The typical Big Bang and its one-off is unrealistic!?
In this respect, I agree with the answer given here by Thomas L. Horvath.
But if you follow the link of his answer, then the content cannot convince and the Big Bang supporters will therefore only bind themselves more firmly to the singular big-bang idea.
I therefore offer a few arguments which, in my opinion, are somewhat more convincing.The Big Bang theory doesn’t have to leave quite as many feathers. Much remains the same, but finds more plausible explanations for the recurrence of the beginning of the beginning … that so many people ask.
I have to replay the whole text here, because those who do not want to be convinced and without reading always follow their own beliefs, who are particularly link-resistant here at Quora (My Universe)
Why is the Big Bang theory wrong?
All of the following are unanswered questions, and much of it refutes the thesis of the singular Big Bang.On the other hand, however, I also offer an alternative that does not contradict the scientific observations rather still confirmed and thus offers a higher probability of a kind of eternally lasting Big Bang, whereby all things already existed and everything only one circular function follows, which is spread over four dimensions.
The definition of bonitistic conditions: Follow the smallest possible Planck resolution and the following conditions at any time:
- WHEN IS, WHERE ismoving.
- After the selection of the present, the WHEN is no longer relevant.
- The WO are then the three local coordinates already known to us.
- The WAS is an additional spatial amplitude coordinate that determines the radius of the current curvature of space.
- WHAT and WHERE are therefore always available in the present.
The basic previous existence: The indeterministic and deterministic have a commonality that still exists today, namely the fact that the present state of the existence is constantly changing, because the dissolution of space is not infinite, but the indeterministic possibilities were infinite to try out all the combinations of existence.Because one thing is for sure, it must have changed and since I hope to be real also present, the indeterministic chaos must have found this possibility … (read more)
Why space and time have always existed and what needs to work and how, so that the current knowledge can be explained plausibly.
1. Why should something have a beginning that has no end?
Also the absence of a PRE seems plausible, if there is no AFTER, but only a NOW. Because things really exist only in the present. The past and the future exist only in our memory, the universe works and exists without it.
1. ) The present is something that must already exist in order to constantly change.We call this change time, because evolution could not find a better tool than to illusion a fourth spatial direction over the stored past, which exists in concrete terms in the present. Since this 4th dimension is not really understood and considered spatially, many misinterpretations are associated with it. I thus contradict the denial of the same time and interpret time dilation much more plausibly and replace this effect with the real spatial curvature of the 3D plane into a spatial 4D plane. For only spatial existential things are concretely present and show effects of whose cause we can never grasp and what we have only understood as time. For the cause time is outside the sphere of action of the universe in the null dimension, which would then be the 5th dimension.
1.Conclusion: The universe must have already existed, it was only not yet causally ordered.The quantity of the existence is absolutely constant, because there is no cause that changes this quantity.
If the expansion speed is lower than the speed of light, then light will have to move beyond the limits of the existing space.
2. ) A photon is a spatial area of action where the space is curved.It is therefore certainly not a matter whose substance seeks an explanation to plausibly explain its presence. And it is always at the maximum speed of light. Thus, the space must already exist where the photon is currently moving. If space spreads only at the known speed of expansion, this contradicts the movement of light.
2.Conclusion: It is only possible to conclude that space already existed and that only matter moves at the speed of expansion.
How should something be created when it cannot interact, i.e. all light is aiming away from a point and the photons cannot or cannot meet each other.cannot overtake themselves, because there are still no things on the way in front of them that they could reflect on in order to get a different direction of movement.
Things like matter are obviously containers where in the inner part several things orbit each other or whatever keeps them captive there.Things must have had directions that brought them together in one place. But with the usual direction of escape away from the center, this is not possible.
3.Conclusion: There is no reason to let things collide.
Why do we see all things on the horizon of our skies that move away as if we were the center of expansion?
The direction of movement of a photon must always point exactly in the direction of your eye, so as not to fly past you.Therefore, every observer thinks he is the center of the universe. There is also light in your eye that has reached your place through reflection or other gravitational effects. But this may also have been reflected so curiously at several points that the star, which is spatially real to your left, can now be seen on the right side and the longer duration of such photons makes us suspect some things further.
The other photons, which have a different direction of movement, do not arrive in our eye. The other photons, however, could carry information that completely different facts create and allow completely different interpretations.Thus, only filtered direction-dependent information arrives in our eye.
4.Conclusion: What we see is not the real spatial state of what we can draw our conclusions from.
Why can we receive background radiation here on Earth when it is the first light to be on the outside of the universe, where the distance of the speeds of light and expansion contradict each other?
The Planck formula E=hf suggests that the spatial radius becomes shorter and the amplitude is greater to provide the constancy of energy.Spatial shorter lengths also mean shorter wavelengths. Spatial expansion would mean that the radius of the photon would increase, the wavelength would increase, the frequency would be lower. This also means the temperature will be lower, because temperature is only a photon that has expanded. So the photons lose no energy they only change their spatial size but their uncurved volume.
So if background radiation is only photons that originate from the center of the universe, then they must have flown past our earth long ago or been reflected where nothing exists yet, in order to have the direction that is necessary for us by U-turn.But those photons will then have to stretch their spatial size, as the expansion phase of the current location is currently determined by. And that would mean the wavelength must be shorter again at that density, so not quite as cooled. Which means that we can only take a false picture of heaven, which is completely illusory.
5.Conclusion: The horizon of our sky does not correspond to the reality of our universe.
The universe already existed, albeit disorderly.Only matter moves at a rate of expansion. The cause of encountered directions (collisions) lies in the center, where the end of all curvatures brings everything together again – it pops forever. So what we see is not the real spatial state of what we can draw our conclusions from. The horizon of our sky does not correspond to the reality of our universe. The standard model of astrophysics has long since become obsolete, because the old people, who don’t want to change anything, live longer these days.
So I now contradict the standard model of astrophysics that the universe is the product of a big bang.
You can find more of it under ” My Universe
Supplement of 13 April 2019 on the basis of enquiries.
Within this universe there will be no occult mystical plane.
Everything outside this universe, however, is at the mercy of man’s imagination and its speculation about it, yet it still corresponds to a chronological, deterministic chaos, i.e. the opposite of an indeterministic chaos from where the birth of our universe. And to the unteachable, who still want to ask “What was before the beginning” should finally suffice the answer“In the beginning wasthe indeterministicchaos,where the real coincidence created the causality and thus gave itself the possibility destroyed illogical things to do, such as asking “What was before thebeginning“.But apparently the unease about the insight of not having free will is so great that faith and wishful thinking always want to contradict causality, because even the deterministic chaos does not offer the possibility of one’s own free will, but only in the case of Indeterministic chaos would be possible. But we do not rule that state of the world, that is the Eben, which offers enough space for the many gods of this world.
I also know quite causally that, for this very indeterministic reason, I can never rule out the possibility that the indeterministic did not just stay outside while the deterministic trapped itself in our universe.Nor can I estimate how many worlds there are that could exist with other criteria.
I cannot rule out the occult mystical plane, but if so, God has probably locked himself out.