What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[Lockjaw]

 

EDIT: What if new star systems are continually being created towards the outer edges of galaxies, that way galaxies wouldn't lose any mass, and from our positioning within the galaxy, as we travel through space towards the centre of it, space would be being stretched by the by the black hole at the centre, making everything in all direction more distant from us.

 

OK .... Since I'm around, and the teacher within me can't seem to go to sleep for the summer, I'll have another go.

 

To clarify:

 

You seem to be suggesting that, if the galaxy is being "sucked" into the black hole, it will be losing mass ... am I correct?

 

Except, if new star systems are being "created" on the edge of galaxies then the mass will increase, thus negating the mass loss due to the black hole ... am I correct?

 

If I'm correct on either or both of the above then your next step is to read up (or ask on here) on the nature of black holes and the formation of stars.

[Lockjaw]

What if new star systems are continually being created towards the outer edges of galaxies?, that way galaxies wouldn't lose any mass, and from our positioning within the galaxy, as we travel though space towards the centre of it, space would be being stretched by the black hole in the centre, making everything in all directions become more distant from us.

 

Again, here the scales of distance are all awry. The change in distance between us here and us closer to the centre of the galaxy is small when compared to the distance between galaxies plus the speed would be too slow (relatively) speaking to produce the red shift ... as noted by HN a few posts ago.

 

Also, as has also been said previously (and acknowledged by you), this would not make things in all directions more distant.

 

Also, as I hinted in the post before this, these new star systems you refer to need (unless you are implying a continual series of mini big bangs) to be made from something. Where's that something coming from?

[splodgeyAl]

I don't think they are different, but some people do.. you might even know them.. you know how to use the search button don't you.

 

Hands up for being another allegedly sad forum user then. You have shown a misunderstanding of the everyday use of the word theory and the scientific use, and I sadly bothered to use a search facility (google in case you want something else to snigger about) to find a dictionary entry that had six definitions (oh, my sad memory), half of which talk about everyday usage and the other half about more rigorous definitions. The difference between the two is obvious. I did that for the sad reason of trying to help better your understanding. You seem to have chosen not to take that opportunity.

 

With my sad old memory coming into play again, you also asked "why am I trolling?". If it's not too much trouble look uo the definition of internet troll, and you will see that that behaviour fits the definition nicely

[Cyclone]

Could anyone tell me whether this could be the case, or if not the case... why not!

 

would red shift still be detectable if galaxies were devouring themselves from the centre outwards?.. By this I mean, 'from our perspective',would the velocity created from being pulled into the centre of the galaxy still produce red shift?. Because that would provide one explanation as to why space between galaxies is increasing/expanding.

 

I answered this about 8 pages ago.

No, being swallowed by a black hole would not cause a red shift.

[Cyclone]

Bear in mind that a galaxies are continually producing new stars, so this process could continue for billions of years, and also, the gravitational force(black hole perhaps) which has a greater affect on mass closer to the centre which is being pulled towards the centre.

 

Some galaxies are being eaten by super massive black holes, it doesn't cause a red shift, but it is observable.

At the same time they are still moving away from us.

 

There are larger structures than galaxies, at greater distances we can see that these are moving away from us faster than more local objects, this ties in with expansion, or a change in the rate of time as the universe ages.

[Cyclone]

But we're moving in the same direction at the same velocity, we're not motionless.

 

Yes, I can see how that would present a problem with it.

 

We know what direction we are moving in with regards to the centre of our galaxy, and it's around in a rather large orbit, along with the rest of the spiral arm to which we belong.

[Cyclone]

What if new star systems are continually being created towards the outer edges of galaxies?, that way galaxies wouldn't lose any mass, and from our positioning within the galaxy, as we travel though space towards the centre of it, space would be being stretched by the black hole in the centre, making everything in all directions become more distant from us.

 

You're now having mass appear out of nothing? Sheesh.

 

New stars are born from gas already present, not out of vacuum.

 

Your hypothesis doesn't explain any of the observed facts and creates many easily discounted predictions. The fact is that there is a large black hole at the centre of our galaxy, but it cannot account for any observed red shift with respect to other galaxies, and other galaxy groups.

[danot]

Again, here the scales of distance are all awry. The change in distance between us here and us closer to the centre of the galaxy is small when compared to the distance between galaxies plus the speed would be too slow (relatively) speaking to produce the red shift ... as noted by HN a few posts ago.

 

Also, as has also been said previously (and acknowledged by you), this would not make things in all directions more distant.

 

Also, as I hinted in the post before this, these new star systems you refer to need (unless you are implying a continual series of mini big bangs) to be made from something. Where's that something coming from?

First things first. Have you had a think about the question I asked following your snipe Jack?..

[danot]

Hands up for being another allegedly sad forum user then. You have shown a misunderstanding of the everyday use of the word theory and the scientific use, and I sadly bothered to use a search facility (google in case you want something else to snigger about) to find a dictionary entry that had six definitions (oh, my sad memory), half of which talk about everyday usage and the other half about more rigorous definitions. The difference between the two is obvious. I did that for the sad reason of trying to help better your understanding. You seem to have chosen not to take that opportunity.

My understanding of the definition/s of a theory isn't really the issue here, simply because I do not believe there are two different definitions of theory; I believe there's only one. Granted, there are different things which we associate to theories, but that does not, can not alter what a theory actually is.

 

Posted by slodgeyAl

With my sad old memory coming into play again, you also asked "why am I trolling?". If it's not too much trouble look uo the definition of internet troll, and you will see that that behaviour fits the definition nicely

Does the definition;"internet troll" also apply when I (as well as other posters who shall remain nameless) criticize religious conjecture?, or does it only apply to me and my criticism of scientific conjecture?

[danot]

You're now having mass appear out of nothing? Sheesh.

 

New stars are born from gas already present, not out of vacuum.

 

Your hypothesis doesn't explain any of the observed facts and creates many easily discounted predictions. The fact is that there is a large black hole at the centre of our galaxy, but it cannot account for any observed red shift with respect to other galaxies, and other galaxy groups.

Mass can appear out of nothing... Remember?, *joke*.

 

I was under the impression that stars formed in nebulae!.