Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Expanding = collapsing?

  1. Oct 4, 2014 #1
    Greetings everyone! I used to be a huge big bang theory fan, but these days it strikes me as the most eloquent example of scientific conformism. I can fully understand that the only real alternative to it can be nothing else but a Big Nescio Theory, though ignorance can be very creative when one is not afraid to face it straight instead of ridiculing oneself by summoning dark masses, dark energies and other dark forces. From my point of view the only way to save BBT is to assume that the outward acceleration being observed today does not imply expanding but collapsing, exactly what one would expect if everything ran into a big black hole, just like trash pulled by a 3-sphere vacuum cleaner in a 4-dimentional space: they are all heading to the same final destination, but the more they are closing to it the faster are moving - so they seem to run away from one another. In this case gravity alone could be sufficient enough to explain the seemingly outward acceleration of the universe whithout any need for Darth Vader magic powers; but since there’s no visible boundaries in our universe and no absolute reference point discriminating inwards from outwards, one could easily take the one for the other. This might also account for the otherwise mysterious blackness of the night sky – the ultimate black hole at the actual center of our finite, closed-loop, self-contained universe.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 4, 2014 #2
    I don't see a question here. And I'm too new to the PF, but are personal theories all right to post? It is usually frowned on, for good reasons.

    [FWIW, from your description you seem to have a problem with the science process rather than specific results that you don't agree with. No one can help you with that, if studies or the following observation isn't enough:

    science.jpg
    ]
     
  4. Oct 4, 2014 #3

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Someone else posted a similar speculative theory to this some time back, can't find the thread right now. This theory can't be right because it doesn't predict an isotropic apparent "expansion"; it predicts that we should see apparent expansion in some directions and apparent contraction in others. That's not what we see, so this model doesn't match observations and is ruled out.
     
  5. Oct 4, 2014 #4

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This also doesn't predict what we actually see: it predicts that we should see a blacker night sky in one particular direction (the direction the "black hole at the center" is in), but we don't.
     
  6. Oct 4, 2014 #5
    Thank you for answering friend! When I tried to post this theory of mine, the platform did suggest some thread about local, not universal, collapsing (or so I thought) – so I decided to post mine anyway with all respect to similar (and opposite) views. It’s been three years since it first occurred to me this crazy idea and I just thought it would be nice for “the other side” to be heard, however provocative or plainly wrong it could be. My theory presupposes a gravitational 360 degrees 4-dimensional space bending, due to some kind of incomplete/superficial big bang which leaves the initial black hole more or less intact, or even due to the debris mass itself in case of “total” big bang. The universe initialy expands slowing down and subsequently accelerates collapsing without any visible regression or deviation from straight line.This 4-dimensional bending creates an illusion of endless expanding in our 3-dimensional perception, much the same way that 3-dimensional heliocentric system creates an illusion of geocentrism in 2-dimensional perceptible sky surface. Imagine a normal sphere with one active pole that initially boosts away a ball on the surface; if there’s enough boost for the ball to make its way to the other (inactive) pole, then it starts to accelerate toward the active pole without visible deviation. Collapses between balls are possible somewhere near the 180 degrees turning point as some of them are still coming while others returning. And now imagine the universe as a 1-pole 3-sphere. Every straight line is bent toward the center leaving no room for side view, so the ultimate black hole lurks behind all we can see wherever we’re looking at. No contraction should be observed in 3 dimensions either, at least no more than, inversely, any empty space is observed at the universal “center” of the mainstream “endless expansion” theory. As I see it, one way to “verify” this model, since there's no way to be directly observed, is to calculate the mass needed to account for the acceleration observed in case of a supposed collapsing and then compare it to the visible mass. If the second is significantly less than the required mass, then there’s always the convenient “dark mass” solution – in this case the ultimate black hole. No dark energy required! There could also still exist some remnants of the 180 degree turning point collapses, but I have no idea what they might actually be.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2014
  7. Oct 4, 2014 #6
    Don’t think that I take the aforementioned theory any more seriously than the orthodox BBT on grounds of being mine or whatever. I just wanted to show that the same observational data could be construed more or less consistently simply by being put in a different framework. However, I’m quite certain that no maverick datum, inconsistency or contradiction could possibly shake the believers’ firm conviction on a theory that has no real evidence in favor of itself other than the background radiation noise. Formation of galaxies, large-scale space uniformity, missing mass, outward acceleration etc, etc? There will always be some a posteriori ad hoc patch or alternative geometry or dark something that accounts for everything. If my career depended on that, I would probably do the same.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2014
  8. Oct 5, 2014 #7

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

  9. Oct 5, 2014 #8
    Wrong door. Mea culpa.
     
  10. Oct 5, 2014 #9

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Personal theories aren't allowed as per PF rules. Thread closed.

    Stegnow, you should learn about the history of the BBT, its major competitive theories during the last few decades, the observational data that supports the BBT, and a whole lot more about cosmology before insulting 90+% of professional cosmologists with talk of "scientific conformism" and ignorance.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Expanding = collapsing?
  1. Gravitational collapse (Replies: 44)

  2. The expanding universe (Replies: 43)

Loading...