Could the famed “Big Bang” theory need a revision? A group of theoretical physicists suppose the birth of the universe could have happened after a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole and ejected debris. http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2013...new-theory-on-universes-creation-2466110.html
Would this theory provide a better explanation for the cosmic microwave background, or the irregularities therein?
“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” stated Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist with the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada who co-authored the new study. Really. I'm growing increasingly distressed by the number of scientists who are willing to perform "studies" instead of "experiments" just because studies make it so much easier to produce newsworthy results.
Perimeter Institute...that's Neil Turok's bunch...cool name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_Institute The deal with a four-D star is interesting. The Space 1999 fans need to pay attention. In the episode BREAKAWAY we see a huge nuclear explosion knock the Moon out of its orbit. Now that's not possible. Any nuclear blast large enough to do that would shatter the moon, and you'd have to mine degenerate star matter to find enough fissile material to do that anyway. The blast we saw on screen was really about the size of some modest asteroid hits the moon shrugs off--its orbit not being changed much if at all. Worse, in "Breakaway," we see the Moon actually speeding up. Nonsense I said to myself---and then I learn that--for real--the whole universe is actually speeding up. So couple that with this new find, and I may have an answer. In Space 1999 we see a gravity intensification field, to alow folks on the base to walk without bouncing. Now, if it turns out one of those nukes was special, then it would not just be the raw force of the blast, but some type of entanglement--an interaction takes place. Some of the blast is shunted away from the moon 4D style. Gravity is thought to bleed across the universe, that is why we can't seem to join it with other forces, as we did the electroweak. What the hyper black hole theory suggests is that concentration is what is needed, since the star is not as massive as the universe it spawns, it merely opened up a tidal wave of enough zero point to turn into matter via a big bang. So we will say a smaller, shallow version of this happened on Moonbase Alpha, and the entanglement allowed the Moon only to feel the same force that forces out Galaxies apart more personally--and the next thing you know, the moon is blasted from orbit with a nuke too small to normally have had an effect. I know, it's getting thick.
Will this explain how the moon was able to travel at FTL speeds and then slow down as it approached planets? And will it explain the bell-bottom uniforms?
Hey, you have to work with the material! I even tried to like Jaws Revenge. I know, I know, but I appreciated what they were trying to do in terms of themes.
And where did that star come from? It's not a theory to the origin of the universe, it just shifts the problem to another level. Like the theories about the origin of life. Some people don't think it originated on Earth, so they theorized that comets could have brought life to Earth. But that's not an answer. How did the life in the comets originate in the first place? Like religion. Some people don't believe that the universe came out of nowhere. So there must be an all powerful creator for created the universes. But how did the creator come into existence? Right, he came out of nowhere. And that suddenly people accept.
It does push back the question of how it all started, but if that is in fact what happened one can't blame the people who theorized it. It is the same as the idea that life on Earth may have originated on comets or on Mars. Proposing that idea does not explain how life began, but if it turns out life really did originate on comets or on Mars, one can't blame those who first suggested it.