Responses for
"Exploding the Big Bang Theory"

Response from Bert Schreiber (Email withheld for their privacy)
The time to collision and the speeds of collision for two galaxies has apparently never been calculated. The parameters used are: Mass = 2 x 10 to + 44 grams mass [about our Milky Way], 100,000 light years in diameter (9.46 x 10 to + 22 cm) and 2 million light years apart (1.892 x 10 to + 24 cm) [About from us to the Andromeda Galaxy]. It was further assumed that they were spiral galaxies lying in the same plane such as two pancakes on a griddle. Their relative speeds were zero to one another at the start. Collision was to be when their edges first touched as after that things become fuzzy and becomes indeterminate.

It is easily shown using Newton’s Equation that the force exerted on one another results in the initial acceleration of each is about 3.755 x 10 to - 12 cm/sec squared. Look closely at that value’s length dimension. That is about 2900 times SMALLER than the diameter of the hydrogen atom! Then, it will take about 80 seconds just for each of those galaxies to move one hydrogen atom’s diameter each towards one another.

Assuming they are just touching their diameters, then the calculations show that their acceleration (each) is still only 1.488 x 10 to - 9 cm/sec squared or the length value about one-tenth the diameter of the hydrogen atom. Those two (end) values alone spell disaster as it is very obvious that it is going to take a very, very long time for those galaxies to move any great lengths at all at the START, much less the total time to move or to that collision point.

The end results of the solution were that it takes/took 21.055 billion years just to that collision point and their speeds equal to one another were 115.9 km/sec. To merge and then separate would require at least 4 more billion years.

END OF BIG BANG THEORY!!!!!!!!!!
Responder's website - collected works of bert schreiber

My Reply: Very interesting but I have one immediate problem with the equation. If the "relative speeds were zero to one another at the start" then how did the galaxies get that close in the first place? This is like talking about two parked cars. The collision begins when they touch and you start calculating the damage from there. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Also this only hurts the time frame of the current big bang theories which is the one part that gives the most admitted trouble. The best this does is push the BBT timeframe back even further, but I don't see how the speed at which galaxies collide hurts the BBT. - JR

Response from Paul VanRaden (Email withheld for their privacy)
Your ideas are very good, and similar to mine written in 1984. Professional astronomers and cosmologists may be the last ones to see the light.
Responder's website - Toward A More Unified Theory Of The Universe

My Reply: Thank you. I am in the process of writing a book that incorporates these ideas plus those found in my other articles plus many more. Hopefully you will like it as much as you liked this article. By the way you make many fine points on the page you mentioned.

One of the largest problems is the reliance on mathematical representations to explain what we can't see. I feel some of the formulas have sometimes been perverted to show unrealistic situations. It is my goal to show where some of these visions may have been skewed and what a more realistic –although perhaps more difficult to understand- view should look like. - JR

Response from Graham Bird (Email withheld for their privacy)
You may enjoy the following BIG BANG 1 16 September, 93 I’m a good little boy believing in science, but they stretched me too far with their big BANG IDEA How can it have been? Our earth is very tiny whizzing around our sun on a string and our sun is in the Milky Way Galaxy just one of one hundred THOUSAND MILLION stars, which seems quite a few. And, yet the Milky Way is just one of more then many of them there galaxy things. Yet they say all that matter was once, for a moment, a small ball. NO! that’s unscientific! a singularity is better, or some such extraordinary compression. And that fabulous moment lead to another and another getting bigger each second at a growth rate ENORMOUS I can’t put it together my mind’s just gone BANG! and after the BANG a wee small voice says could they be wrong?

Response from No Name (Email withheld for their privacy)
I love you man. I hope your are a man of faith. Hey, thank God for people like you.

My Reply: Hhmm, Not sure what this has to do with the big bang, unless you thought I was sayinghtat the big bang didn't exist becuase some God(s) did. However, in any case, it's always good to be liked. Thank you. Just for the record, I have tons of faith, I just don't believe in any God(s). - JR

Response from Dennis Leonard (Email withheld for their privacy)
Josh

I would like to thank you for your ideas and thoughts. My father was an astronomer I grew up with the big bang and big crunch theories and have always doubted them.

My biggest problem with the Big Bang and Big Crunch Theories are: if all the matter of the universe were it be collected by gravity in one enormous ball or whatever you want to call it! Wouldn't this ball just be a giant black hole? If you could ever determine the size? Is a black hole capable of blowing up?? As far as I know with the laws of gravity known to world of science a black hole does not blow up.

Just my 2 cents.

My Reply: The old 'big bang was a big black hole' theory, eh? Yeah, I think you are right. How else would a big crunch occur? There's a lot we don't know about black holes, I think mostly because we want to assign incredible powers to them. I've heard noted scientists describe that black holes might transport items to another location in the universe and other such ideas. Science fiction nonsense if you ask me.

Black holes are huge vacuums that suck everything in sight, that much is agreed. The problem is that nobody knows what happens next. Personally I don't think a black hole could swallow such amounts of matter and energy without giving up something. What is swallowed has to come out somehow, transformed or not. Imagine a huge Sumo wrestler eating rice everyday but never going to the bathroom. This is the same power they want to assign a black hole. I never have believed in a 'once in, you never leave' theory. It makes no sense.

Years after I started believing this, I found that they are starting to find evidence of energies -can't remember the details right now- being expelled from black holes.

To me, it's very conceivable that a large enough black hole, finally unable to hold its contents against the strain of the vacuum of space, would 'explode' -slowly or quickly- and release its contents.

However, I think a black hole would be much smaller than the contents of the whole universe when that critical mass occurred. Which brings us back to the original problem: How could the whole universe reach black hole status to begin with? I don't think it can. - JR

Read Responses

I am no longer accepting responses to my articles.