The big bang theory

i read that the universe will never come to a complete end. instead the finite mass of the universe if ever were to become to great and the universe were to collapse like some theroy's state they would gather to form a pre-universe again and explode just like the big bang theroy. it would be a never ending cycle the big bounce theory.

If my info is incorrect or any add ons or anything you'd like to share about this please comtact me.

 I personally like this big bounce theory but current data suggest that there is not nearly enough mass for gravity to halt the expansion and collapse the universe.  I still like the idea though and there may still be some surprises for us.

Hey Zug, it was cool to hear that you gave talks at the elementary school.  I was delighted to talk to my daughter's 5th grade class about Astronomy this year, and they've already asked me to come back.  Anytime we can get young people interested in the sky is time well-spent...

 Anyways, about the Big Bang:  I've always had trouble with the idea of expansion, most specifically the concept of "center" as it applies to the universe.  Where exactly is the center of expansion?

If you ask most Astronomers that are well-versed in Cosmology, they will tell you that every point is receding from every other point, and that every point can lay claim to being the "center" of the expansion, at least, as far as the observer is concerned.  Because of this, the concept of expansion becomes more of an abstract, mechanical construction, rather than one that can be visualized as a bubble or an actual 3-dimensional object.

It's always helped me to suspend my belief (and yes, belief is just as much a part of science as it is spiritual matters) in a concrete, holdable universe, and instead concentrate on the observable data.  The fact of the matter is that while BB has its flaws and is by no means perfect, much of the observable data fits in very well with established principles, and much of the new observations back-up rather than contradict what has been seen before.  There will always be exceptions to the rules, of course (ala Arp), but over time, these anomalies will most likely be explained as special situations rather than theory-breakers (as for example, how faster-than-light ejections have already been explained).

Anyways, that's my take on the Big Bang.  Gravity, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, FTL jets, and Redshift Weirdos notwithstanding.

Reading back through the posts, I was focusing on how much we (and people in general) like to throw the word "infinity" around.  But few people really understand infinity, even those of us who are mathematically literate.

Whenever you think of the word infinity, ask yourself, "Would it be more accurate to just say, 'a really long period' of time?"  Because if something is truly infinite, then that implies that you could keep tacking-on pieces of measurement without ever reaching the end, and even when you had finally decided you had reached a number that was big enough, it still wouldn't be big enough to fill infinity.

Not only that, but infinity has the Identity Property for both addition and multiplication, so anything added to it equals infinity and anything multiplied by it also equals infinity.

What does this have to do with anything?  Well, when the Planck satellite becomes fully operational later this year, we're hoping that we will finally be able to image the Cosmic Background Radiation well enough to answer what kind of topology the universe actually has.  It may well turn out that the universe is indeed "infinite".  And that would have astounding implications in Cosmology, because we would unequivocally be able to say that, for example, one does not return to their starting point when heading in a specific direction in space, among other concepts as well.

Info on Planck:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Planck/SEMMR20YUFF_0.html

Everything in nature is cyclic. (Leave it to a musician to find rhythm in nature) I believe the universe is expanding, and will eventually contract again to a singularity, and repeat for eternity. If this is true, it may "cleanse" the universe of all life forms before they evolve to be too powerful.

Zug,

Rotating bodies are both redshifted and blueshifted.  The shifting is less than the redshift for galaxies but it is measurable. 

The redshift/blueshift quality of rotating stars seems to clinch that redshift is doppler in nature.  How could one limb of a star be intrinsically shifted red while the opposite limb of the same star is blue shifted?  Is one side of the star a different age than the other side?

I asked before what Arp had to say on the matter but no one has replied.

Oh here is one from 5 years ago.  How does one clean this mess up ?