A solution to information loss paradox in black holes

[Bourne]

Space is expanding from all points so you do not end up with a center where a void would exist.
Retraceable trajectories of the universe we can see does back up the big bang model. Galaxies that are over 10 billion light years away do resemble proto-galaxies that would be forming at that time if the universe was 13 billion years old. The background radiation was predicted to show fluxuations that would resemble it once being in a compact quantum state. This was found to be true.

Mass wasn't thrown out at all. The actual fabric of space and time - spacetime - began expanding and it contained all the energy in the universe. Eventually as it had more room to spread out the energy was concentrated in certain areas, again confirming the idea that it was once in a quantum state. The model makes many predictions that have shown to be true. There are still many questions and mysteries scientists are working on about the beginning of our local universe.

The big bang theory details that space began expanding at a single point that all mass could be retraced back too. Unfortunately there is no such point and no one who put forth the theory even bothered to look. Space is also not expanding and there is no evidence that it is, what is expanding is the region in space that holds mass, this is because the mass is moving into areas that as far as we know were once massless

 

[Bourne]

Space is expanding from all points so you do not end up with a center where a void would exist.
Retraceable trajectories of the universe we can see does back up the big bang model. Galaxies that are over 10 billion light years away do resemble proto-galaxies that would be forming at that time if the universe was 13 billion years old. The background radiation was predicted to show fluxuations that would resemble it once being in a compact quantum state. This was found to be true.

Mass wasn't thrown out at all. The actual fabric of space and time - spacetime - began expanding and it contained all the energy in the universe. Eventually as it had more room to spread out the energy was concentrated in certain areas, again confirming the idea that it was once in a quantum state. The model makes many predictions that have shown to be true. There are still many questions and mysteries scientists are working on about the beginning of our local universe.

Actually the big bang theory exist because the mass of the universe is moving, so the theory most certainly does say that mass was thrown. Though since this now makes no sense many are trying to backtrack

 

[Native]

The big bang theory details that space began expanding at a single point that all mass could be retraced back too. Unfortunately there is no such point and no one who put forth the theory even bothered to look.

Agreed in this. The very BB idea is based on the assuption that the velocity of light is constant but in fact, light is refracted and slowed down by particle and gaseous matters on its way to the telescopes - thus giving a false distance measuring and an idea of an expanding Universe and it´s Big Bang speculations.

It isn´t the Universe wich is expanding but the "constant of light" which isn´t constant at all.

 

[Bourne]

Agreed in this. The very BB idea is based on the assuption that the velocity of light is constant but in fact, light is refracted and slowed down by particle and gaseous matters on its way to the telescopes - thus giving a false distance measuring and an idea of an expanding Universe and it´s Big Bang speculations.

It isn´t the Universe wich is expanding but the "constant of light" which isn´t constant at all.

The big bang is an idea to try to explain existence. I find it comical that science that puts forth a conservation of mass law then erases that to babble that something came from nothing

 

[Native]

I find it comical that science that puts forth a conservation of mass law then erases that to babble that something came from nothing

Excactly so indeed! There BB arguments goes in all directions without any consistencies with natural laws.

 

[gnostic]

Native said: ↑
I didn´t bring up Electric Universe in this thread. you did.

First: You can investigate and repeat from here the Robitaille research as much as you like. Secondly: Is everything you don´t know of just "pseudoscience"? Or are jyou just repeating the consensus scientists who also don´t like the alternative explanations of cosmos?


Are you aware of the very scientific basics which you´re believing in and arguments from?
View attachment 44059
5 % is normal matter and the rest is dark assumptions. The standing cosmological consensus is theoretically and intellectually in the dark with the rest 95 % of everything.

Dark Matter was invented when Newtons laws of celestial motions of objects was disproved in galaxies. 26 % of the cosmological theories is based on unseen dark matter and its connected hindsight bias additions!

Dark Energy was invented to "explain" an assumed and "still increasing expansion" of the Universe - without telling us where such a dark force derives from. 69 % of the cosmological theories is based on unseen dark energy and it´s connected hindsight bias additions!

All in all you - and your fellow thinkers - have in fact just 5 % real knowlegde to back you up when stating other alternative debaters to know nothing about cosmological science or to be ignorant in these matters.

The rest 95 % of your arguments is factually in the dark mode according to the standing theories themselves.

You keep ignoring the fact that I didn't bring up Dark Matter...you did.

I have only brought up the formation of matters - atoms - during the earlier stages of the universe - the Primordial Nucleosynthesis and the Recombination Epoch - hundreds of millions of years before the stars formed.

They were predicted in 1948, by a team of physicists, and was later discovered by another team, which tell us part of the Big Bang theory have been tested.

In 1920s, 3 independent physicists have each come up with similar hypotheses about the expanding universe, shortly after Hubble discovered in 1919 that the Milky Way wasn't the only galaxy in the universe. Galaxies that were wrongly identified as 18th and 19th centuries as nebulas.

Two of these physicists, Robertson (1924-25) and Lemaitre (1927), both predicted the redshift as measurements of astronomical objects moving away from each other (as well from observer's position). Hubble made the discovery in 1929 that validated their prediction, and since then astronomers and astrophysicists continue to use gravitational redshift.

There have been a number of observatories that are devoted to mapping the redshifts of stars and galaxies (redshift surveys).

That's what make the Big Bang cosmology falsifiable and testable these decades after their discoveries.

During the 1990s, yes astrophysicists and cosmologists have expanded the Big Bang theory to include Dark Energy and Dark Matters, but these don't make past contribution and past evidence obsolete, because there are active use and researches on both redshifts and CMBR.

So all you are doing is just whining about you additional additions to the Big Bang theory, while ignoring redshifts and CMBR which are still being use in current researches.

Meanwhile your pet cosmology - the Electric Universe - remained as useless assumptions and have been deemed as pseudoscience.

 

[Native]

You keep ignoring the fact that I didn't bring up Dark Matter...you did.

I brought up both "dark matter" and "dark energy" in order to underline for you how little factual knowledge you´re basing your "cosmological facts" on.

I have only brought up the formation of matters - atoms - during the earlier stages of the universe - the Primordial Nucleosynthesis and the Recombination Epoch - hundreds of millions of years before the stars formed.

This is pure BB-nonsense on the line of other dark ghost terms and fancy word descriptions in modern cosmology. If atoms weren´t made before "the earlier stages of the universe", there were no force at all to create a BB-Universe, hence it is a waste of time too to disqus all the rest of your speculative BB dogmas.

Meanwhile your pet cosmology - the Electric Universe - remained as useless assumptions and have been deemed as pseudoscience.

This is just a judgement from scientists who believe in the dogmatics on the shown above 95 % of darkness in the Universe and working with just one and the weakest fundamental force and call all the rest "pseudoscience".´

With 95 % darkness in their cosmological brains, there is very little room left for light and enlightment.

Besides this, my "pet cosmology" isn´t really "Electric Universe" but ancient Creation Myths. You know, myths which speaks of Light as the central creative powers - which you of course also denies as "fairy tales".

Well, at least you believe firmly in the BB-dogmas - which cannot be causally explained.

 

[gnostic]

You know, myths which speaks of Light as the central creative powers - which you of course also denies as "fairy tales".

This is strawman. You do like don’t you? You are making up things, I didn’t say.

I have never stated that “light” is a fairytale. You are being bloody dishonest here.

Light have dual properties as a particle called photon and wave as in electromagnetic waves.

I have never denied that electromagnetic force is one of the 4 fundamental interactions or forces in the Universe:

1. Electromagnetic interaction/force
2. Weak Nuclear interaction/force
3. Strong Nuclear interaction/force
4. Gravitational interaction/force

ALL 4 FORCES play their respective vital roles in the Big Bang cosmology. Without each of these forces, people don’t understand the Big Bang model...

...and I’d guess that means you. You are still denying the existence of the other 3 forces.

The weak/strong/EM also play fundamental roles in Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

While gravitational forces play important parts in Relativity, more specifically General Relativity.

The Quantum Field Theory are trying to unified both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as one, trying to solve and discover Quantum Gravitation or Quantum Gravity.

I have never deny the roles EM played.

What isn’t a fairytale is light. Light can be observed, detected, measured and tested, so I have no problem with electromagnetic radiations.

But what I do find to be fairytale is blind faith in ancient creation myths, which are nothing more than baseless primitive superstitions.

 

[joelr]

The big bang theory details that space began expanding at a single point that all mass could be retraced back too. Unfortunately there is no such point and no one who put forth the theory even bothered to look. Space is also not expanding and there is no evidence that it is, what is expanding is the region in space that holds mass, this is because the mass is moving into areas that as far as we know were once massless

You start out wrong. The big bang had energy. Up to 300,000 years after the BB the universe was opaque to photons so you cannot trace anything back before that. Early galaxies do confirm to what we would expect to see at this stage in the development of the universe. Proto-galaxies, active Quasars.
The end is gibberish that you might want to source so I have any idea what you are talking about and why?

 

[joelr]

Actually the big bang theory exist because the mass of the universe is moving, so the theory most certainly does say that mass was thrown. Though since this now makes no sense many are trying to backtrack

No, since spacetime could expand at light speed and if inflation is true it expanded faster than light speed mass could not be "thrown".
In the early big bang there were no atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons and probably not even quarks. The energy was far too high for any matter to form. This does not happen until the temperature lowers.
There was energy, very dense like a sun but far stronger.
The BB was the expansion of spacetime. As it expanded the energy became cooler and the laws of physics separated from a unified state into didderent laws allowing for particles to be created.

Gravity was still a force and the intense pressure of all this energy should have formed an instant black hole. All of the energy in the 94light year long universe crunched into a small volume would be the ultimate black hole. So the expansion of space must have been faster and greater than the pull of the immense gravity trying to create a black hole.
Again, if you have some concept that goes against cosmology you could source it?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You know, myths which speaks of Light as the central creative powers - which you of course also denies as "fairy tales".

I have never stated that “light” is a fairytale. You are being bloody dishonest here.

As far as I remember, you denied LIGHT in the Egyptian Story of Creation to be the creative power despite the written and logical knowledge.

I have never denied that electromagnetic force is one of the 4 fundamental interactions or forces in the Universe:

1. Electromagnetic interaction/force
2. Weak Nuclear interaction/force
3. Strong Nuclear interaction/force
4. Gravitational interaction/force

Well, then try to include this knowlegde into the ancient myths as well. (BTW : Light is not a particle but electromagnetic energy).

- You are indeed a mysterious split conundrum: Here you are stating that:

"That just me. I preferred to read things or myself. It is the same with reading literature of myths, folklores, religious scriptures, etc, (eg Iliad, odyssey, tragedies, Edda, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc) I preferred to read the available translations, and not opinions, analysis or commentaries by modern authors".

But here you´re stating that:

But what I do find to be fairytale is blind faith in ancient creation myths, which are nothing more than baseless primitive superstitions.

Why on Earth are you then studying ancient myths which to you "are nothing more than baseless primitive superstitions"???