus, quantum mechanics, and string theory in a futile effort to prove that only some sort of identical condition has any validity. Every scientific system devised has at its core the sustaining of identical units or identical parts of units. Inches, meters, grams, degrees, microns, kilograms, liters, nano-seconds, light-years, whatever, all had to be identical. None of these systems could ever be synchronized because identical states cannot exist. Nature has never produced any identical blades of grass, or identical tree leaves, or identical snowflakes, or identical units of anything. Man has done nothing else but attempt to produce as many identical things as possible. Man is not an unnatural animal. Man is an antinatural animal. All the mathematical assessments were inaccurate from the start. All kinds of meters and clocks and scientifically approved measuring devices have been devised, a great number of which start at 0, and all of which use readable marked identical numbered sequences. There was never any real zero. All the other numbers, whether they were arithmetical, algebraic, geometric or coded in the practice of trigonometry, calculus, quantum mechanics, and string theory are postulates. The whole of the so-called science of mathematics is based entirely on guesswork.


WHIMPER

11. Unfortunately, precision measuring instruments have been developed to validate all of this guesswork concerning reality. More unfortunate still, instead of questioning the validity of these instruments, man has interfered with reality to such an extent that it is now impossible to know what anything truly is anymore. Do you know what is real and what is not real? I do not. The only thing I know is that I am expected to behave myself in real time. A clock does not use a zero. A new clock is set to the same time as the other clocks that are already here because the supposed correct time has already been established. If all clocks were dispensed with, reality would not change at all. It is all well and good to speculate about whether the universe could begin at a zero point in space and at a zero point in time. It could not. Nothing has already taken that spot. There is no way that one could displace nothing from its immovable location of not being anywhere at any time. The universe could only occur once and it would have to be eternal in duration, perpetual in motion, and infinite in size. Most importantly, only opposite states in the universe could attract each other, only similar states in the universe could abide with each other, and any states in the universe that were on the brink of becoming identical would suddenly have to exchange their constituencies and start obliterating each other until both again reached attractive states of oppositition.. Does it seem at all reasonable to suppose that the universe would have came into being simply to validate the importance of how well made and accurate the telescopes and atomic clocks are made on earth? Does it seem reasonable to suppose that the universe would rely on the number of circuits that the earth made around the sun for an accurate recording of its duration?


WHIMPER

12. Does it seem reasonable to suppose that the universe would spend 9.2 billion years expanding in such a fashion, and that the solar system, like some dutiful shopper at a cosmic Wal-Mart, would then get in line so that it would always be on the leading edge of the expansion? Why in God’s name was I the only fool to ask the question, what if it really is the other way about? HOT STUFF EXPANDS. COLD STUFF CONTRACTS. The universe cannot be totally expanding. Some part of the universe has to be contracting because it is demonstrably cooler now than it was at its supposed creation. The reason all the stars seem to be moving away is that as they cool they contract and shrink. They are not moving laterally, all the stars must be shrinking in size. The far galaxies that Hubble spotted did not flee out of sight at an unbelievable speed.x The stars in those galaxies shrank and cooled and darkened and coalesced until their combined densities increased to such an extent that their light could no longer be seen from earth. How Stephen Hawkingxi managed to accurately calculate how a black hole would operate has to go down as the greatest feat of human thinking ever achieved. A big bang erupting out of a black hole might indeed disgorge a huge blob of hot stuff. The huge hot blob could break into pieces, which as they cool could turn into stars. Because our sun seems to be hot, we do not realize that it is actually cooling down. As the stars in the solar system cool they will shrink and get denser, which might I think increase their gravitational forces so that they will grow closer together and form a smaller, denser, cooler, darker mass. Global warming may not be caused by human interference with the earth’s atmosphere. If the sun is cooling, it will increase in density and start


WHIMPER

13. exerting a stronger gravitational pull on all the planets. The finding of ice particles on Marsxii might be an indication that Mars is also undergoing Martian warming. I think that the mass of stars in a galaxy might continue to shrink and darken and increase in density until it is barely the size of a black atom. At that point, because this tiny dense cold black atom is becoming identical to the point of total solidification, it will explode. There must be an infinitesimal tiny space in the atom that cannot be compressed beyond the point of extinction. A new huge blob of hot stuff will spew out and the whole process will start over. I am not sure if the whole universe engages in this particular sort of repetitive behavior, or whether it is only the natural activity of each of the galaxies. I suspect that it must only be a galaxy that would be formed and reformed in this manner. This would explain the discrepancy between the age of our solar system and the perceived age of the rest of the universe. According to a June 15, 1998, article “Is Dark Matter Theory or Fact?" posted on the Scientific America website, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-dark-matter-theory-or “How, then, can we say with confidence that we know dark matter exists? The way in which dark matter reveals its presence to us is through the gravitational effect it exerts on luminous matter in the universe. ("Luminous" matter is the matter we can see with our telescopes.) The most obvious example of the gravitational effects of dark matter can be observed when looking at the rotation of galaxies.” (I have used the bold underlined italics for emphasis). What could this dark matter consist of if it is not the conspicuous remains of extinguished stars?


WHIMPER

14. i

Taken from AllAboutGOD.com Published by AllAboutGOD Ministries, M Houdmann, P. Matthews-Rose, R. Niles, editors, 2002,-09. Used by permission. ii Jewish Date. (n d) Information retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/cal/jdate.htm iii Speed of Light and Wave Lengths. The Speed of Light (n d) Information retrieved September 3, 2009. d)http://library.thinkquest.org/28160/english/speedwave/speed.html iv STAR LIGHT, STAR BRIGHT TEACHER PAGE : SCIENCE BACKGROUND. (n d) Anuradna KoratKar. Information retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/light/star-lightscience.html#ques1d v Red Shift. Hyper Physics Astrophysics R. Nave. (n d) Information retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/redshf.html vi Space Alliance. Short term versus precise long term calculation of the proper motion of a star. Š 2009, Space Alliance. Ro Information retrieved September 16, 2009, from http://www.spacealliance.ro/articles/view.aspx?id=200903060636 vii Giuseppe Peano. (n d) Information retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.gapsystem.org/~history/Biographies/Peano.html viii About.com:Chemistry. Snowflake chemistry. Answers to Common Questions By Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph. D. (n d) Information retrieved June 24, 2009, from http://chemistry.about.com/od/moleculescompounds/a/snowflake.htm ix CAcT Home Page (n d) The Pauli Exclusion Principal. Information retrieved September 4, 2009, from http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/eleconfg.html x The Age of the Universe. Edward L Wright 1997-2005 Last modified 2 July 2005. Information retrieved September 9, 2009, from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html xi Stephen Hawking Pages. Biography (n d) Information retrieved September 9, 2009, from http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/bio/ xii Universe Today. Lots of Pure Water Ice at Mars North Pole. Written by Nancy Atkinson, January 20 th, 2009. Information retrieved February 21, 2010 from http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/20/lots-of-pure-water-ice-atmars-north-pole/


WHIMPER