New Cosmological Model

[ancient_paztriot]

Starting to sound more like science to me…

 

http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0404/WD30-8605.html

[Avinash]

I support the new model whole-heartedly. Personally, I have never liked the statement, "Don't ask what was before Bug Bang because there was no 'before'".

 

I firmly believe that there have been many cycles of Bug Bang and there will be many cycles in future as well. I also believe in Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC). If we combine QSSC model with the new model that is mentioned in the link provided by you, then it is possible that a part of the universe is made because of one Big Bang. Even before that part of the universe gets destroyed, another Big Bang happens. In fact, it is also possible that many Big Bangs happen together.

 

I believe that the current universe is made because of Big Bang. But I do not believe that everything in the current universe was made because of a single Big Bang. I believe there were many Big Bangs.

[sudhaya]

 

the same way?

 

Through a big-bang of some kind?

[Avinash]

Human bodies can be and have been created by Big Bang. But I do not believe that consciousness can be created by Big Bang.

[Guest guest]

Now I don't want to get under your skin here but this brane cosmology is not anything like the vedic cosmology and in reality all it is is pure 100% speculation with absolutely nothing to back it up, on top of that it is based on string theory which is another 100% speculatory conjecture with zero proof for any aspect of it, these theories are created out of the fantasies of mathematicians as they try and dream up a mathematical model of reality, none of it is based on evidence from reality.

 

These links will take you to the real cutting edge in cosmology today.

 

 

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/orthodoxies/electric.htm

 

http://www.nobigbang.com/

 

 

http://www.plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm

 

The vedic version is that there are many "universes", these do not correlate to what these scientists consider to be THE universe, rather the vedic view is more likely talking about galaxies, they can be proven to routinely go through creation and dissolution.

 

These Brane-iacs are trying to tell us that matter is routinely expanding then contracting, many big bangs and big crunch's, I wont go into the science here because it is to complex but the links above will show how these Big Bang and Brane theories have been totally discredited, the vedic version also disagrees with that idea of matter contracting and expanding.

 

The vedic version is that matter evolves from a subtle state to a gross state, like from a gas to a solid, from Brahman to matter, from the sub quantum to the quantum,

when Visnu dissolves a "universe" the matter returns to a subtle "brahman" state, it doesn't contract to a denser state like both the big bang and new many big bang theories state, it become less dense is the vedic version,in fact it loses it's material state altogether, Also when Visnu brings a universe back into existence it doesn't come from a dense state and expand into less dense instead Brahman simply transforms into a denser state, matter doesn't become less dense like the big bang theories state rather matter goes from sub quantum non matter and becomes MORE dense and doesn't expand anywhere.

 

The Big Bang theories have a model of the universe as something that grows and contracts, from dense to less dense then back to dense, with this idea they have space itself being reliant on matter and energy to give it existence, in other words the universe is expanding reality, time, and space, not just matter, and when the universe contracts, time and space contracts with it, these ideas are insane and have been proven wrong repeatedly by prominent scientists, these bizarre theories are created by theoretical physicists, they do not utilize data or experience in the real world, these theories are pure math and pure hypothesis and conjecture.

 

Scientists like David Bohm have come up with ideas that have been shown to be reliable in real world experience, His sub quantum potential for example, when that is combined with plasma cosmology/steady state theory then we have the same basic idea found in the Vedic version, the difference between the various big bang theories including the brane/string theory and the ones I described is that the ones I described have volumes of proof to back them up, whereas the big bangers have zilch.

 

[krsna]

[Guest guest]

"Recent discoveries pose more problems for Big Bang

In 2003, a survey of clusters of galaxies made using data acquired by the ROSAT x-ray satellite showed what seems to be a huge concentration of matter some 12 billion light years across. Such a huge concentration would take at least several hundred billion years to form, 30 times longer than the time since the supposed Big Bang.

 

The results show that the abundance of clusters of galaxies falls off suddenly, by about a factor of ten, at a redshift of 0.59. The researchers who initially made the survey (which is reported at arXiv:astro-ph/0303438) tried to explain this sudden fall as "evolution", that there were suddenly ten times as many clusters, since closer distances translate to more recent times.

 

But if that were true, the evolution would have taken about 180 million years, a tiny time for huge clusters of galaxies to form. In addition, if the evolution theory were right, the drop-off in cluster abundance would appear at the exact same redshift (or distance) in every direction. But in reality, in the half of the sky, the abrupt transition to low density occurs at z=0.59, while in the other half it occurs at z=0.55. This would be easy to explain on the basis of our location being 5% closer to one edge of the concentration than to the other, but would be impossible to explain on the basis of evolution.

 

It would seem that the data, if taken without preconceived biases, indicates the edge of a vast concentration of matter about 4Gpc--12 billion light years-- across, outside of which the density of matter is a factor of ten less. If the fractal distribution observed at scales up to 100 Mpc continues to GPC scales, this is to be expected. But it is a grave contradiction to the Big Bang.

 

A second group of discoveries announced at the January, 2004 American Astronomical Society meeting showed that the universe looks very similar at high redshifts, and therefore billions of years ago, as it does today, in sharp contraction to the Big Bang idea that a younger universe will look far different. The large scale structures that exist today also existed at redshifts corresponding to three billion years after the hypothetical date of the Big Bang. Such structures had only one quarter as much time to grow, posing even sharper contradictions for the BB. In addition, galaxies from that 10-billion-years-ago epoch appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages and a similar amount of chemical elements produced by stars as our present-day galaxy. If the Big Bang had really happened, galaxies should appear much younger, with little heavy metals and mostly young stars. Instead they look much the same as today--yet another black eye for the idea that the universe had an origin in time."

 

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php

 

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

[theist]

That is God. Just have some idea what is God. So as Käraëodakaçäyé Viñëu, He is sleeping within the ocean, and as soon as there is question of sleeping, there is breathing also. The bubbles, the bubbles are expanding as universe. Yasyaika-niçvasita-kälam athävalambya jévanti loma-vilajä jagad-aëòa-näthäù [bs. 5.48]. So breathing means exhaling, inhaling. So when the breathing, air is coming out, innumerable universes are coming into form, and when He is inhaling, then all of them becomes annihilated. This is material world. Material world means it comes into existence at a certain date, it remains for some time, it gives so many by-products, and it expands, and then *dwindles, then finish. This is material, everything. Your body is like that, my body is like that. The whole universe is like that.-7604423BG.MEL

 

*contracts?

[Guest guest]

Those are symbolic descriptions, don't confuse that with what the big bang theories state, they state that Matter,Time and Space all go from a primordial singularity

[ an impossible thing, a singularity is an infintely small and dense substance, which is a contradiction, something cannot be infinitely small, infinitely small means it cannot have existence in any dimension, therefore it doesn't exist, therefore it is a logical impossibility, a singularity cannot exist ].

 

This primordial singularity somehow for some reason expands at an incredible speed,like an explosion, all matter and energy in existence was in that singularity, all matter and energy in the universe is that singularity in a less dense form, that is your basic big bang theory.

 

the vedic version is that Vishnu is omnipresent, infinite, the material world or matter doesn't come from a singularity or tiny null space point of extremely dense matter, rather it comes from Vishnu Himelf (pores of His skin ), the material energy is simply a transformation of the all pervading spirtual energy of Vishnu, when the universes or bubbles ( bubbles=galaxies ) end, the matter doesn't condense into a super dense point as big bang theorists state, rather matter reverts back to spiritual energy, or as sastra states it is dissolved back into Vishnu.

[Guest guest]

Most people think of Galaxies as spiral and flat with a bulge at the center, in fact the entire galaxy is in a bubble or Magnetosphere.

 

"One of the most important astronomical discoveries of the mid-1980's was the discovery of ordered magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. These fields stretch tens of kiloparsecs and more.

 

Just as the Earth is surrounded by its own Magnetosphere, so our galaxy is surrounded by a magnetic field known as the galactic magnetosphere.

 

The magnetic field of the galaxy is very hard to determine. There is no way to measure it directly, because within the Solar System it is swamped by the much stronger fields produced by Earth and the Sun. Magnetic fields in galaxies are generally measured by observing the polarization of synchrotron light emitted by the galaxy. Since synchrotron light derives from fast, electric field accelerated electrons traveling along a magnetic field line, this method gives us information about both the electric field and magnetic field in a galaxy where plasma electrons are present. These electrons are confined to move in helical paths around the magnetic field of the galaxy.

 

Another method giving information about galactic magnetic fields was the discovery in the early 1900's that neutral hydrogen in the galaxy tended to be attached, or tethered, to regions of strong magnetic fields. "Neutral" hydrogen is actually a weakly ionized plasma that responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. The areas of neutral hydrogen, called HI regions, emit radiation at a wavelength of 21 centimeters (1.42 gigahertz) and are mapped by radio telescopes.

 

The pattern of polarization seen in the radio emission reveals the magnetic field of the galaxy. It demonstrates that the galactic magnetic field has a roughly circular pattern, similar to what has been deduced for the vicinity of the Sun. The center of the galaxy contains a bipolar magnetic field with a sheet-like structure wrapping around it. The very center of the galaxy has no field at all.

 

from the space science institute on the galactic magnetosphere.

 

 

 

Magnetic 'bubble' in distant galaxy

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/716943.stm

 

 

[Guest guest]

THE MILKY WAY AS A WHOLE

3.1. Magnetic fields and Interstellar Superbubbles

 

In addition to the large-scale (regular and random) components of the galactic magnetic field, there are localized deviations (or detours) of the magnetic field, occasioned by interstellar magnetized superbubbles around OB associations and supernovae, with typical superbubble diameters of 200 - 250 pc.

 

Figure 6 shows the local deviations of the regular large scale magnetic field lines due to the presence of local superbubbles with a known supershell magnetic field.

 

check here

 

Figure 6. Face-on view of the local area of the Milky Way disk, showing the nearby superbubbles with a detected shell magnetic field. Arrows show the direction of the local galactic magnetic field lines. The expansion of the superbubbles caused local deviations or detours of the regular component of the galactic magnetic field. Two nearby spiral arms of stars are shown (Perseus arm, Sagittarius arm). The Sun's location is shown (circled dot). The location of the nearest magnetic field reversal is shown (dashes). See Vallée (1996) for more details.

 

The pioneering theories of galactic dynamos were made by Parker, 1971a; Parker, 1971b; Parker, 1973; Parker, 1976, Parker, 1979, and by others since (e.g., Ruzmaikin et al. 1985; Ruzmaikin et al. 1988). These early theories proved exciting and of great potential. They already could explain many diverse features in the Milky Way (e.g., Vallée 1991b).

 

Large interstellar magnetic bubbles are becoming necessary ingredients in the theories of galactic dynamos. More recent theories of galactic dynamos use cosmic-ray-driven dynamos (e.g., Parker 1992). Cosmic-ray-driven dynamos are dynamos powered by cosmic rays which originate in fast stellar winds of O-type stars inside interstellar bubbles, and in exploding supernovae (inside or outside interstellar bubbles).

 

The observations of the properties of large interstellar magnetic bubbles are compatible with the recent predictions of galactic dynamos (Vallée, 1993e), notably the mean shell magnetic field strength, the mean k = 1 exponent in the shell, and the mean shell expansion speed.

 

Zweibel (1996) also studied large scale fluctuations of the magnetic fields for the equilibrium and stability of the interstellar medium. The local magnetic field direction within 1000 pc was found some 30 years ago to differ according to the method used, and that difference was elucidated first by Vallée (1973) and Vallée and Kronberg (1973) as being almost entirely due to the effect of the nearby North Polar Spur a.k.a. Loop I. Others since, notably Heiles (1996a), have confirmed the strong effect of Loop I. Simonetti and Cordes (1986) and Simonetti et al. (1984) have studied enhanced magnetic turbulences along lines of sight going through various superbubbles. The HI shell is outside the synchrotron shell in Loop I (Heiles et al., 1980), both contributing to the rotation measure.

 

 

[moderator's note: link shortened to keep page from going off screen]

[ancient_paztriot]

I'm not buying all of it. I just think it sounds alot better than what came before.

[Guest guest]

The brane theory is essentially the same concept as a big bang concept, it differs on details but it has even less going for it proof wise then the big bang, super string theory and branes are completely 100% speculations with zero data to support them, and they have no relation whatsoever with the vedic view.

 

Even the promoters of the brane/superstring theory will tell you their main problem is that they have no evidence.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Problems_with_string_theory

 

It is a complete and total fantasy, all they have done is come up with a mathematical construct and put that forth as a possibility, it has no bearing on reality in any way at all.

 

For starters they make many of the same mistakes big bangers make which the plasma physicists have been pointing out and have solved using verifiable consistent impeccable data, but due to the way the academic world is set up there are many many people at the highest levels who have careers and reputations based on outdated and disproven theories, superstring and the M Brane theory is just another attempt by this establishment of outdated academics attempting to avoid the handwriting on the wall.

[ancient_paztriot]

Well, modern science doesn't make good philosophy. That's why I don't bother myself with it much.

 

I simply made a comment concerning the alignment of this theory with endless cycles of creation and destruction. I don't care to look deeper. I won't get any significant knowledge from the empirical process.

 

You are sure thinking alot more about this than me.

[theist]

Actually I also liked the idea that they are starting to think in cyclic terms and contracting universes. But until they come to the point of acknowledging the Intelligent Designer and the prime mover as being the will of Vishnu I won't torture my little brain on trying to grasp details.