Question for EXPERTS on BANGS < >BIG or small< >

[Keith Stein]

we 'know' the Big Bang started 13.7 Billion years ago,
(+/- whatever), but my question is:-

When did the "Big Bang" stop ?







Note that if the Big Bang has not stopped it would need feeding,
and at an ever increasing rate,to feed a sphere of ever linearly
increasing radius.

But if, on the other hand, it has stopped then, as any expert on
explosions will tell you, it would proceed NOT as an ever increasing
sphere, but rather as an ever increasing shell of thickness equal to:

Speed of transmission times of explosion * (Tstop - Tstart)

and there is no sign of that in the universe we inhabit, whatever finite
value you choose for Tstop.

[Keith Stein]

On 22/04/2018 14:16, Keith Stein wrote:
> we 'know' the Big Bang started 13.7 Billion years ago,
> (+/- whatever), but my question is:-
>
>                 When did the "Big Bang" stop ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Note that if the Big Bang has not stopped it would need feeding,
> and at an ever increasing rate,to feed a sphere of ever linearly
> increasing radius.
>
> But if, on the other hand, it has stopped then, as any expert on
> explosions will tell you, it would proceed NOT as an ever increasing
> sphere, but rather as an ever increasing shell of thickness equal to:
>

>     Speed of transmission of explosion * (Tstop - Tstart)

>
> and there is no sign of that in the universe we inhabit, whatever

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:16:49 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> we 'know' the Big Bang started 13.7 Billion years ago,
> (+/- whatever), but my question is:-
>
> When did the "Big Bang" stop ?

As I understand it, it began with a huge quantity of high-energy photons
which were flying everywhere at c. Then protons, neutrons, electrons,
etc., condensed out and eventually formed some really huge stars. I
would say it definitely ended at that point, but some might put it sooner.

> Note that if the Big Bang has not stopped it would need feeding,
> and at an ever increasing rate,to feed a sphere of ever linearly
> increasing radius.

Only if one assumed constant density, which doesn't appear to be the case.

> But if, on the other hand, it has stopped then, as any expert on
> explosions will tell you, it would proceed NOT as an ever increasing
> sphere, but rather as an ever increasing shell of thickness equal to:
>
> Speed of transmission times of explosion * (Tstop - Tstart)
>
> and there is no sign of that in the universe we inhabit, whatever finite
> value you choose for Tstop.

So you're trying to invoke a steady-state universe again? That's been
tried already. I favor a continual series of bangs rather than continuous
creation. There is some theoretical basis for this in the work of Paul Steinhardt.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gary Harnagel wrote

So you're trying to invoke a steady-state universe again?
That's been tried already.
I favor a continual series of bangs rather than continuous creation.
There is some theoretical basis for this in the work of Paul Steinhardt.

Matter Already is “Relativistic Ballast”

3.71295774e-28kg/m^3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically_flat_spacetime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_solution

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/22/18 8:16 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> When did the "Big Bang" stop ?

The question makes no sense.

The big bang is a SINGULARITY. It did not "occur in time", but rather is
in essence a boundary of the manifold in which time progresses. One can
trace worldlines backwards to limit points of the big bang, but not to
the singularity itself (which is not part of the manifold, and such
tracing can only be performed in the manifold).

So time-related concepts like "start" and "stop" simply do not apply to
the big bang (they inherently refer to the manifold, which does not
include the singularity).

> [... further nonsense and incorrect GUESSES]

The big bang is NOT an "explosion". It is a SINGULARITY. It has no
"location"; speaking loosely, the big bang happened everywhere.

Tom Roberts

[Keith Stein]

On 22/04/2018 16:00, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/22/18 8:16 AM, Keith Stein wrote:

we 'know' the Big Bang started 13.7 Billion years ago,
(+/- whatever), but my question is:-

>> When did the "Big Bang" stop ?
>
> The question makes no sense.

Is there any sense in saying the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billions years
ago, Mr Roberts?

>> [... further nonsense ]

>
> The big bang is NOT an "explosion".

Well I'm sure i've heard it described as "an explosion of space and
time", but i would agree that is twaddle eh!

It is a SINGULARITY. It has no
> "location"; speaking loosely, the big bang happened everywhere.

But did it also happen for all time Mr.Roberts?

[Keith Stein]

On 22/04/2018 15:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:16:49 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> we 'know' the Big Bang started 13.7 Billion years ago,
>> (+/- whatever), but my question is:-
>>
>> When did the "Big Bang" stop ?
>
> As I understand it, it began with a huge quantity of high-energy photons
> which were flying everywhere at c. Then protons, neutrons, electrons,
> etc., condensed out and eventually formed some really huge stars. I
> would say it definitely ended at that point, but some might put it sooner.
>
>> Note that if the Big Bang has not stopped it would need feeding,
>> and at an ever increasing rate,to feed a sphere of ever linearly
>> increasing radius.
>
> Only if one assumed constant density,

I grant you that Mr.Harnagel,

which doesn't appear to be the case.

and where will we find the densest part of the Universe, Mr.Harnagel?

>> But if, on the other hand, it has stopped then, as any expert on
>> explosions will tell you, it would proceed NOT as an ever increasing
>> sphere, but rather as an ever increasing shell of thickness equal to:
>>
>> Speed of transmission times of explosion * (Tstop - Tstart)
>>
>> and there is no sign of that in the universe we inhabit, whatever finite
>> value you choose for Tstop.

> So you're trying to invoke a steady-state universe again?

No, but I am trying to suggest the Big Bang is nonsense. I favor a
variable speed of light theory myself.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:54:58 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 22/04/2018 15:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:16:49 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > Note that if the Big Bang has not stopped it would need feeding,
> > > and at an ever increasing rate,to feed a sphere of ever linearly
> > > increasing radius.
> >
> > Only if one assumed constant density,
>
> I grant you that Mr.Harnagel,
>
> which doesn't appear to be the case.
>
> and where will we find the densest part of the Universe, Mr.Harnagel?

Now? Black holes.

> > > But if, on the other hand, it has stopped then, as any expert on
> > > explosions will tell you, it would proceed NOT as an ever increasing
> > > sphere, but rather as an ever increasing shell of thickness equal to:
> > >
> > > Speed of transmission times of explosion * (Tstop - Tstart)
> > >
> > > and there is no sign of that in the universe we inhabit, whatever finite
> > > value you choose for Tstop.
>
> > So you're trying to invoke a steady-state universe again?
>
> No, but I am trying to suggest the Big Bang is nonsense. I favor a
> variable speed of light theory myself.

There is no evidence for that, at least locally. There would be serious
changes in all kinds of phenomena in distant stars and galaxies which we
CAN observe if it were different elsewhere.

> > I favor a continual series of bangs rather than continuous creation.
> > There is some theoretical basis for this in the work of Paul Steinhardt.

What? No comment on my magnum opus?

[Keith Stein]

On 23/04/2018 00:24, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:54:58 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 22/04/2018 15:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 7:16:49 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Note that if the Big Bang has not stopped it would need feeding,
>>>> and at an ever increasing rate,to feed a sphere of ever linearly
>>>> increasing radius.
>>>
>>> Only if one assumed constant density,
>>
>> I grant you that Mr.Harnagel,
>>
>> which doesn't appear to be the case.
>>
>> and where will we find the densest part of the Universe, Mr.Harnagel?
>
> Now? Black holes.

I grant you that too Mr.Harnagel, but Black holes are greedy, not likely
candidates for feeding anything, certainly not the feeding the expanding
universe eh!

>>>> But if, on the other hand, it has stopped then, as any expert on
>>>> explosions will tell you, it would proceed NOT as an ever increasing
>>>> sphere, but rather as an ever increasing shell of thickness equal to:
>>>>
>>>> Speed of transmission times of explosion * (Tstop - Tstart)
>>>>
>>>> and there is no sign of that in the universe we inhabit, whatever finite
>>>> value you choose for Tstop.
>>
>>> So you're trying to invoke a steady-state universe again?
>>
>> No, but I am trying to suggest the Big Bang is nonsense. I favor a
>> variable speed of light theory myself.
>
> There is no evidence for that, at least locally.

There is very much the same evidence as for the Big Bang, Mr.Harnagel.
Either theory can explain the Hubble red-shifts, and the CMBR. The
advantage of the light slowing explanation is that there is no need to
invoke the additional, and highly speculative, theories of 'inflation'
and 'dark energy'.

> There would be serious
> changes in all kinds of phenomena in distant stars and galaxies which we
> CAN observe if it were different elsewhere.

Like what exactly Mr.Harnagel ?

>>> I favor a continual series of bangs rather than continuous creation.
>>> There is some theoretical basis for this in the work of Paul Steinhardt.
>
> What? No comment on my magnum opus?
>

Well if you really want comments, i would suggest it is rather brief
(for a magnum opus eh!), and also so far as i am aware there is no
evidence for that.

keith stein

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 2:59:35 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 23/04/2018 00:24, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:54:58 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > and where will we find the densest part of the Universe, Mr.Harnagel?
> >
> > Now? Black holes.
>
> I grant you that too Mr.Harnagel, but Black holes are greedy, not likely
> candidates for feeding anything, certainly not the feeding the expanding
> universe eh!

See magnum opus below

> > > No, but I am trying to suggest the Big Bang is nonsense. I favor a
> > > variable speed of light theory myself.
> >
> > There is no evidence for that, at least locally.
>
> There is very much the same evidence as for the Big Bang, Mr.Harnagel.
> Either theory can explain the Hubble red-shifts, and the CMBR. The
> advantage of the light slowing explanation is that there is no need to
> invoke the additional, and highly speculative, theories of 'inflation'
> and 'dark energy'.

I'm neither an inflation nor a FLRW fan myself.

> > There would be serious
> > changes in all kinds of phenomena in distant stars and galaxies which we
> > CAN observe if it were different elsewhere.
>
> Like what exactly Mr.Harnagel ?

So to address your question. If the speed of light were faster in the
past, many processes would be different. Just think of all the equations
describing physical values that have c in them, such as the fine-structure
constant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant?

"Webb et al. found that their spectra were consistent with a slight increase
in α over the last 10–12 billion years." Specifically, 5.7x10^-6 parts per
~10 billion years.

> > > > I favor a continual series of bangs rather than continuous creation.
> > > > There is some theoretical basis for this in the work of Paul Steinhardt.
> >
> > What? No comment on my magnum opus?
>
> Well if you really want comments, i would suggest it is rather brief
> (for a magnum opus eh!),

I don't cast me pearls before swine :-)

> and also so far as i am aware there is no
> evidence for that.
>
> keith stein

Actually, the same evidence as for the big bang.

https://everything2.com/title/ekpyrotic+universe

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

[Tom Roberts]

On 4/22/18 11:40 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
> Is there any sense in saying the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billions years ago,
> Mr Roberts?

Yes. Because that is a measurement in the manifold with which we model the universe.

>> The big bang is NOT an "explosion".
>
> Well I'm sure i've heard it described as "an explosion of space and time",

I'm sure you have heard LOTS of nonsense. That does not make it correct.

>> [The big bang] is a SINGULARITY. It has no

>> "location"; speaking loosely, the big bang happened everywhere.
>
> But did it also happen for all time Mr.Roberts?

No. As I said before, "time" does not apply to the big bang itself. But the
proper time of geodesics is well defined, from their limit point (approaching
the singularity) to today.

Tom Roberts

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Monday, 23 April 2018 17:11:41 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

>
> No. As I said before, "time" does not apply to the big bang itself.

Since your bunch of idiots has crippled the most useful
term we have, of course.

[Keith Stein]

On 23/04/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 2:59:35 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 23/04/2018 00:24, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 10:54:58 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>> No, but I am trying to suggest the Big Bang is nonsense. I favor a
>>>> variable speed of light theory myself.

>>> There is no evidence for that, at least locally.

>> There is very much the same evidence as for the Big Bang, Mr.Harnagel.
>> Either theory can explain the Hubble red-shifts, and the CMBR. The
>> advantage of the light slowing explanation is that there is no need to
>> invoke the additional, and highly speculative, theories of 'inflation'
>> and 'dark energy'.

> I'm neither an inflation nor a FLRW fan myself.

Well there's something we agree on Mr.Harnagel, although to be honest
i've no idea what "FLRW" is eh!

>>> There would be serious
>>> changes in all kinds of phenomena in distant stars and galaxies which we
>>> CAN observe if it were different elsewhere.

>> Like what exactly Mr'.Harnagel ?

> So to address your question. If the speed of light were faster in the
> past, many processes would be different. Just think of all the equations
> describing physical values that have c in them, such as the fine-structure
> constant:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant?

I do thank you for providing that relevant and thought provoking link,
Mr.Harnagel. I was struck by the following little extract:-

"......were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce
carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were greater
than 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the
universe would be warm enough for life as we know it."

From which i take you would imply that if the speed of light in
intergalactic space were to change by 4% then .you and i would not be
here to discuss it Mr.Harnagel. Well i think there is strong evidence
that the speed of light has indeed changed by much more than 4%, and yet
here we are eh! Also since the universe and therefore the intergalactic
medium are clearly evolving, what else could one expect.

> "Webb et al. found that their spectra were consistent with a slight increase
> in α over the last 10–12 billion years." Specifically, 5.7x10^-6 parts per
> ~10 billion years.
>
>>>>> I favor a continual series of bangs rather than continuous creation.
>>>>> There is some theoretical basis for this in the work of Paul Steinhardt.
>>>
>>> What? No comment on my magnum opus?
>>
>> Well if you really want comments, i would suggest it is rather brief
>> (for a magnum opus eh!),
>
> I don't cast me pearls before swine :-)
>
>> and also so far as i am aware there is no
>> evidence for that.

> Actually, the same evidence as for the big bang.
>
> https://everything2.com/title/ekpyrotic+universe

"The Ekpyrotic model relies on the universe consisting of a five
dimensional space-time, that is bounded by two (3+1)-dimensional
surfaces (3-branes) which are separated by a finite gap. This
corresponds to the 11 dimension universe we live in now,...."

Your problem Mr.Harnagel is you can't recognize Bull Shit when you see
it eh!

keith stein

[Jonathan Doolin]

I clicked on this question because I consider myself a proponent of the actual "Big Bang" theory... This is distinct from Orwellian people who call themselves proponents of the "big bang" theory but then claim "the big bang wasn't actually a big bang" and go on to explain that the Big Bang was actually an infinite comoving space shrunken down to a point by a cosmological scale factor.

From what data I've heard about, I would say the big bang started about 40 or 45 billion years ago. (I'd base this on the fact that deep-field astronomy has found galaxies, they say are around 40 billion light-years away.)

The big-bang stopped (locally) about 13.7 billion years ago. (I'd base this on the fact that all of the galaxies within a billion light years away, are moving as though they came from an explosion that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. (IF you assume their redshifts are caused by recession velocity and not scale-factor-mumbo-jumbo)

If the universe was "fed" during this time, I imagine it was some sort of process involving immense primordial quantum particles decaying into smaller particles. But it could have been just ordinary particles packed tighter than neutrons in a neutron star... They had density greater than black-holes, but because of the symmetry, they weren't trapped by the gravity.

All this material bounced back and forth for 25 billion years, the "mean-free-path" between collisions increasing and increasing, over time, until the surrounding universe expanded to the point, 13.7 billion years ago, where that mean-free-path was essentially infinite for galaxy-sized chunks.

Anyway, Here's a video, if you want more information about this model...

Called "Modeling SN1a data, Minkowki Style"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuGX2_aReew

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:00:04 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 23/04/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 2:59:35 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > There is very much the same evidence as for the Big Bang, Mr.Harnagel.
> > > Either theory can explain the Hubble red-shifts, and the CMBR. The
> > > advantage of the light slowing explanation is that there is no need to
> > > invoke the additional, and highly speculative, theories of 'inflation'
> > > and 'dark energy'.
>
> > I'm neither an inflation nor a FLRW fan myself.
>
> Well there's something we agree on Mr.Harnagel, although to be honest
> i've no idea what "FLRW" is eh!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

If you are ignorant of the presently-accepted model, why are you even
babbling about something else?

> > So to address your question. If the speed of light were faster in the
> > past, many processes would be different. Just think of all the equations
> > describing physical values that have c in them, such as the fine-structure
> > constant:
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant?
>
> I do thank you for providing that relevant and thought provoking link,
> Mr.Harnagel. I was struck by the following little extract:-
>
> "......were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce
> carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were greater
> than 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the
> universe would be warm enough for life as we know it."
>
> From which i take you would imply that if the speed of light in
> intergalactic space were to change by 4% then .you and i would not be
> here to discuss it Mr.Harnagel. Well i think there is strong evidence
> that the speed of light has indeed changed by much more than 4%, and yet
> here we are eh! Also since the universe and therefore the intergalactic
> medium are clearly evolving, what else could one expect.

I don't see that "evidence."

> > "Webb et al. found that their spectra were consistent with a slight increase
> > in α over the last 10–12 billion years." Specifically, 5.7x10^-6 parts per
> > ~10 billion years.
> >

> > > Well if you really want comments, i would suggest it is rather brief
> > > (for a magnum opus eh!),
> >
> > I don't cast me pearls before swine :-)
> >
> > > and also so far as i am aware there is no
> > > evidence for that.
>
> > Actually, the same evidence as for the big bang.
> >
> > https://everything2.com/title/ekpyrotic+universe
>
> "The Ekpyrotic model relies on the universe consisting of a five
> dimensional space-time, that is bounded by two (3+1)-dimensional
> surfaces (3-branes) which are separated by a finite gap. This
> corresponds to the 11 dimension universe we live in now,...."
>
> Your problem Mr.Harnagel is you can't recognize Bull Shit when you see
> it eh!
>
> keith stein

Your problem, Mr. Stein, is that you see bullshit everywhere except for what
you produce yourself.

[Keith Stein]

On 24/04/2018 12:19, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:00:04 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 23/04/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 2:59:35 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is very much the same evidence as for the Big Bang, Mr.Harnagel.
>>>> Either theory can explain the Hubble red-shifts, and the CMBR. The
>>>> advantage of the light slowing explanation is that there is no need to
>>>> invoke the additional, and highly speculative, theories of 'inflation'
>>>> and 'dark energy'.
>>
>>> I'm neither an inflation nor a FLRW fan myself.
>>
>> Well there's something we agree on Mr.Harnagel, although to be honest
>> i've no idea what "FLRW" is eh!
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

> If you are ignorant of the presently-accepted model, why are you even
> babbling about something else?

I'm not entirely ignorant of the Big Bang model, Mr.Harnagel, and i do
understand how it came about by interpreting the Hubble red-shifts as
Doppler shifts. Indeed a very understandable misinterpretation since
astronomers regularly measured velocities by means of Doppler shifts eh!

What a red shift from a distant galaxy actually proves, Mr.Harnagel, is
that it takes longer for light from a distant galaxy to reach Earth
today than it did yesterday. Now there are at least two, and probably
only two, reasons why this could be Mr.Harnagel. It could indeed be that
because the galaxy is moving away from the Earth the light has further
to travel today than it did yesterday. This would be your FLRW model eh!

The alternative is that the speed of light is slowing down, and this
would be my model eh!

>>> So to address your question. If the speed of light were faster in the
>>> past, many processes would be different. Just think of all the equations
>>> describing physical values that have c in them, such as the fine-structure
>>> constant:
>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant?
>>
>> I do thank you for providing that relevant and thought provoking link,
>> Mr.Harnagel. I was struck by the following little extract:-
>>
>> "......were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce
>> carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were greater
>> than 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the
>> universe would be warm enough for life as we know it."
>>
>> From which i take you would imply that if the speed of light in
>> intergalactic space were to change by 4% then .you and i would not be
>> here to discuss it Mr.Harnagel. Well i think there is strong evidence
>> that the speed of light has indeed changed by much more than 4%, and yet
>> here we are eh! Also since the universe and therefore the intergalactic
>> medium are clearly evolving, what else could one expect.
>
> I don't see that "evidence."
>
>>> "Webb et al. found that their spectra were consistent with a slight increase
>>> in α over the last 10–12 billion years." Specifically, 5.7x10^-6 parts per
>>> ~10 billion years.
>>>
>>>> Well if you really want comments, i would suggest it is rather brief
>>>> (for a magnum opus eh!),
>>>
>>> I don't cast me pearls before swine :-)

I do, all the time eh!

>>>> and also so far as i am aware there is no
>>>> evidence for that.
>>
>>> Actually, the same evidence as for the big bang.
>>>
>>> https://everything2.com/title/ekpyrotic+universe
>>
>> "The Ekpyrotic model relies on the universe consisting of a five
>> dimensional space-time, that is bounded by two (3+1)-dimensional
>> surfaces (3-branes) which are separated by a finite gap. This
>> corresponds to the 11 dimension universe we live in now,...."
>>
>> Your problem Mr.Harnagel is you can't recognize Bull Shit when you see
>> it eh!
>>
>> keith stein
>
> Your problem, Mr. Stein, is that you see bullshit everywhere except for what
> you produce yourself.
>

Too true Mr.Harnagel. Too true eh!

keith stein

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Jonathan Doolin
- show quoted text -

I clicked on this question because I consider myself a proponent of the actual "Big Bang" theory... This is distinct from Orwellian people who call themselves proponents of the "big bang" theory but then claim "the big bang wasn't actually a big bang" and go on to explain that the Big Bang was actually an infinite comoving space shrunken down to a point by a cosmological scale factor.

From what data I've heard about, I would say the big bang started about 40 or 45 billion years ago. (I'd base this on the fact that deep-field astronomy has found galaxies, they say are around 40 billion light-years away.)

The big-bang stopped (locally) about 13.7 billion years ago. (I'd base this on the fact that all of the galaxies within a billion light years away, are moving as though they came from an explosion that occurred 13.7 billion years ago.

I have a similar idea.

Prior to the Big Bang....
The Vacuum impedance “since the Vacuum isn’t there yet” would be skew away from 376.73 ohms... high or low doesn’t matter.

A skewed Vacuum impedance between differing locations would just be “Physical Acceleration.

If the Big Bang was Above Planck Pressure, time would not be passing until at Planck Pressure or below, so “your 45 billion year” period before our universe started 13.7 billion years ago simply isn’t there

Above Planck Pressure, reality simply doesn’t exist.

It is simpler to understand if the “Vacuum impedance is set to Zero” and any Non-Zero value between two different locations is simply Acceleration towards or away from one another.

(137.035999172^2*(299792458)*6.67408e-11+1) = 376.734827532



(137.035999172^2*(299792458)*6.67399985e-11+1)/(c*(4e-7pi) =1

[Gary Harnagel]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:31:43 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 24/04/2018 12:19, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:00:04 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23/04/2018 13:40, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm neither an inflation nor a FLRW fan myself.
> >>
> > > Well there's something we agree on Mr.Harnagel, although to be honest
> > > i've no idea what "FLRW" is eh!
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric
>
> > If you are ignorant of the presently-accepted model, why are you even
> > babbling about something else?
>
> I'm not entirely ignorant of the Big Bang model, Mr.Harnagel, and i do
> understand how it came about by interpreting the Hubble red-shifts as
> Doppler shifts. Indeed a very understandable misinterpretation since
> astronomers regularly measured velocities by means of Doppler shifts eh!
>
> What a red shift from a distant galaxy actually proves, Mr.Harnagel, is
> that it takes longer for light from a distant galaxy to reach Earth
> today than it did yesterday. Now there are at least two, and probably
> only two, reasons why this could be Mr.Harnagel. It could indeed be that
> because the galaxy is moving away from the Earth the light has further
> to travel today than it did yesterday. This would be your FLRW model eh!

Actually, there are THREE explanations: (1) variable speed of light, (2)
galaxies are moving away from us and (2) spacetime is expanding (THAT's
FLRW).

> The alternative is that the speed of light is slowing down, and this
> would be my model eh!

But how do you explain the constancy of the fine-structure constant?

> > > > I don't cast me pearls before swine :-)
>
> I do, all the time eh!

Oink, oink.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Gary Harnagel wrote

> The alternative is that the speed of light is slowing down, and this
> would be my model eh!

But how do you explain the constancy of the fine-structure constant?

The Constancy of the Fine Structure Constant is because we’re inside a Black Hole


(((pi / 2) / (electron mass^2)) * (kg^3) * 137.035999172 * G) / ((13.9081253 billion light years)^2) = 1 m / s^2

G*((m1*m2)/r^2) = F

1/(electron mass^2/137.035999172*2/pi) = 2.59403941e62 kg

https://photos.app.goo.gl/BxhgqGNAyclQ1Hre2

((1.83615267389e21/2)^0.5-2/6.674081169e-11) /299792458 /1.111111111111111111 = 1

Nist = 1.83615267389e3

((((2.59403941e62 kg) / c) / pi) / planck length) / 1e35 =
1.70413214e53 kg

1.70413214e53 kg Mass universe

2.5963985e62kg/299792458/pi/1.7037785e53kg/phi) = 1

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/22/18 8:16 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> When did the "Big Bang" stop ?
>
> The question makes no sense.
>

> The big bang is a SINGULARITY. […]

That is *one* definition (in which the term is written “Big Bang” instead).


PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[Erálnì Histickému]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>> On 4/22/18 8:16 AM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> When did the "Big Bang" stop ?
>>
>> The question makes no sense. The big bang is a SINGULARITY. […]
>
> That is *one* definition (in which the term is written “Big Bang”
> instead).

Another individual not knowing what a singularity stands for. Your kind
are taking your science from Popular Mechanics.

*_P L O N K_*

[Edward Prochak]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 8:31:43 AM UTC-4, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 24/04/2018 12:19, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 3:00:04 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>

[]

> >> Well there's something we agree on Mr.Harnagel, although to be honest
> >> i've no idea what "FLRW" is eh!
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric
>
> > If you are ignorant of the presently-accepted model, why are you even
> > babbling about something else?
>
> I'm not entirely ignorant of the Big Bang model, Mr.Harnagel, and i do
> understand how it came about by interpreting the Hubble red-shifts as
> Doppler shifts. Indeed a very understandable misinterpretation since
> astronomers regularly measured velocities by means of Doppler shifts eh!

You appear to be lacking in knowledge of the history of the Hubble red-shifts
and how they came to be used for measurement of distant objects.

>
> What a red shift from a distant galaxy actually proves, Mr.Harnagel, is
> that it takes longer for light from a distant galaxy to reach Earth
> today than it did yesterday.

You provide no supporting evidence of this claim.

> Now there are at least two, and probably
> only two, reasons why this could be Mr.Harnagel. It could indeed be that
> because the galaxy is moving away from the Earth the light has further
> to travel today than it did yesterday. This would be your FLRW model eh!
>
> The alternative is that the speed of light is slowing down, and this
> would be my model eh!

Possible, but there is other evidence supporting the standard
model that you have yet to recognize and acknowledge, let alone
explain by your theory.

>
>
> >>> So to address your question. If the speed of light were faster in the
> >>> past, many processes would be different. Just think of all the equations
> >>> describing physical values that have c in them, such as the fine-structure
> >>> constant:
> >>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant?
> >>
> >> I do thank you for providing that relevant and thought provoking link,
> >> Mr.Harnagel. I was struck by the following little extract:-
> >>
> >> "......were α to change by 4%, stellar fusion would not produce
> >> carbon, so that carbon-based life would be impossible. If α were greater
> >> than 0.1, stellar fusion would be impossible and no place in the
> >> universe would be warm enough for life as we know it."
> >>
> >> From which i take you would imply that if the speed of light in
> >> intergalactic space were to change by 4% then .you and i would not be
> >> here to discuss it Mr.Harnagel. Well i think there is strong evidence
> >> that the speed of light has indeed changed by much more than 4%, and yet
> >> here we are eh! Also since the universe and therefore the intergalactic
> >> medium are clearly evolving, what else could one expect.
> >
> > I don't see that "evidence."

And I agree with Gary.

Your model, Keith, fails on some simple accounts.
The clearest in my mind is the CMBR. It is just
way too uniform (smooth) to have distant galaxies
as it's source.

The static universe that goes with your changing lightspeed theory
just doesn't fit the facts.

Ed