The Big Bang Hypernova Hypothesis

[stuart maclean]

Hi Everyone,

The Big Bang theory, as originally developed in 1927 by Georges Lemaitre, is the currently accepted explanation for how the universe and everything came into existence; particularly with the surprise discovery of the Microwave Background Sky by Penzias and Wilson at Bell Lab's Horn Antenna. Central to Lemaitre's original explanation was the idea of the "primordial atom". i.e. An infinitesimal small but infinite in mass and energy point from which all of creation exploded into being.

About three years ago I was hit by a very simple idea. Rather than thinking about the Big Bang as an explosion radiating in every direction coming from such a "primordial atom"; why not think about the Big Bang event as having the same physical dynamics as a massive star going hypernova; the second largest explosion in the universe. The Big Bang event being the largest explosion.

Moreover by tradition carried over from Newtonian mechanics the standing Cosmological Principle is that the universe at sufficiently large enough scales is both isotropic and homogenous. In opposition to this I believe the Cosmological Principle is in fact Fractal Geometry. Marrying the ideas of self-similar patterns at any scale with the physical dynamics gave birth to my idea. Namely, the Big Bang Hypernova Hypothesis.

In doing my homework and research into this idea I came upon the idea that the shape and dynamics of this explosion were reflected in human artwork again and again throughout the coarse of history. And so, this is how I came upon this forum and community as you were asking the same questions about the same artwork. Inspired by your movies and how effective it was in communicating and promoting your own ideas I endeavoured to make my own film in order to communicate my ideas and hypothesis.

In addition I am currently developing my own website and platform that I can keep adding to as I develop my thesis.

www.alphawhite.org

Now that I've done my film the next step is putting down the mathematics...... Maybe it is because I'm just asking the right questions but I fear that there is a huge gap in our knowledge. Or to put it bluntly "Is it possible that a third of geometry has not even be recognised or explored?"... A question that may sound arrogantly boastful, but it is not and I will endeavour to make good on what I mean by this question.

Yours faithfully,

S. MacLean

[Webbman]

hi,

you might find that many here dont put much stock in the big bang for a number of reasons including red shift being an inaccurate measurement of distance/speed. Instead many here think the universe is eternal. Black holes and neutron stars are similarly not well accepted as they require outlandish conditions. Of course this being the electric universe the prevailing thought is that the electric force and not gravity is the ultimate cause of what we see in space.

your fractal idea is interesting though and much of the things discussed here are plasma physics which can be scaled from large to small, much like fractals.

there are lots of differing opinions here though so welcome aboard.

[seasmith]

`
Welcome S. Maclean,

Have only had time for the first half of your wonderful movie, the rest must be saved for later.
It sounds like you were given a great boon, at age ten, to instill the passion crucial to all great work.
Those hapless folks you were thrown in with then were performing their given role as well, and serve you yet today as a staff with which to lift yourself above the dross, and a scapegoat upon which to blame your pain. One can occasionally hear some bitterness bleed into your voice or shade your visual images, but that is fine, even fear needs a face.

Cheers,
s

[Cargo]

A "hypernova", what sort of wonderful thing is this? Maybe it's a Higgsxplosion divide by zero.

Try to not think about a Big Bang, at all. Why do you need Big Bang?
Fractals a great, but really what can they create or explain about the wind or light or gold and silver. Unless you think a trillion blades of grass at a great distance looks like a frog is important to some reality.

[stuart maclean]

Thank you for welcoming me and I can certainly appreciate that many here will have different views regarding the Big Bang. Science after all is the intellectual and practical endeavour to understand the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

After all I do believe in the Big Bang and the existence of black holes and neutron stars. I haven’t come to this belief because it is popular one. Rather because of the continual discoveries made year upon year by astronomers who take great care and due diligence in ensuring their measurements, along with the respective error margins, are as accurate as possible.

So one of the most compelling observations that I found extremely persuasive that super-massive black holes exist at the centre of galaxies was the orbits of stars in Sagittarius-A.

And this is but one example of many observations and results that I would point to in trying to persuade someone that black holes do in fact exist. From nova to Pauli Exclusion principle I would go to each one building upon the other; making a cohesive story and explanation for why we see what we see.

Off course, in turn as a scientist keeping an open mind to considering new ideas and alternative hypothesis is extremely important. So in watching and reading the ideas put forth by this community I do feel that there is good merit to them. Off course, I disagree with the notion that electricity explains everything. But this is counter-balanced by the fact that I don’t think gravity is the be all and end all for explaining everything in cosmology. Rather my position is that they both have their respective role to play and think it is a mistake to make a simple binary choice of it being one or another.

To say that cosmologists and astrophysics only consider gravity in their models and predictions is for me false. My reference for saying this comes from Relativistic Hydrodynamics which is one of the main books describing the formulation of cosmological and astrophysical computer models. In looking at how to model an astrophysical jet electromagnetic and plasma interactions are very carefully accounted for.

Plasma physics, from the point of view of my hypothesis, plays a central and very key role. After all we are both looking at the same structures and pictures in formulating our ideas. Namely, the pairs of astrophysical or relativistic jets emerging from a central point; be it an active galaxy or a planetary nebula. In fact in my hypothesis I end up defining and calling our universe, as the jet-a-verse.

One argument I haven’t tabled yet in regards of lab results in reinforcing my idea that there is hexagonal structure to our jet-a-verse is “Spider Legs”. A plasma experiment that tries to recreate an astrophysical jet in a lab.

But as someone who has had to seriously think deeply and consider the nature of the universe from the ground up, as I am going completely against the established order, in postulating an alternative Big Bang hypothesis; I have had to seriously consider the question “Why should anyone believe or take my ideas seriously?” After all it is the duty of a scientist to try and nullify their own idea before they present it and this I have done and I guess I’ll be spending the rest of my life trying to convince people that there is real merit to my ideas.

The line that kept me straight was constantly repeating to myself that I was the idiot and reality doesn’t care what I think. So the responsibility is entirely upon my head to convince people of the validity of my hypothesis particularly in going against the grain established scientific consensus.

So ok, I can see how people can be convinced that black holes and neutron stars don’t exist and after all they are extremely outlandish. But so to our the extreme pressures and temperatures in the heart of a star going nova.

But to dismiss redshift measurements as being “an inaccurate measurement of distance/speed” is I like a red rag to a bull for astronomers. Red-shift after all this is one of the most important tools. Myself I could go on about the history of how this methodology developed from parallax measurements to using redshift. Anyone who can show that this in fact is not a reliable tool would be a very noteworthy scientist.

So why do you say that red-shift is an “an inaccurate measurement of distance/speed”? What is the reasoning? And what is the alternative? Parallax! I know astronomy and we go to great lengths to ensure the accuracy and validity of our observations.

Then again I could talk about how and why Hubble persuaded Einstein that the universe was not static and eternal. But rather, through the applied use of redshift, that when rewinding the clock back galaxies are seen to come together.

Another point, or impression, that I got from rewatching the Thunderbolt of the Gods film was that you are saying that gravity does not in actual fact curve the fabric of spacetime. Is this right? After all when Author Eddington tested Einstein’s ideas about gravity by photographing the position of stars seen before and during a full eclipse showed that light was being bent by the mass of the sun. This experiment as well as many others have added to the conviction that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is an accurate description of gravity. e.g. Gravity Probe-B and LIGO experiments.

I say these things as someone who has questioned what I have learnt at every step along the road; as well as being someone who has to make that very hard lonely walk in going against the consensus and thinking very hard about why should anyone believe me. So is it such a good idea to take such an extreme position as it being a binary choice between electricity and gravity, while dismissing the great bulk and tools of that mainstream astronomers use?

Don’t get me wrong I am very open minded and can be convinced. As for the universe being eternal. Well to that I have give great thought as I present in my own thesis in considering what lies beyond the confines of our own universe.

But if the universe is eternal and there was no Big Bang; then how do you explain the microwave radiation coming from every direction in the hemisphere?

[stuart maclean]

Cheers seasmith for the welcome.

I spent along time thinking about wither or not to put Chap 5 Wizards into my film because on reflection it was a very long time ago. But you'll need to see the rest of the film, particularly the very end as to see why it is relevant.... and why I'm posting here on this forum.

Hi Cargo, To answer your question; what is a hypernova? I explain that in the first chapter of my film.

[Roshi]

Question for Big Bang believers: can it happen again?

If "big banging" is a property of the physical Universe, some "unknown law of physics", surely it should be repeatable.

Maybe somewhere an infinitesimally small point, inside an atom, inside a grain of sand on Mars could "big bang", and create a new Universe, and we would not know what hit us. Nothing short of a miracle. But that's why science is amazing. /s

People need explanations. They don't care what explanation as long as it's coming from a "respectable source". And most of the people are not even interested, the just need this explanation as a placeholder, obtain it then forget about it. Else: they invent religion, that thing that allows them to kill those that believe something else. I guess that its' better how we have it now - the creation of the Universe with a stamp of "explained by science" on it, to pacify the masses, instead of religion.

---
And another question: How much mass does a big bang create? Can there be a smaller bang, creating only a mass equal to the mass of a beer bottle? Maybe only the mass of a planet? Or does it create an infinite amount? And if it's not infinite, then why? Yes, these are some valid questions about an accepted (and explained?) physical process, and are not suited when talking about miracles.

[Roshi]

Really, what's with the big bang "explosion"?
They say "a lot of mass was crowded in one point" and "it exploded"? How did it get there in the first place? All the mass of the Universe just appeared in one point, in one single instant? Or was it created during a short period of time?

And why did it explode? We see gravity today is able to form stars, or planets, pressure is nothing compared to gravity /sarcasm . If pressure is even considered in the model.

Such a great amount of mass would have a lot of gravity, and it would just stay as it is, or become a "black hole". How come it "blew up"?

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

Despite being extremely dense at this time—far denser than is usually required to form a black hole—the universe did not re-collapse into a black hole. This may be explained by considering that commonly-used calculations and limits for gravitational collapse are usually based upon objects of relatively constant size, such as stars, and do not apply to rapidly expanding space such as the Big Bang

So it was a mathematical big bang of "expanding space".

[jacmac]

Explaining the Big Bang:
"Give me one miracle, then I can explain everything."

Red shift equals an expanding Universe.
Halton Arp falsified that idea, so they kicked him out of the country.

Is there any electricity in space ???
Lets see.......
About 99.9% of all matter is plasma....
Plasma is a charged particle state of matter....
Magnetic fields are seen almost everywhere in space, on massive scales....
The solar wind is charged particles moving at high rates of speed....
Indeed, all that we know about space is from electromagnetic radiation spectrum data....
(oops, we do have some meteorites)
So, with all that evidence....I don't know....sounds kind of weird....
No, we've got it figured.
It is gravity.
But,
the electromagnetic force is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times
stronger than gravity !!!
Now that IS too weird.
It's gravity for sure.

[Cargo]

But if the universe is eternal and there was no Big Bang; then how do you explain the microwave radiation coming from every direction in the hemisphere?

Oh wait, did you really just go there?
Check it, there is no CMB. There is no BB. There is DM, or DE, or CDM, or CDE.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17265#p126687

[stuart maclean]

In reply to Roshi:
Really, what's with the big bang "explosion"?

The reason I put quotes around the word “explosion” is because from the point of view of mainstream cosmology the word explosion causes a lot of confusion; particularly in the framework of the primordial atom as first postulated by Georges Lemaitre in 1930.

Now I on the other hand do NOT agree with this explanation that for unknown and untestable reasons such a primordial atom exists. You’ll hear mainstream physicists say that they know the full details of what happened in the very nanoseconds after the Big Bang event. The story they tell is based on two pillars.

The first pillar is the argument that quantum mechanics is the underlying factor, as opposed to using general relativity. The second pillar comes from the thousands of particle accelerator experiments carried out by Fermilab and CERN.

Their main theoretical framework is quantum electrodynamics which is described as the most accurate scientific theory we have. It is called the most accurate because the calculated diameter of the electron’s second dipole moment, using Richard Feynman’s maths, was found to be the same measurement as carried at by experiment to 11 decimal places. This experiment has been repeated many times in many labs. Without this theory, that has been tested by thousands of experiments, we would not have be able to build modern computers or iPhones. Hence this is why the vast majority of physicists have come to accept it and use it in trying to explain the Big Bang event.

The problem with the Big Bang theory is in trying to answer questions like “What came before the Big Bang?” or “Where did the primordial atom come from?”. And that is where I MYSELF have a PROBLEM with it and don’t fully embrace it.

Thus I have postulated The Big Bang Hypernova Hypothesis. I discard the idea of a primordial atom and replace it with a huge sun-like object between 300 - 1000 million light years in diameter. Want proof of such an object then I point to both the Bootes supervoid and the Eridanus supervoid as examples.

In order to communicate my idea I made my film and website in order to communicate it to as large an audience as possible.

[stuart maclean]

Red shift equals an expanding Universe.
Halton Arp falsified that idea, so they kicked him out of the country.

Well as you know I’m new here; so I haven’t been party to all the various debates and discussions. e.g. Why you are convinced that Alfven-Klein cosmology is the right cosmological model and that redshift is in fact intrinsic. Maybe I'll become convinced, but I miss the part in Wikipedia about him being chased out of the country. Do tell the story; after all Einstein had to leave Germany, but not because of his ideas. I do see Alfven won the Nobel Prize in 1970 for his work in magnetohydrodynamics.

Oh wait, did you really just go there?
Check it, there is no CMB. There is no BB. There is DM, or DE, or CDM, or CDE.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=17265#p126687

Nor had I realised that the debate regarding CMB not existing was due to a singular experiment by Herouni not being able to measuring the microwave radiation. What about all the other experiments that have been repeated by other scientists that have measured it? Oh can't have disagreement in science and it must all be down to a coverup and conspiracy. Having worked in and with various scientific institutes I have been on the frontline of science and politics.

Don’t get me wrong, as a man who is putting forward his own alternative hypothesis and thus cosmological model I am not unsympathetic. After all, I am putting myself in the direct firing line of mainstream physics while putting my personal and hard-won reputation on the line. I have had to sit and think very hard and long about the real world consequences of my actions.

To be honest, I am expecting to receive any number of attacks from my character to who knows what. Maybe I’ll be run out of my own country. In fact, I will kind of welcome it as the more emotive the reply the more I will see that I am winning the argument. It is the quiet voice coming from the corner that asks “What about X?” that could totally nullify my hypothesis.

In fact, I would love it if someone could show me X such that I am convinced, based on the weight of evidence regarding X, that allows me to nullify my own hypothesis. After all, the first goal of any good scientist is to try and nullify their own hypothesis.

As someone who is developing my own cosmological model I am under no illusions of the impossible mountain I must climb. Its a lifetimes worth of maths homework and bang my head against a wall if I’m not arguing my case. For if I can’t quantify it then it's not worth shit as far as physics goes. So honestly I would love it to be able nullify my own hypothesis. Then I might get a decent nights sleep instead of obsessing constantly about my own hypothesis and get my life back.

But from your responses, Cargo and Jacmac, it is extremely obvious you haven’t even watched or know anything about my hypothesis. What came before the Big Bang? Can it happen again? To that I give voice and answer to in my film and work while not resorting to miracles….. except at the end of my film in regards to the Ossuary of Caiaphas. Well he did send Jesus of Nazareth to the cross. Fantastic symbology if a bit freaky.

From what I’ve seen so far in response are stories of persecution and conspiracy theories which to me are red flags. Science is not religion but you do have to be able to demonstrate your point through the scientific method and discourse.

[stuart maclean]

Rather than disagree with people here maybe we should find some common ground we can at least agree on.

Firstly, plasma physics: An astrophysical jet is plasma physics at its most extreme. In the context of my cosmological model I replace the word “universe” with the word “jet-a-verse”. At the core of my model is the idea that our universe is one of two astrophysical jets coming of a hypernova like event. Just one hell of lot larger.

My point here being that in order to develop my hypothesis I need to become expert in plasma physics and who knows maybe you’ll convince me that your ideas of an electrical universe or in fact right. I’ll always keep an open mind.

Secondly and more importantly we both look to ancient artwork, symbology, mythology and see exactly the same similarities. The same patterns repeated again and again. Though I have my own hypothesis having lived through the conscious process that makes this artwork an archetype. But you’ll have to watch my entire film in order to see my full reasoning. Or just skip to the very last chapter as that is where I make my comparison to all the major world religions.

Before I discovered your ideas about an ancient alien sky I thought I was going out of my mind all the while screaming “Has no-one else noticed this!!!!”

[jacmac]

Stuart:

Well as you know I’m new here; so I haven’t been party to all the various debates and discussions. e.g. Why you are convinced that Alfven-Klein cosmology is the right cosmological model and that redshift is in fact intrinsic. Maybe I'll become convinced, but I miss the part in Wikipedia about him being chased out of the country. Do tell the story;

Halton Arp has shown evidence that some galaxies have connecting parts with large different Red shift numbers.
one example is Markarian 205.
His evidence falsifies the expanding Universe theory based on red shift.
He, of course , was not literally "kicked out of the country".

From his book SEEING RED, page 275,
"When I was faced with a directive to renounce observations of new phenomena, I chose early retirement."

I have also read quotes in another book from an astronomer at a conference telling Arp that:
(I paraphrase) You have anomalous data to our theory, but we have a theory that explains everything, you don"t.
So we are sticking with ours.

I need to go back to my used book store and get that book on astronomy.

I have not watched your entire video, yet.
Welcome Stuart.
Jack

[Cargo]

not being able to measuring the microwave radiation.

That's an interesting way of phrasing it. Or, he wasn't able to measure it, because it's not there. Despite being in the best place and with the highest sensitivity to actually measure it, if it was there. What 'other' experiments are you referring to?