who came up with the pulsating universe theory?
595332
Evolution of Universe\n\nThe three main theories put forward to explain the origin and evolution of the universe are:\n\n   1. The Big Bang Theory\n   2. The Steady State Theory\n   3. The Pulsating Theory\n\n1. The Big Bang Theory: Le Maitre and Gammow proposed this theory. According to this theory, at the beginning of the universe, the whole matter of the universe was once concentrated in an extremely dense and hot (~10 12K) fireball. Then about 20 billion years ago a vast explosion (big bang) occurred. The matter was broken into pieces, which were thrown out with high speed in all directions forming stars and galaxies; which are still moving way from one another. According to Hubble's law, the velocity of recession of a galaxy becomes equal to the velocity of light at a distance equal of 20 billing light years. It means, the light rays from stars and galaxies, which are situated at a distance of 20 billion light years or more, can never reach us. Thus this distance becomes the boundary of observable universe. On account of continuous recession, more and more galaxies will go beyond this boundary and the will be lost. As a result of this, the number of galaxies per unit volume will go on decreasing and ultimately a time may come when we may have empty universe.\n\n2. Steady State Theory: Bondi, Gold and Fred Hoyle developed this theory. According to this theory, the number of galaxies in the observable universe is constant and new galaxies are continuously being created out of empty space, which fill up the gaps caused by those galaxies, which have crossed the boundary of the observable universe. As a result of it, the overall size of mass of the observable universe remains constant. Thus a steady state of the universe is not disturbed at all.\n\n3. Pulsating Theory: According to this theory, the universe is supposed to be expanding and contracting alternately i.e. pulsating. At present, the universe is expanding. According to pulsating theory, it is possible that at a certain time, the expansion of the universe may be stopped by the gravitational pull and the may contract again. After it has been contracted to a certain size, explosion again occurs and the universe will start expanding. The alternate expansion and contraction of the universe give rise to pulsating universe.\n\nWe will now see the theories of planetary motion.
518055
Ever since man took an interest in the sciences, from perhaps the time of Aristotle onwards, from time to time great ideas have been put forward. Some of these have seemed initially ludicrous, and turned out to be so. Others, with a little development, have given us a great insight into the way that the world works and enabled us to move on. \nAt a given moment of time, it may appear that what we know is fairly correct and will correct timelessly. However, history has shown that this is not the case. Eventually, perhaps, we will know everything, but right now this is far from the case. \nTake one of the fundamental aspects of physics, for instance. For a long time now people have thought that the matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles; atoms and their sub-components. This is the model we learn and that everyone worked around. \nYet in recent times, this has been challenged, by what is known as string theory - and it now seems that this is a better model, perhaps the more 'correct' one. \nString theory, against the traditional theory of matter, says that matter is caused by the vibrations of a string-like structure. These are the fundamental building blocks of matter. It is a bizarre sounding radical theory at first, but now has much support. \nJust like a violin string when plucked will produce sounds, and different sounds when plucked in different ways, so it is with the universe - with string theory, the fluctuations give rise to matter. On this view, the universe may romantically be described as a symphony. The framework of the vibrating string causes the song that we see around us.
795885
The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory in cosmology, initially suggested by Georges Lemaitre. It is essentially the most widely accepted theory about the universe's origin. \n\nThe idea is that the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago (current estimate ~13.5 billion) from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. Before that point all matter was concentrated at an infinitessimal point, known as a singularity. \n\nThe idea was most strongly propounded after the astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom the famous telescope is named) found in 1929 that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance, suggesting at some point they were all at a single point. The theory also predicted the existence of a cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). and received widespread acceptance when this radiation was actually discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in the 1960s.
565730
The short answers are:\n\nNobody really knows,\n\nand,\n\nYes, it's possible the universe is collapsing.\n\nIn fact, it's amazing how little we really "know" about the universe.\n\nOf course that just encourages people to propose more theories.  After all, to get a Phd you only have to write a thesis, you don't have to prove it!  Yes, you have to "defend" it, but that's not the same as proof.\n\n"The Big-Bang", "String Theory" (proposed to prevent the Big-Bang from collapsing) and "Steady-state Universe" are all conjectures based on imagination.  So far, there is only contradictory evidence to support any of these theories. We'll have to await the next Einstein to sort it all out!\n\nBy the way, what has Hawking contributed to cosmology?  I've read his stuff, and all he does is elaborate on other's thinking.  Just like Carl Sagan.  I think both are overrated and unoriginal. \n\nWhat do you think?
596458
The short answers are:\n\nNobody really knows,\n\nand,\n\nYes, it's possible the universe is collapsing.\n\nIn fact, it's amazing how little we really "know" about the universe.\n\nOf course that just encourages people to propose more theories. After all, to get a Phd you only have to write a thesis, you don't have to prove it! Yes, you have to "defend" it, but that's not the same as proof.\n\n"The Big-Bang", "String Theory" (proposed to prevent the Big-Bang from collapsing) and "Steady-state Universe" are all conjectures based on imagination. So far, there is only contradictory evidence to support any of these theories. We'll have to await the next Einstein to sort it all out!\n\nBy the way, what has Hawking contributed to cosmology? I've read his stuff, and all he does is elaborate on other's thinking. Just like Carl Sagan. I think both are overrated and unoriginal.
928559
You will find your answer on your question in Wikipedia at http://www.wikipedia.org/ by searching for Big Bounce or oscillatory universe.\n\nAnd regarding PROTO Universe theory, you will find it at the following site: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05mar/slides/plenaryw-7.pdf \n\nI hope you will find the references helpful.
832635
Edwin Hubble was an astronomer.\nHe was one of the first to show that some "nebulae" were actually separate galaxies outside of our own.\n\nHe observed that light from distant galaxies was redshifted - indicating that they were travelling away from us at very high speeds. This was a key discovery leading to theories of an expanding universe and the theory of the big bang.\n\nHis work is the foundation for modern physical cosmology.
895275
I read in Time a few years back that in an article, scientists explained a theory that universes connect as a chain, and our Universe- is among many. The idea was quite something to read and of course the diagrams and images they used to portray this thing out was all very fascinating to say the least. It was a rational idea even to me and considering what we found with a pin tip portion of the night sky magnified 1,300 times....hundreds of thousands of Galaxy's all clustered in an array that almost seemed like you are looking at it all through a cylinder. \nSo there is no real way to know for certain, but there could be millions of them...and a chain of universes makes rational sense.
866589
The formula expanded a bit is: E (joules or kg*m²/s²) = m (kilograms) multiplied by (299,792,458 m/s)2\n\nE is Energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.  \n\nCheck out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2\n\nOff the subject, but an important reply to Fresh Prince and those of the same mind:\n\nYou seem pretty mad.  It is unfortunate that "[we] people disgust [you]."  It does not diminish Einstein’s discovery to say God created the highly balanced universe which is made up of this mathematic formula as well as all formulas - discovered and undiscovered.  Einstein was doing wonderful work in unlocking the mysteries of Creation - he was a genius among geniuses\n\nEinstein himself believed in a "god / creator" - not the God of the Bible, but a Creator nonetheless.  He was not closed - he acknowledged that the universe is so finely balanced on finite mathematical principals, there is a higher intelligence governing things that we cannot comprehend.  He spent his life exploring the wonder of what has been created and set before mankind.  Please cast aside your disgust.  No one is taking credit away from Einstein - or you.  \n\nRegarding religion, Einstein said: "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."\n\nWhen asked: "[Do] You accept the historical Jesus?" \n\nHe replied: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."\n\nNo, Einstein did not believe in God as Christians believe.  But he recognized the order of the universe as a signpost to a higher being.  The point is, there is no cause to be "disgusted" by ideas outside your paradigm.  I am not disgusted with you.\n\nTake a hint from Einstein - the consummate scientist who believed in a Creator: "...science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  I will not be blind, so please do not be the former.  Take a look from another perspective; you may learn something of value.\n\nRemember, you may be angry with God, deny God, ignore God, and not care to inquire with an open mind, but God loves you anyway.\n\nHave a blessed day, my friend (that is a positive statement, please take it as such).
522108
Sir Isaac Newton, held the theory that light was made up of tiny particles. In 1678, Dutch physicist, Christiaan Huygens, believed that light was made up of waves vibrating up and down perpendicular to the direction of  the light travels, and therefore formulated a way of visualising wave propagation. This became known as 'Huygens' Principle'.  Huygens theory was the successful theory of light  wave motion in three dimensions. Huygen, suggested that light wave peaks form surfaces like the layers of an onion. In a vacuum, or other uniform mediums, the light waves are spherical, and these wave surfaces advance or spread out as they travel at the speed of light. This theory explains why light shining through a pin hole or slit will spread out rather than going in a straight line (see diffraction). Newton's theory came first, but the theory of Huygens, better described early experiments. Huygens' principle lets you predict where a given wavefront will be in the future, if you have the knowledge of where the given wavefront is in the present.
328729
Well, if you want to break it down even more, the universe only consists of minscule, vibrating strings.  At least, that's the most widely accepted theory in fundamental physics right now.\n\nThe beauty of it all is how much complexity can arise from such simple fundamentals.
793848
This is serious:\n\n1. It's up to him to prove it is shrinking, not up to you to prove it isn't.  He, after all, is the one who supports the hypothesis he read on the internet.  Just say "Prove it".  \n\n2. You gave the source of his information as "the internet".  That's too vague.  Where on the interent?  What web site?  What "expert(s)" in what fields(s)?  What proof did the internet article(s) present in support of the hypothesis?  How can anyone support or deny those proofs if we don't know what they are?\n\n2. What is meant by "getting smaller"?  As you can see from the other responses, different people have different ideas about which quantity is decreasing.  One person, who understands nothing about Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, thought the mass was "getting smaller".  Another thought you meant the size, as in the diameter and/or volume.  Another seemed to think the entire universe is involved in the shrinkage.\n\nThe problem here is not so much your friend's outlandish claim as your inability to ask a critical question.
738370
The oscillatory universe hypothesis actually originated in the 1930s.  It was pretty popular back in the 60s and 70s, especially among Russian astrophysicists, and Carl Sagan promoted the idea.  However, it doesn't currently have a lot of support among cosmologists due to several problems.\n\n(1) If it were to collapse, the Universe would contract into a singularity (think: black hole) and there is no known way to get a singularity to expand again. So if the Universe collapsed, current understanding says it would stay collapsed and there wouldn't be a second Big Bang, let alone a long series of them.\n\n(2) Recent observations indicate that there is not enough mass-energy in the universe to pull everything back together again. All of the data that we currently have indicate that the Universe will not contract, it has only a fraction of the mass needed to do so.  In fact, observations indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating!\n\n(3) Finally, even if the universe could contract and then subsequently expand again, entropy would carry over from cycle to cycle. Thus, the entropy of the universe would continue to increase, it would not be reset with each new iteration. So the universe would eventually suffer heat death, proving that there cannot have been an infinite number of cycles in the past, meaning that the universe still had a beginning at some point.  \n\nIn the past few years, the similarly-named Cyclic model has been proposed by some scientists working with string theory. I can't claim to understand it, but it appears to solve some of the above problems. Unfortunately, this theory's explanatory ability comes at the expense of introducing other difficulties which would then need to be addressed.  Additionally, string theory itself, despite the hype, is very far from becoming established fact; it still has no good empirical evidence in its favor. \n\nI don't suspect these sorts of cosmological issues will be resolved until physics has some type of unified theory of everything, whether that be a proven variety of string theory or something else entirely.   I'll bet that you're as eager as I am for scientists to reach some firm conclusions on these issues.\n\nSee the attached two articles for further details.
1090100
This can be answered very, very simply.\n\nRelativity works well in  in it's area of expertise, astronomy and space science.  Basically, the scientists took the answers (how the planets revolve around the Sun, the Mass of the planets and stars, how the stars and galaxies move) and created an elegant series of equations to explain them all.  They believed their equations to be correct because this is what they were observing, so it must be true right?\n\nWell no, as we built better telescopes we began witnessing objects and entire galaxies moving far too fast for their observed mass, defying the equations and defying gravity!  It wasn't light pressure robbing these celestial objects of a few arc seconds, which is what sprung Einstein to whop up Relativity.  Venus was so much of a mystery, but Einstein cracked it, right?\n\nWRONG!  If the atom doesn't fit, you must aquit!  Electromagnetic forces have been known to cause these very same effects we witness the galaxies doing.  If the astronomers can't explain something they see, they blame it on magnetics.  Double-helix galaxies, just like our DNA, are floating around out there.  That should tell you where you should start looking to explain the molecular and Universal connection.\n\nVenus' orbit is nearly a perfect circle, and it spins the other direction very slowly.  It used to be called the hairy planet, the smoky planet, and bearded planet.  It's latin name means morning star.  It was literally glowing!  I'm sure some electromagnetic stuff was going on with it, and that would help explain it's brand spanking new surface.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuzSsKSIJO_WapqWQB7tQcPsy6IX?qid=20060612222952AAFdmeo\n\nMars got blown the hell up.  That's a start on finding out about it right there, google should take you the rest of the way.  Hope this helped you understand why those two theories will never be united.  One of them, relativity, was based on a few wrong assumptions.
205397
It is the theory that this universe was cause by a large explosion from which hydrogen atoms where release forming different elements and what not. I have no idea, but I don't know how they came up with such theory. I believe it's plausible, but I doubt it's accurate.
130164
A wacko theory of Fred Hoyles.\n\nHoyle, who is currently dead, was a very good astrophysics guy. He did a lot of work on stellar structure. He also had a theory about the origin of the universe called the Steady State theory which was a scientific rival of the Big Bang. Eventually a lot of evidence came in supporting the Big Bang, but Hoyle could never shake his belief in Steady State.\n\nThe same thing happened with evolution. He didn't think it was true - not for religious reasons - but he simply didn't believe the evidence. Towards the end of his life he was really losing it, and was very much along on science issues. He even thought the Archaeopteryx\n(http://images.google.com/images?q=archaeopteryx&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ii&oi=imagest)\nwas a fraud, based on absolutely no real evidence.\n\nHe thought that life originated in space, and that complex compounds in space would rain down on planets and seed them with life. There is a serious discussion as to whether or not that helped or caused the origin of life on Earth. Right now that is a minority opinion (I don't agree with it), but not a wacky one.\n\nHoyle though went further. He thought that the fossil record, which to others shows clear and solid evidence of evolution, really recorded changes that occured after "space storms" that lead to massive amounts of space chemicals falling down and mutating existing animals. He even though that human noses point down because that way we are less likely to inhale space born chemicals!\n\nHe got attention for this idea, which is nuts and based on a complete lack of understanding of genetics, among many other things, because of his excellent scientific work earlier in his career.\n\nHe was a nut, but in more ways it was sort of a tragic case. Parallelling Einstein in some respects (Einstein didn't have such wacked out ideas) but both were stuck at dead ends at the end of scientific careers that started out very well.\n\n\nOh, in terms of looking on the internet you need to be careful. Panspermia is one of those ideas which is very popular with scientific cranks. So make sure you have a real science source before taking it seriously.
466312
In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang.