How can a single Big Bang be true?

[Joshua10]

How can a single Big Bang be true if matter is disappearing into multiple holes within multiple galaxies throughout the cosmos and no matter how far back into the cosmos scientist look the galaxies are as mature as the galaxy we reside within?What matter will be left exactly to actually disappear into this single hole scientist speak of?

A single big bang is an impossibility according to actual observations.

 

[casparov]

Cosmic inflation is a major point behind the idea of the Big Bang, since that interpretation of the redshift/hubble constant (inflation) still holds strong, Big Bang remains a reasonable possibility. Regarding the mature galaxies , I am not aware but there is possibly an explanation within Big Bang cosmology. Big Bang might be wrong but then you need to explain the hubble constant/CMB in a different way. What you are saying about matter doesn't follow to make the Big Bang model impossible

 

[weirdoguy]

I really have a hard time figuring out what you mean. Looks a little bit like word salad.

 

[Joshua10]

Cosmic inflation is a major point behind the idea of the Big Bang, since that interpretation of the redshift/hubble constant (inflation) still holds strong, Big Bang remains a reasonable possibility. Regarding the mature galaxies , I am not aware but there is possibly an explanation within Big Bang cosmology. Big Bang might be wrong but then you need to explain the hubble constant/CMB in a different way. What you are saying about matter doesn't follow to make the Big Bang model impossible

But as matter is disappearing into multiple holes in multiple galaxies at varying timescales then it clearly isn't going to all disappear into a single hole. So what do you mean by your statement below? Please explain why you think that a single big bang is still possible if no matter is left?

What you are saying about matter doesn't follow to make the Big Bang model impossible

 

[weirdoguy]

then it clearly isn't going to all disappear into a single hole.

Who said it has to? Why are you bringing holes into this?

Please explain why you think that a single big bang is still possible if no matter is left?

No matter is left when? Where? Maybe tell us what do you think Big Bang means?

 

[Joshua10]

I really have a hard time figuring out what you mean. Looks a little bit like word salad.

Why? It's very clear what I have stated?

 

[weirdoguy]

It's not, because I see no connection to what Big Bang is - a hot, dense, rapidly expanding state of Universe some time ago. What it has to do with holes and disappearing matter?

 

[Joshua10]

It's not, because I see no connection to what Big Bang is - a hot, dense, rapidly expanding state of Universe some time ago. What it has to do with holes and disappearing matter?

Well if the single Big Crunch isn't true. How can the single Big Bang be true?

 

[Drakkith]

How can a single Big Bang be true if matter is disappearing into multiple holes within multiple galaxies throughout the cosmos

Are you referring to black holes? Black holes aren't literal holes. Matter and light pass the event horizon, yes, but Hawking radiation provides a method for all of that lost matter and energy to make its way back out eventually. Assuming that Hawking radiation is real (we haven't observed it yet, but we don't expect to given that its intensity scales inversely with black hole mass) then there is no discrepancy.

A single big bang is an impossibility according to actual observations.

Even if matter and light disappeared forever, this has no bearing on the validity of a single big bang.

 

[weirdoguy]

It can be true because we have a lot of observational support for it. And I see no connection to what you wrote in other posts. Again, I think the problem lies with some misunderstandig of what Big Bang is. Tell us, what do you think it is.

PS. After @Drakkith post I think I undestand what you mean.

 

[casparov]

But as matter is disappearing into multiple holes in multiple galaxies at varying timescales then it clearly isn't going to all disappear into a single hole. So what do you mean by your statement below? Please explain why you think that a single big bang is still possible if no matter is left?

It seems you are confusing two things, you might have seen some videos that hypothesize the further evolution of our universe, that after trillions and trillions of years, all matter falls into black holes and even evaporates, leaving nothing but empty space. This "ending" doesn't necessarily have to do with the "beginning", the Big Bang theory.

 

[Joshua10]

Are you referring to black holes? Black holes aren't literal holes. Matter and light pass the event horizon, yes, but Hawking radiation provides a method for all of that lost matter and energy to make its way back out eventually. Assuming that Hawking radiation is real (we haven't observed it yet, but we don't expect to given that its intensity scales inversely with black hole mass) then there is no discrepancy.Even if matter and light disappeared forever, this has no bearing on the validity of a single big bang.

I am not referring to "black" holes no. I am referring to "holes" The correct scientific terminology.

As matter is appearing and disappearing from/into multiple holes, all the time, at varying timescales and not a single hole then of course it has a bearing on the validity of a single big bang.

 

[Drakkith]

Well if the single Big Crunch isn't true. How can the single Big Bang be true?

Observations support an expanding universe, not a contracting one. They also support the idea that the expansion is accelerating, which means that the rate at which the expansion is slowing is itself slowing. It's a bit like gradually letting off the brake as you approach a red light. You're still decelerating, but the deceleration falls over time.

 

[Drakkith]

I am not referring to "black" holes no. I am referring to "holes" The correct scientific terminology.

As matter is appearing and disappearing from/into multiple holes, all the time, at varying timescales and not a single hole then of course it has a bearing on the validity of a single big bang.

This is entirely false. There are no known 'holes' in the universe.

 

[DennisN]

What matter will be left exactly to actually disappear into this single hole scientist speak of?

I don't understand what is meant by this "single hole".
Do you have a reference for it, i.e. from where you heard it/read it?

 

[weirdoguy]

I am referring to "holes"

The only holes that are scientific and observed in this context are black holes.

As matter is appearing and disappearing from/into multiple holes, all the time, at varying timescales and not a single hole then of course it has a bearing on the validity of a single big bang.

Where did you get that? Can you give us a source?

 

[Joshua10]

It seems you are confusing two things, you might have seen some videos that hypothesize the further evolution of our universe, that after trillions and trillions of years, all matter falls into black holes and even evaporates, leaving nothing but empty space. This "ending" doesn't necessarily have to do with the "beginning", the Big Bang theory.

I'm not confusing anything at all. Matter is entering and existing the cosmos from multiple holes at varying timescales within multiple galaxies throughout the cosmos so what matter is it exactly that scientist claim came from a single hole and will disappear into a single hole?

 

[weirdoguy]

I'm not confusing anything at all.

You are since what you wrote is not true.

Matter is entering and existing the cosmos from multiple holes at varying timescales within multiple galaxies throughout the cosmos

This is nonsense. Where did you get that from?

 

[Joshua10]

You are since what you wrote is not true.

But it is true. Please explain why you think it isn't true.

 

[Drakkith]

But it is true. Please explain why you think it isn't true.

To the best of my knowledge you are mistaken. If you believe otherwise please find a reputable source and contact myself or another mentor so we may discuss the issue.

Thread locked.

 

[PeterDonis]

if the single Big Crunch isn't true. How can the single Big Bang be true?

A single Big Bang does not require a single Big Crunch before it.