The Big-Bang Theory is flawed.
Jaime Vargas
the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
concentrated came from. In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
'creation' of the Universe at points way before the Big-Bang.
Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
Glenn
Are you aware that Einstein once sharted after thinking too much?
Prof Weird
> All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
> the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
> acceptabe.
There was no matter back then - the temperatures were too high for
quarks to form protons.
Once the universe expanded a bit and temperatures dropped, matter (and
anti-matter) could exist stably.
>What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
> such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
> appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
> origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
> concentrated came from.
There were no particles of matter then - just energy. Once the
Universe expanded and cooled a bit, energy could 'condense' into
matter and antimatter.
From 'Our Cosmic Origins : From the Big Bang to the Emergence of Life
and Intelligence' :
'But where did all this energy come from, with its ability to create
the enormous bulk of matter and radiation that we see in the stars and
the galaxies ? It was drawn from the gravitational field created by
the appearance of matter. Every gravitational field is in effect a
field of potential energy (that is, of negative energy) that
compensates exactly for the positive energy mc^2 of the mass m that
created it (c being the symbol for the speed of light). The total
energy of the Universe has thus always remained nil.
However, if the energy of the Universe has always been nil, where
could the energy of the initial bubble come from, tiny as it was ? As
a matter of fact, conservation of energy is only true on average. The
Heisenbergy uncertainty principle, which physicists have proved
accurate in all possible conditions so far measured, guarantees that
there can be energy fluctuations, in particular in empty space.
How can pure energy make matter ? It is an experiment that physicists
can easily make in large particle accelerators. With enough energy, a
pair of particles of matter and antimatter is created, such as a quark-
antiquark pair. The energy of the Big Bang was in the form of gamma
rays; while cooling down towards 10^13 Kelvin, these gamma rays
continued to make more matter-antimatter particles than matter-
antimatter collisions made gamma rays. Hence, during inflation, the
amount of matter and antimatter never stopped growing.'
> In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
> to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
> not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
> 'creation' of the Universe �at points way before the Big-Bang.
How, EXACTLY, did you 'determine' that this happened on more than one
occassion ?
'Time before the Big Bang' makes as much sense as 'North of the North
Pole'
> Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
> theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
Ah yes - epistemological nihilism (since we don't know EVERYTHING
about event X, we know NOTHING about it, so ALL ideas about it are
equally valid !!1!1)
Examination of reality, astrophysics and quantum mechanics explains
development of most everything up to about the first Planck second.
What do you 'think' the Big Bang theory was derived from -
interpretations of ancient texts ? Wishes and dreams ? Alcoholic
burps from over-indulging physicists ?
Your 'alternative explanation' of what initiated the Big Bang is what
again ?
The Starmaker
> Your 'alternative explanation' of what initiated the Big Bang is what
> again ?
"initiated"? You want to know, 'what caused the big bang'?
I don't have an 'alternative explanation', ...I just have the only explanation.
The Future
caused the big bang.
It, 'popped' into existence
caused by the Future.
The Future...observed
the past...and
.-. .-.
* \_/ *
(")
|>;<|
I
__I____
,-/==I===/-,
/_;___"__;_/
/______/||
| ||
|______|/
The Starmaker
bpuharic
<jaime.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
>All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
>the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
>acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
>such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
>appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
>origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
>concentrated came from.
why? don't you think that's what RESEARCH is for? ever hear of the
term? your argument would preclude any science at all until ALL the
answers are known.
>
>Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
>theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
no moreso than knowing about germs does not require that we know how
life got started
sheesh! try to think a bit, OK?
odin
Yes, the Big-Bang Theory is flawed, and that is its main feature. The
flaw is called "Symmetry breaking". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking
-lord fnord
Mike Dworetsky
I can't see what you mean by this word salad. None of the terms are defined
clearly, nor is cause and effect explained logically. Now if you could put
it into mathematical terms, the way physicists and astronomers do, perhaps
we could really understand it. But you won't.
(Madman would deal with it with some expletives, a demand that we "Do the
maths", then when challenged he would come up with two factoids and say,
"1+1=2". I think this calls for more sophistication than that, however.)
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
jillery
One of the interesting historical ironies is that for hundreds of
years scientists assumed that the Universe had no beginning, at least
in part because considering a Universal creation smacked of religious
dogma. So strong was this assumption that when Relativity showed a
static universe was unstable, Einstein added his cosmological
constant. Even into the 1960's, Fred Hoyle argued persuasively for a
steady-state Universe.
With a fudged-in inflationary phase, and the assumed effects of dark
matter and dark energy, the current version of the Big Bang suffers
from appearing cobbled together just-so. It's likely the current
model of cosmic evolution will undergo another paradigm shift in the
near future.
Stuart
> On Jan 19, 11:22 pm, Jaime Vargas <jaime.vargas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
> > the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
> > acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
> > such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
> > appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
> > origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
> > concentrated came from. In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
> > to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
> > not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
> > 'creation' of the Universe at points way before the Big-Bang.
>
> > Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
> > theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
>
> One of the interesting historical ironies is that for hundreds of
> years scientists assumed that the Universe had no beginning, at least
> in part because considering a Universal creation smacked of religious
> dogma. So strong was this assumption that when Relativity showed a
> static universe was unstable, Einstein added his cosmological
> constant.
Heck even in the case of Newtonian Gravity a Universe is unstable.
Stuart
Stuart
The mechanism for the expansion will come into focus. But unless
something trips up the three principle obs leading to BBT
1. Hubble's Law
2. He/H, D/H ratios
3. CMBR
Don't count on BBT disappearing.
Stuart
All-seeing-I
It is hysterical when you guys try to sound all sciencey and brainy
5
0-----|--------10
You get a 5 on my clown meter.
John Wilkins
<ba6a8c46-bee6-4c0f...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not quite: Lagrange and Laplace both showed that the universe could be
stable without Newton's angelic interventions. As Laplace said, "Je
n'avais pas besoin de cette hypoth�se-l�".
jillery
>
> - Show quoted text -
Heck no. I expect it to get better. Paraphrasing David Deutsch, I
expect it to become hard to vary.
jillery
>
> - Show quoted text -
Apparently you are the self-appointed expert on clowns around here.
RAM
It is a truism that you will never suffer this syndrome.
It appears the good Lord gave you a massive ass and a small brain.
Thus you get a 10.
Steven L.
news:26429029-7c8a-4f87...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 19, 11:22 pm, Jaime Vargas <jaime.vargas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
> > to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
> > not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
> > 'creation' of the Universe at points way before the Big-Bang.
>
> How, EXACTLY, did you 'determine' that this happened on more than one
> occassion ?
Multiverse theory is a respectable theory. That such quantum
fluctuations resulted in the birth of multiple universes, one of which
we are living in now. (Not all universes may have been "successful" in
that not all may have resulted in the creation of vast amounts of stable
matter.) That's more plausible than claiming that EXACTLY ONE quantum
fluctuation resulted in EXACTLY ONE universe. Why should it have
happened only once?
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
All-seeing-I
You do not understand because your mind is dense. Your perception is
narrow.
You guys have been conditioned to believe that science is the only way
to explain any observed phenomenon. So any explanations that do not
conform to a specific terminology does not register in your brains,
Which is sad.
I formulated an hypothesis on this.
Frankly I believe it is a brain chemistry unbalance that disassociates
you guys from understanding even the simplest of things. I read a post
a while back. The author took 20 sentences to explain his point and
overcomplicated what could have been said in three.
You have educated yourselves in the opposite direction toward
stupidity.
Instead of asking what he meant, you ridicule what you do not
understand due to your own self imposed limitations. Therefore you
will remain dense.
>
> (Madman would deal with it with some expletives, a demand that we "Do the
> maths", then when challenged he would come up with two factoids and say,
> "1+1=2". �I think this calls for more sophistication than that, however.)
Where did the atoms and energy come from that careated the universe?
Until science can say where the energy came from that formed the
universe then the big bang theory is just a wild and exotic guess.
Which is fine. We can have our wild and exotic ideas of how we thought
the universe got here. But the problem is the general public believes
the big bang actually happened.
Which is proof positive that if one repeats a lie often enough it will
become as if it were truth.
jillery
<snip>
> Until science can say where the energy came from that formed the
> universe then the big bang theory is just a wild and exotic guess.
The Universe exists. The discussion is on how. So where do you say
the energy came from?
Ernest Major
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
universe might be stable if its component galaxies had enough angular
momentum about its centre of mass. The question then arises as to how
much transverse velocity is needed.
A globular cluster would be a smaller scale model. But galactic
collisions tend to be less elastic that stellar collisions. (Collision
here means a close pass.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Boikat
> All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
Full stop. Sorry, if that is your idea of what the "pre-big bang"
universe consisted of, you need go not further, since your concept of
the "pre-big bang" is wrong.
<snip>
But thanks for playing.
Boikat
John Wilkins
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
By the time we knew about galaxies, Newtonian physics was long dead.
Elmer
(snip)
> You guys have been conditioned to believe that science is the only way
> to explain any observed phenomenon.
I suppose one could explain gravity as angels pulling us toward a mass.
Seems unlikely. Or it could really be all those invisible elastic pigs
doing it.
> Where did the atoms and energy come from that careated the universe?
Atoms created the universe?? Hmmm.
Kalkidas
4c76-bd25-5...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Of course the Big Bang "theory" is flawed, to say the least. It's not
even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory.
Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, they cannot
both be true in their present formulations. Therefore, the Big Bang
"theory" rests on a contradiction, since it rests on both QM and GR.
Yet most "scientists" are fully believing in it, thinking that sometime
"in the future", the incompatibilities will be ironed out. It's a post-
dated check.
More evidence that scientism is a religious faith.
TomS
<7e676cf1-3b0e-4c2f...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, jillery
stated..."
Creationists are not in the business of answering questions.
Just ask them to describe what their alternative is.
When does/did/will intelligent design happen?
BTW, I understand that Dembski has now opened up a whole new
range of possibilities about "when", with his idea that the
present can cause the past. So maybe the "intelligent design"
took place millions or billions of years after the results. Maybe
the "intelligent design" hasn't yet happened. Who knows, maybe
"intelligent design" only takes place in a possible future?
With "intelligent design" *anything* is possible.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
TomS
<210120100036027041%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
We knew about the existence of galaxies in the 18th century. Many
people suspected that galaxies were "island universes" even back
then. From Wikipedia "Galaxy" under the heading "Distinction from
other nebulae":
"In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his _An original theory or new hypothesis
of the Universe_, speculated (correctly) that Milky Way was a flattened
disk of stars, and that some of the nebulae visible in the night sky
might be separate Milky Ways.[23][32] In 1755 Immanuel Kant introduced
the term "island universe" for these distant nebulae."
Stuart
> In article <PAm3bACrFxVLF...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major
>
>
>
> <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In message <200120102343277751%j...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins
> > <j...@wilkins.id.au> writes
> > >In article
> > ><ba6a8c46-bee6-4c0f-b480-c6a8ed012...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
No, but Newton and others did consider the possibility that the
Universe was vastly
large and found that the mutual attraction between the stars would
cause them
to bunch together. Newton showed that for an infinite Universe in
which stars were uniformly
spaced, it could be static. But then he quickly realized this
situation was inherently
unstable.
George Smoot gives a good discussion in his book Wrinkle In Time.
Stuart
Stuart
> Jaime Vargas <jaime.vargas...@gmail.com> wrote in news:446f2001-071a-
> 4c76-bd25-5dd2faef9...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
> > the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
> > acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
> > such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
> > appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
> > origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
> > concentrated came from. In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
> > to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
> > not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
> > 'creation' of the Universe at points way before the Big-Bang.
>
> > Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
> > theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
>
> Of course the Big Bang "theory" is flawed, to say the least. It's not
> even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory.
Its actually a well tested theory that has satisfied a number of
predictions.
>
> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, they cannot
> both be true in their present formulations. Therefore, the Big Bang
> "theory" rests on a contradiction, since it rests on both QM and GR.
It rests on QM when the Universe was emerging from the BB singularity.
Aside from the first few minutes after BB, BBT rests on GR. What
happened
during the first few moments when the Universe switched from being
governed
primarily by quantum forces to being governed by General Relativity
is an interesting question. But that doesn't mean the BBT rests on a
contradiction.
Thats like saying the Empire State building's existence is a
contradiction because
it was designed based on Newtonian principles, even though Newtonian
Mechanics is *wrong*.
>
> Yet most "scientists" are fully believing in it, thinking that sometime
> "in the future", the incompatibilities will be ironed out. It's a post-
> dated check.
Once again your argument boils down to "Since we do not know
everything
we must therefore know nothing."
You are a serial idiot.
Stuart
Kermit
True. My perception is confined to reality. I can imagine much, but I
am aware of the difference. I am acutely aware that my wishes are not
reality.
> You guys have been conditioned to believe that science is the only way
> to explain any observed phenomenon.
Yes, it is. There are an infinite number of conceivable, untestable,
and useless pseudo-explanations for the world at large and particular
processes. All of them are equally useless and vapid.
> So any explanations that do not
> conform to a specific terminology does not register in your brains,
No. Explanations which do not work, which are not testable, which are
fantasies only, are not taken seriously. In my experience,
Creationists are generally void of imagination. You are an exception,
but without a foot on the ground, you merely spin off (or cut and
paste) useless and boring comic book scenarios. Even science fiction
requires (with other things) good science in order to be entertaining.
> Which is sad.
It is sad that presumed adults take pride in ignorance.
>
> I formulated an hypothesis on this.
No, you didn't. You speculated, and rejected immediately any notion
that made you feel uncomfortable. You made shit up, and that's not an
hypothesis. An hypothesis fits all the observable data, and is
testable in principle.
>
> Frankly I believe it is a brain chemistry unbalance that disassociates
> you guys from understanding even the simplest of things. I read a post
> a while back. The author took 20 sentences to explain his point and
> overcomplicated what could have been said in three.
Bwahahahahahahaha!
Here's my instructions on maintaining a computer network:
1. Go to the right machine.
2. Look at stuff.
3. Push the right buttons in the right order.
4. When necessary, replace it.
That's four sentences. Is that simple enough for you?
>
> You have educated yourselves in the opposite direction toward
> stupidity.
Hubble Space Telescope. The internet. Flu vaccines. Smallpox.
>
> Instead of asking what he meant, you ridicule what you do not
> understand due to your own self imposed limitations.
No, we ridicule arrogant idiots who deny their own fallibility,
disdain knowledge and real scholasticism, and take pride in their
ignorance. Personally, I find it appalling.
> Therefore you will remain dense.
>
>
>
> > (Madman would deal with it with some expletives, a demand that we "Do the
> > maths", then when challenged he would come up with two factoids and say,
> > "1+1=2". I think this calls for more sophistication than that, however.)
>
> Where did the atoms and energy come from that careated the universe?
Please show the math indicating that the energy had to come from
somewhere.
And there are hypotheses which describe scenarios for an infinite
number of universes.
One popular when I was a kid was bang, crunch, bang, crunch, in an
infinite cycle. That seems to have fallen out of favor because it no
longer *fits *the *data.
>
> Until science can say where the energy came from that formed the
> universe then the big bang theory is just a wild and exotic guess.
Why? Does a forensic detective need to know the birth date of a murder
victim in order to reconstruct the crime scene? Do I need to know who
manufactured the gun in order to witness a gun shot?
This is a stupid claim; I don't know any other way to say it.
>
> Which is fine. We can have our wild and exotic ideas of how we thought
> the universe got here.
What wild about it? Offer an alternative explanation for the
background microwave radiation.
> But the problem is the general public believes the big bang actually happened.
A bigger problem is that millions of people close their eyes tightly
and stop their ears when they don't like what they see.
>
> Which is proof positive that if one repeats a lie often enough it will
> become as if it were truth.
Well, you're certainly doing more than your share.
Kermit
Kalkidas
ea43e1...@m4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
It's actually a hoped-for theory, which has not been tested at all, since
there is currently no singularity to observe and verify predictions
about.
>> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, they cannot
>> both be true in their present formulations. Therefore, the Big Bang
>> "theory" rests on a contradiction, since it rests on both QM and GR.
>
> It rests on QM when the Universe was emerging from the BB singularity.
> Aside from the first few minutes after BB, BBT rests on GR. What
> happened
> during the first few moments when the Universe switched from being
> governed
> primarily by quantum forces to being governed by General Relativity
> is an interesting question. But that doesn't mean the BBT rests on a
> contradiction.
The alleged "switch" from QM to GR is theoretical bluffing designed to
deflect attention from their fundamental incompatibility. In reality, if
both QM and GR were true as presently formulated, they would both be
fully operational at the very instant of the Bang and at all subsequent
times, since they are both universal theories.
> Thats like saying the Empire State building's existence is a
> contradiction because
> it was designed based on Newtonian principles, even though Newtonian
> Mechanics is *wrong*.
Newtonian mechanics is not "wrong" in the same way or to the same degree
as the incompatibility between QM and GR. QM and GR are not
approximations of one another as Newtonian Mechanics is an approximation
of GR.
[snip gratuitous insults]
Desertphile
<jaime.v...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
> the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
> acceptabe.
We are oh so very happy you agree. Your approval means a very
great deal to everyone.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Kermit
> Jaime Vargas <jaime.vargas...@gmail.com> wrote in news:446f2001-071a-
> 4c76-bd25-5dd2faef9...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
> > acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
> > such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
> > appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
> > origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
> > concentrated came from. In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
> > to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
> > not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
> > 'creation' of the Universe �at points way before the Big-Bang.
>
> > Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
> > theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
>
> Of course the Big Bang "theory" is flawed, to say the least. It's not
> even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory.
Perhaps you could give an example of where it is wrong.
>
> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, they cannot
> both be true in their present formulations. Therefore, the Big Bang
> "theory" rests on a contradiction, since it rests on both QM and GR.
Yes. That doesn't mean they are completely wrong, nor that the
observations do not exists. When Einstein showed that Newton was
wrong, that doesn't mean the military threw out their ballistics
manuals and calculations. For certain scales of speed, distance, and
accuracy. It's perfectly fine.
>
> Yet most "scientists" are fully believing in it, thinking that sometime
> "in the future", the incompatibilities will be ironed out. It's a post-
> dated check.
Yes. Experience shows that we continue to increase our understanding.
The very rate of the increase in knowledge is increasing. We cannot
know if this particular puzzle is ultimately comprehensible, but
scientists do not see that as a reason for giving up trying to
understand it. That's one of the differences between you and them.
>
> More evidence that scientism is a religious faith.
Ummm... You didn't provide any evidence. You only made that assertion.
Here's some evidence against it:
Science has no holidays, no sacrament, no saints, no gods, no holy
music, no sacred ground.
Science has practitioners who belong to no religions, or to various
denominations of all the major religions.
Religion has doctrine, science tests its theories.
Religion has required and proscribed behavior in all aspects of life;
science only has required procedures for doing science. A Hindu who
eats hamburgers is not doing Hinduism well (at least in his moment of
weakness). A scientist can eat anything she wants and it doesn't
affect her science one way or the other.
Kermit
John Stockwell
> All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
> the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
> acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
> such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
> appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
> origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
> concentrated came from.
>In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
> to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
> not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
> 'creation' of the Universe at points way before the Big-Bang.
The Big Bang does not attempt to address the ultimate origin
of the universe. It addresses the development of the universe
from some tiny fraction of time after the beginning of the
universe to the present.
>
> Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
> theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
The theory is not about an "initial event" in the first place.
-John
Harry K
> "On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 06:15:13 -0800 (PST), in article
Beg to differ. Madman is not possible under ID.
Harry K
Stuart
> Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3b027e37-54c8-44ff-b38f-
> ea43e105d...@m4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
Idiot.
BBT makes several predictions that have been confirmed.
Consult Ned Wright's tutorial:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
It is not necessary to observe the Big bang singularity to know that
BBT is basically correct.
You keep making the same mistake.
>
> >> Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, they cannot
> >> both be true in their present formulations. Therefore, the Big Bang
> >> "theory" rests on a contradiction, since it rests on both QM and GR.
>
> > It rests on QM when the Universe was emerging from the BB singularity.
> > Aside from the first few minutes after BB, BBT rests on GR. What
> > happened
> > during the first few moments when the Universe switched from being
> > governed
> > primarily by quantum forces to being governed by General Relativity
> > is an interesting question. But that doesn't mean the BBT rests on a
> > contradiction.
>
> The alleged "switch" from QM to GR is theoretical bluffing designed to
> deflect attention from their fundamental incompatibility. In reality, if
> both QM and GR were true as presently formulated, they would both be
> fully operational at the very instant of the Bang and at all subsequent
> times, since they are both universal theories.
This is false and belies a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.
In the first fleeting moments, technically there was no such thing as
pure QM or pure GR. All the forces
of nature were unified into a single fundamental force. When the
Universe became large enough and cool enough
GR dominated.
We don't experience quantum effects in our everyday experiences; we
don't occasionally tunnel through walls.
Those effects are restricted to processes that operate at high
energies on small length and time scales.
Currently we have observed the
unification of Eletcromagnetism and the Weak nuclear force. There are
formulations
which are being tested that describe the unification of
Electromagnetism, and both the strong
and weak nuclear forces. Only gravity so far, is left out.
Yes we lack a proper understanding of quantum gravity.
Thats where string theory comes in, but we have a long way to go.
However, it is not necessary to have that to show BBT is essentially
correct.
>
> > Thats like saying the Empire State building's existence is a
> > contradiction because
> > it was designed based on Newtonian principles, even though Newtonian
> > Mechanics is *wrong*.
>
> Newtonian mechanics is not "wrong" in the same way or to the same degree
> as the incompatibility between QM and GR.
Wrong is *wrong*. And I would argue the differences between NM and
Relativistic mechanics
are nearly as profound. Furthermore, Newtonian Mechanics is every bit
as incompatible with
QM as GR.
In BBT, there doesn't even have to be a singularity, only that the
Universe was in a highly compressed state.
Again your argument is simply " We don't know everything, therefore we
know nothing".
You're a broken record. Play another tune.
Stuart
Kalkidas
news:3b93351d-776a-418f...@z13g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
"Single fundamental force" is a hoped-for theory, not a theory.
In your knee-jerk zeal to jump on anything a creationist says, you have
jumped to conclusions instead.
Do some research, and you will find that actual, professional g-
cosmologists agree with what I have stated. They do not manifest your
kind of denial-syndrome.
The Big Bang is a hoped-for theory, not a theory. That is the verdict of
real scientists.
[snip more gratuitous denials and insults]
Richard Harter
Actually it is quite straightforward, if not within the scope of
present day technology. Consider the problem of implementing
classical time travel. There are two desiderata:
(a) Some form of "backwards in time" causality. Uncomfortable as
the thought may seem, reverse causality is consistent with modern
physics.
(b) Encapsulation of the time traveller as it moves into the
past. In classical time travel the traveller moves from the
present into the past without interacting the universe during the
trip. (English is such a poor language for discussing these
things.) The resolution may lie within string theory. In some
versions our "three dimensional universe" is a membrane in a
larger dimensional space called the bulk. (That's "bulk", not
"hulk" - there is no evidence that the macro universe is green.)
The thought is that the traveller, like gravity, moves through
the bulk.
So here is what may/might happen. In the rather distant future
the sophonts of that era might discover that the universe needs
to be, so to speak, jump started, that it could not have come
into being on its own. They arrive at a solution. They
construct a time machine and send back a bit of space-time to the
time of the big bang. (Actually they send back nothing at all,
relying on quantum effects upon arrival to produce something for
a little bit.) That insignificant bit of quantum fluctuation is
the beginning of the entire universe. Inflation takes care of
expanding the microcosm into the macrocosm.
This exposition has left out a few technical details that can be
easily supplied by an intelligent reader. One thought that
occurs to me is to ask what happened to the sophonts that
performed the experiment? Could it be that they no longer exist,
that they have been erased by the changed course of history? I
fear that they will have been, that Niven's law applies.
If so, we are children of parents who never were.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Infinity is one of those things that keep philosophers busy when they
could be more profitably spending their time weeding their garden.
el cid
As I recall, the standard solution is to not really worry much
about the details of what is sent back because the probability
that you get it right is 1 based on the fact that you are there
to send it back. Bayesian rules time travel.
Paul J Gans
>On Jan 19, 11:22 pm, Jaime Vargas <jaime.vargas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
>> the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
>> acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
>> such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
>> appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
>> origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
>> concentrated came from. In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
>> to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
>> not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
>> 'creation' of the Universe at points way before the Big-Bang.
>>
>> Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
>> theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
>One of the interesting historical ironies is that for hundreds of
>years scientists assumed that the Universe had no beginning, at least
>in part because considering a Universal creation smacked of religious
>dogma. So strong was this assumption that when Relativity showed a
>static universe was unstable, Einstein added his cosmological
>constant. Even into the 1960's, Fred Hoyle argued persuasively for a
>steady-state Universe.
>With a fudged-in inflationary phase, and the assumed effects of dark
>matter and dark energy, the current version of the Big Bang suffers
>from appearing cobbled together just-so. It's likely the current
>model of cosmic evolution will undergo another paradigm shift in the
>near future.
All of which may or may not be true. My posting has to do with
the statement that
"What is not [acceptable] is the fact that the 'beginning'
parted from >> such accumulation of particles concentated
in one point, giving it the appearance and conditions of
a black hole."
There were no particles back at the start of the "big bang".
What there was was a point with an infinite energy density.
That part is informed speculation since relativity does not
extrapolate back to zero time.
Very soon after that (a minute fraction of a second later)
the rapid expansion of the universe allowed the formation
of quarks and other curious (but non-atomic) particles.
Protons and neutrons don't form until about 1 second after
the big bang.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Mitchell Coffey
I went to high school with a girl whose parents originated the the
word "sophont." Had Astrid's parents not existed, it follows, the
word "sophont" would never have come into being. No sophonts, no
experiment, no universe. (Yes, I know, many will raise the old
chestnut that the name of the thing is not the thing itself; yet this
is pure sophistry, as we know no two words are exact synonyms. I
follows that, while there may be non-sophonts that are similar to
sophonts, they cannot *be* sophonts.) The Universe, in short, is even
dicier than you think. (And *no one* thinks the Universe is dicier
than you do, Harter.) For the Universe is even more contingent than
the mere existence of sophonts, which could number in the billions -
trillions, as far as we know. Nope, it all comes down to the shaky
existence of but two people: Astrid's parents. And I've not seen
either in almost 40 years, and at my age, memory begins to dim.
Mitchell Coffey
Richard Harter
Maybe yes, maybe no, maybe neither. Time travel stories mostly
fall into one of two classes. One is that the course of history
is fixed. Your presence establishes that you did not go back in
time and kill your grandfather - except for the loop holes. The
other is that interacting with the past does alter the course of
history. In that scenario the Bayesian argument does not apply.
el cid
I did say the standard solution, as in, we've run out of time/pages
and need to wrap this story up so here's how it ends: one of the
Star Trek escape clauses. Of course, Star Trek has also done the
loop and, most recently a full alternative timeline --- maybe, or
we just didn't notice our grandchild until after we took our laps
around the time track.
I prefer an almost Bayesian model where p -> 1 but p < 1 so that
you get a nearly indistinguishable result, say everything is the
same but the tea/coffee/sugar/flour canister set in your kitchen
is sorted big to small rather than small to big from the stove
toward the wall with the window. At least it seems like nothing
until you actually taste the coffee. Time travel fantasy is,
after all, a matter of individual tastes.
jillery
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just finished an eminently readable book on this subject. If
anybody is interested, it's "Before the Big Bang" by Brian Clegg.
The Starmaker
I went to google translation but there is no translation tool for that "math language"
you people invented that very vew can understand...not even google translation.
Learn English.
The Starmaker
Logic...has it's limits.
Elmer
> Logic...has it's limits.
It certainly does for some people ;-)
Richard Harter
Astrid's father, Poul, died recently but AKAIK Karen and Astrid
are still well and kicking.
I think though that your argument is best described as sophistry.
That is as it should be - sophistry is what sophonts do.
Stuart
Really? Cite some of those Cosomologists.
Stuart
Mitchell Coffey
I did know about Poul, but it was more interesting to pretend. It's
good to hear about Karen. I assume Astrid is still married to Greg.
I went to high school with her and visited her house a couple of
times. She had several tribbles actually used on Star Trek, given her
father by Gene Roddenberry. It's true: I've held tribbles and shaken
hands with two Presidents of the United States.
> I think though that your argument is best described as sophistry.
> That is as it should be - sophistry is what sophonts do.
And yet, what, as a character in a book I once read said, is truth?
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
A memoir?
Mitchell Coffey
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>You do not understand because your mind is dense. Your perception is
>narrow.
>You guys have been conditioned to believe that science is the only way
>to explain any observed phenomenon.
seems to have worked well enough to make computers to allow you to say
your magic is the only way...even though it's failed for 2000 years
>
>Instead of asking what he meant, you ridicule what you do not
>understand due to your own self imposed limitations. Therefore you
>will remain dense.
so tell me again how demons cause earthquakes, like creationism says
they do.
>
>
>>
>> (Madman would deal with it with some expletives, a demand that we "Do the
>> maths", then when challenged he would come up with two factoids and say,
>> "1+1=2". �I think this calls for more sophistication than that, however.)
>
>Where did the atoms and energy come from that careated the universe?
god of the gaps. science discovered atoms
creationists had NO idea they even existed
>Until science can say where the energy came from that formed the
>universe then the big bang theory is just a wild and exotic guess.
uh no. just like we can say where disease comes from without having to
know how germs formed
we can tell how the big bang happened without telling where matter
came from
you're just a hopeless idiot
>
>Which is fine. We can have our wild and exotic ideas of how we thought
>the universe got here. But the problem is the general public believes
>the big bang actually happened.
>
surprisingly enough, so do scientists
and creationists? thinking that angels move the planets around
creationism is useless
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>Of course the Big Bang "theory" is flawed, to say the least. It's not
>even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory.
>
except, of course, it was predicted AND the prediction was verified
the same can't be said of your astrology as science view. no one
believes astrology anymore
>Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, they cannot
>both be true in their present formulations. Therefore, the Big Bang
>"theory" rests on a contradiction, since it rests on both QM and GR.
well no. again you don't understand how science works. BOTH newtonian
mechanics AND relativity are true.
newtonian mechanics is what you get if you move at velocities far
below the speed of light. newtonian mechanics can be derived from
relativity
and your view of nature? it rests on demons and astrology. for 3000
years those led nowhere. nada. zip.
yet you're here to lecture us with your quantum mechanics based
computer about how demons really run the world
>
>Yet most "scientists" are fully believing in it, thinking that sometime
>"in the future", the incompatibilities will be ironed out. It's a post-
>dated check.
>
>More evidence that scientism is a religious faith.
says the guy who thinks certain human beings are 'untouchable'.
bpuharic
wrote:
>Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote in news:3b027e37-54c8-44ff-b38f-
>ea43e1...@m4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>
>>> Of course the Big Bang "theory" is flawed, to say the least. It's not
>>> even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory.
>>
>> Its actually a well tested theory that has satisfied a number of
>> predictions.
>
>It's actually a hoped-for theory, which has not been tested at all, since
>there is currently no singularity to observe and verify predictions
>about.
?? what does a singularity have to do with the big bang?
jesus you don't even know enough about the big bang to criticize it.
probably due to your belief in astrology
if you believe astrology you'd believe anything
and the BB does not deal with a 'singularity'. it deals with the
physics of the universe up until about 10 (-43) seconds after the 'big
bang'. no one knows "WHAT" 'exploded' or how.
but we're pretty accurate about what happened AFTER that explosion
and you? still pretending the wizard of oz is based on science
>>
>> It rests on QM when the Universe was emerging from the BB singularity.
>> Aside from the first few minutes after BB, BBT rests on GR. What
>> happened
>> during the first few moments when the Universe switched from being
>> governed
>> primarily by quantum forces to being governed by General Relativity
>> is an interesting question. But that doesn't mean the BBT rests on a
>> contradiction.
>
>The alleged "switch" from QM to GR is theoretical bluffing designed to
>deflect attention from their fundamental incompatibility.
ever use a GPS? relativity
ever use a computer? quantum mechanics
so if they're wrong, you have a problem, dont you?
In reality, if
>both QM and GR were true as presently formulated, they would both be
>fully operational at the very instant of the Bang and at all subsequent
>times, since they are both universal theories.
uh no. it's a meaningless statement, one conditioned by your belief in
demons and astrology.
how's astrology working out for you guys? what's YOUR explanation of
the cosmic background radiation
oh. you don't have one. you didnt even know it existed.
uh huh. tell us some more about astrology, OK?
>
>
>> Thats like saying the Empire State building's existence is a
>> contradiction because
>> it was designed based on Newtonian principles, even though Newtonian
>> Mechanics is *wrong*.
>
>Newtonian mechanics is not "wrong" in the same way or to the same degree
>as the incompatibility between QM and GR. QM and GR are not
>approximations of one another as Newtonian Mechanics is an approximation
>of GR.
wrong. why not read about HAWKING RADIATION, OK?
oh. you've never heard of THAT either
christ you guys are stupid. really. here you are with your pointy hat
with the stars and your little plastic magic wand...
telling us why GPS systems and computers don't work
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>"Single fundamental force" is a hoped-for theory, not a theory.
well in a sense true.
but also illogical
because if you knew about the HISTORY of PHYSICS yoiu'd know your
astrology/demon based view of the universe is wrong
ever hear of electricity? how about magnetism?
it USED to be thought they were distinct forces...until james clerk
maxwell unified them into electromagnetism
ever hear of electromagnetism? how about the weak nuclear force?
it USED to be thought they were separate forces. until weinberg and
salaam unified THEM.
so your view of physics is....wrong
>
>Do some research, and you will find that actual, professional g-
>cosmologists agree with what I have stated. They do not manifest your
>kind of denial-syndrome.
and how many agree with your view of astrology as being right?
>
>The Big Bang is a hoped-for theory, not a theory. That is the verdict of
>real scientists.
really? ever talk to arno penzias? I have. he and robert wilson won a
nobel for discovering the background radiation of the event
you say never happened
every single thing you've said about physics is wrong.
no doubt due to your fanatical hatred of science, and your view that
astrology is the best idea humanity's ever had
John Wilkins
<19e62d8c-4081-4e1e...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 4:51�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:09:31 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
> >
...
> > I think though that your argument is best described as sophistry.
> > That is as it should be - sophistry is what sophonts do.
>
> And yet, what, as a character in a book I once read said, is truth?
Were they jesting? And did they stay for an answer?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> Do some research, and you will find that actual, professional g-
> cosmologists agree with what I have stated. They do not manifest your
> kind of denial-syndrome.
> The Big Bang is a hoped-for theory, not a theory. That is the verdict of
> real scientists.
Well, I'm a "real scientist," and in this field -- my main area of research
is quantum gravity. You can look up my papers and citations on Spires,
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/.
First, it's true that we don't currently know how to consistently combine
general relativity and quantum mechanics. It's not clear whether this
is because they're fundamentally incompatible, and one or the other
needs major changes, or whether we simply don't know the right tricks.
At the same time, though, it's also very clear, from an enormous number
of experiments, that both are extremely good approximations.
This doesn't have anything to do with whether the big bang is a "theory"
or a "hoped-for theory." The big bang is not a theory of the origin of
the Universe, but of its history. In particular, it is the set of statements
that in the past, the Universe was extremely hot and dense -- hot enough
to dissociate atomic nuclei -- and that since that time it has expanded
and cooled in a manner that is very accurately described by general
relativity. We know this with a great deal of confidence down to a scale
of about one ten-billionth of the present; we have some fairly good, but
not conclusive, evidence for inflation, which would take us back much
earlier.
Contrary to some bad popularizations, the big bang model does not have
anything to say about a "beginning." As you say, we don't understand
the relevant physics well enough to extrapolate that far. There are
some interesting ideas, ranging from "eternal inflation" to a birth from
a quantum fluctuation that also marked the beginning of time, but these
are all speculative. (That's what makes this field so much fun. Science
would be pretty boring if we already knew everything, and just had to
fill in the details. It's the stuff we don't know that makes it exciting.)
But calling this a failure of the big bang theory is a misunderstanding
of what cosmologists mean when they say "big bang."
Steve Carlip
Steve Carlip
jillery
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Do some research, and you will find that actual, professional g-
> > cosmologists agree with what I have stated. They do not manifest your
> > kind of denial-syndrome.
> > The Big Bang is a hoped-for theory, not a theory. That is the verdict of
> > real scientists.
>
> Well, I'm a "real scientist," and in this field -- my main area of research
If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a question. I have an
interested layman's understanding of these things, so bear with me if
I don't use the right words the right way. My understanding is that
Alan Guth introduced the concept of Inflattion, as a separate stage of
expansion, because the original description of the Big Bang didn't
allow for the Universe to be as uniform as it is. What I don't
understand is what mechanism(s) caused inflation to start and stop
when it did. Can you offer an explanation that I might understand?
The Starmaker
All those 'before the big bang' books all have the same ending...
"I don't know what came before the big bang."
Why don't they say it at the beginning of the book? You won't buy it, so
they put it at the end.
Before the big bang, before God, ...it's the same question...cosmic
religion.
The Starmaker
"Inflation" is not a law. These guys make this stuff up to fill in what the band-age doesn't cover.
jillery
<snip>
> "Inflation" is not a law. These guys make this stuff up to fill in what the band-age doesn't cover.
Nobody here said it was.
Stuart
Indeed, because all those books explain what happened when the
Universe began to expand,
not why there is a Universe in the first place. Though I haven't read
Clegg's book yet.
>
> Why don't they say it at the beginning of the book? You won't buy it,
that explains your abysmal ignorance.
> so
> they put it at the end.
Because most people are interested in how the Universe
evolved to its present state, no matter how its started.
>
> Before the big bang, before God, ...it's the same question...cosmic
> religion.
Which has nothing to do with the validity of BBT.
I see a tree on fire. I study how fire consumes the tree. Are
the principles of rapid oxidation are invalid because I don't
know whether the fire started due to a lightning strike or careless
camper?
Stuart
bpuharic
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>jillery wrote:
>>
>> I just finished an eminently readable book on this subject. If
>> anybody is interested, it's "Before the Big Bang" by Brian Clegg.
>
>
>All those 'before the big bang' books all have the same ending...
>"I don't know what came before the big bang."
>
>Why don't they say it at the beginning of the book? You won't buy it, so
>they put it at the end.
>
>Before the big bang, before God, ...it's the same question...cosmic
>religion.
why not try reading one of those books instead of telling us about
your wizard based view of reality?
we can test the big bang
how do we test god?
Mike Dworetsky
In your case, for sure. Logic is fine, but you have severe personal
limitations expressing yourself logically.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
bpuharic
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>jillery wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a question. I have an
>> interested layman's understanding of these things, so bear with me if
>> I don't use the right words the right way. My understanding is that
>> Alan Guth introduced the concept of Inflattion, as a separate stage of
>> expansion, because the original description of the Big Bang didn't
>> allow for the Universe to be as uniform as it is. What I don't
>> understand is what mechanism(s) caused inflation to start and stop
>> when it did. Can you offer an explanation that I might understand?
>
>
>"Inflation" is not a law. These guys make this stuff up to fill in what the band-age doesn't cover.
actually in a way this is true. i read an interview with alan guth
several years ago in which he said he had the idea of inflation
because the BB as formulated then could not solve the flatness problem
of course, if the BB wasnt a THEORY, then there would be NO flatness
problem in the observations and inflation woudn't be needed.
and inflation left an imprint on the BB which was predicted AND
testable....
creationism? the only test of that is how much popcorn you eat during
the 'wizard of oz'.
All-seeing-I
They make up everything as they go long. I wish I had a job where i
could make up shit all day long and get paid
All-seeing-I
You asked for a "mechanism" for on and off,
That would imply a law
All-seeing-I
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:05:00 -0800, The Starmaker
>
> >jillery wrote:
>
> >> I just finished an eminently readable book on this subject. �If
> >> anybody is interested, it's "Before the Big Bang" by Brian Clegg.
>
> >All those 'before the big bang' books all have the same ending...
> >"I don't know what came before the big bang."
>
> >Why don't they say it at the beginning of the book? You won't buy it, so
> >they put it at the end.
>
> >Before the big bang, before God, ...it's the same question...cosmic
> >religion.
>
> why not try reading one of those books instead of telling us about
> your wizard based view of reality?
>
> we can test the big bang
How does one test big bang doofus?
It that cauldron thingy working yet? How many billions of dollars
spent on that with so many people hungry?
>
> how do we test god?
Your baby step science has not figured out how yet.
Stuart
On and off what?
>
> That would imply a law
A "law" ? Mechanism?
You are hopelessly confused.
Stuart
Stuart
> On Jan 21, 5:18 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:05:00 -0800, The Starmaker
>
> > <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >jillery wrote:
>
> > >> I just finished an eminently readable book on this subject. If
> > >> anybody is interested, it's "Before the Big Bang" by Brian Clegg.
>
> > >All those 'before the big bang' books all have the same ending...
> > >"I don't know what came before the big bang."
>
> > >Why don't they say it at the beginning of the book? You won't buy it, so
> > >they put it at the end.
>
> > >Before the big bang, before God, ...it's the same question...cosmic
> > >religion.
>
> > why not try reading one of those books instead of telling us about
> > your wizard based view of reality?
>
> > we can test the big bang
>
> How does one test big bang doofus?
Easy.
BBT makes several testable predictions..
For example, Gamow and others showed that if the Universe emerged
from a hot, dense state, the Universe should have a faint glow
in the microwave part of the EM spectrum. That prediction was made
in the 40s, and the CMBR was detected 20+ years after the prediction
was made.
Thats one way. There are several other prediction that BBT makes
and those are discussed on Ned Wright's tutorial:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
If you can't be bothered to read and learn thats your problem.
>
> It that cauldron thingy working yet?
What cauldron thingy?
>How many billions of dollars
> spent on that with so many people hungry?
>
gee, imagine how many more would be dead and hungry if it weren't for
science.
>
>
> > how do we test god?
>
> Your baby step science has not figured out how yet.
Thats not the job of science. Science cures the sick and feeds the
hungry.
Sure beats blood letting and exorcisms, don't it? How did those *laws*
pan out?
Since you desire proof of his existence, you figure it out. Its not
our job to do your homework and wipe your ass.
Stuart
Kalkidas
news:hj89uv$25hq$1...@news.telesweet.net:
> Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> [...]
>> Do some research, and you will find that actual, professional g-
>> cosmologists agree with what I have stated. They do not manifest your
>> kind of denial-syndrome.
>
>> The Big Bang is a hoped-for theory, not a theory. That is the verdict
>> of real scientists.
>
> Well, I'm a "real scientist," and in this field -- my main area of
> research is quantum gravity. You can look up my papers and citations
> on Spires, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/hep/.
>
> First, it's true that we don't currently know how to consistently
> combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. It's not clear
> whether this is because they're fundamentally incompatible, and one or
> the other needs major changes, or whether we simply don't know the
> right tricks. At the same time, though, it's also very clear, from an
> enormous number of experiments, that both are extremely good
> approximations.
But GR, with its finite speed of influence and continuum of points in
spacetime, is incompatible with QMs instantaneous transformations of
systems of particles separated by finite distances. In GR, systems of
particles cannot undergo instantaneous transformations like that.
GR and QM really are incompatible in that respect. Either GR or QM or
both are incomplete models. And since the Big Bang really is based on
these models, it is only a hoped-for theory.
> This doesn't have anything to do with whether the big bang is a
> "theory" or a "hoped-for theory." The big bang is not a theory of the
> origin of the Universe, but of its history. In particular, it is the
> set of statements that in the past, the Universe was extremely hot and
> dense -- hot enough to dissociate atomic nuclei -- and that since that
> time it has expanded and cooled in a manner that is very accurately
> described by general relativity. We know this with a great deal of
> confidence down to a scale of about one ten-billionth of the present;
> we have some fairly good, but not conclusive, evidence for inflation,
> which would take us back much earlier.
But unless "history" is beginningless, any "theory" of it ought to say
something about its beginning. The beginning is also "history". There is
a great deal of talk about what we supposedly know about the state of the
universe x seconds "after" the Bang. So whoever is saying these things
obviously has a beginning of something in mind.
> Contrary to some bad popularizations, the big bang model does not have
> anything to say about a "beginning." As you say, we don't understand
> the relevant physics well enough to extrapolate that far. There are
> some interesting ideas, ranging from "eternal inflation" to a birth
> from a quantum fluctuation that also marked the beginning of time, but
> these are all speculative. (That's what makes this field so much fun.
> Science would be pretty boring if we already knew everything, and
> just had to fill in the details. It's the stuff we don't know that
> makes it exciting.) But calling this a failure of the big bang theory
> is a misunderstanding of what cosmologists mean when they say "big
> bang."
As you no doubt know, there are reputable scientists who dispute the Big
Bang model, who deny that an initial singularity is necessary to explain
the evolution of the universe. I respect your opinion, but there are
other respectable opinions.
TomS
<bcad6e68-4d0d-478e...@15g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, Stuart
stated..."
[...snip...]
>BBT makes several testable predictions..
>
>For example, Gamow and others showed that if the Universe emerged
>from a hot, dense state, the Universe should have a faint glow
>in the microwave part of the EM spectrum. That prediction was made
>in the 40s, and the CMBR was detected 20+ years after the prediction
>was made.
>
>Thats one way. There are several other prediction that BBT makes
>and those are discussed on Ned Wright's tutorial:
>
>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>
>If you can't be bothered to read and learn thats your problem.
Also try Wikipedia article on "Big Bang", under heading "Observational
evidence".
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Mitchell Coffey
> In article
> <19e62d8c-4081-4e1e-a9f4-dcf725d74...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 20, 4:51�pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:09:31 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>
> ...
> > > I think though that your argument is best described as sophistry.
> > > That is as it should be - sophistry is what sophonts do.
>
> > And yet, what, as a character in a book I once read said, is truth?
>
> Were they jesting? And did they stay for an answer?
Unclear. As I recall he just made an executive decision, washed up a
bit, and left.
Mitchell Coffey
Harry K
you have to do is find someone to pay for it.
Harry K
Desertphile
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Prof Weird wrote:
> > >
> > >> Your 'alternative explanation' of what initiated the Big Bang is what
> > >> again ?
> > >
> > > "initiated"? You want to know, 'what caused the big bang'?
> > >
> > > I don't have an 'alternative explanation', ...I just have the only
> > > explanation.
> > >
> > > The Future (sic) caused the big bang. It, (sic) 'popped' into existence
> > > caused by the Future (sic). The Future (sic)...observed the past...and
> > I can't see what you mean by this word salad. None of the terms are defined
> > clearly, nor is cause and effect explained logically. Now if you could put
> > it into mathematical terms, the way physicists and astronomers do, perhaps
> > we could really understand it. But you won't.
> I went to google translation but there is no translation tool for that "math language"
> you people invented that very vew can understand...not even google translation.
Try using English.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
The Starmaker
Before the movie 'wizard of oz' ...begins, it is dark...then there is...Light.
And the audience watches as their observing creates stars on the screen.
Without an audience, there is no light, no stars, no....beginning.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> "On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:48:51 -0800 (PST), in article
> <bcad6e68-4d0d-478e...@15g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, Stuart
> stated..."
> [...snip...]
> >BBT makes several testable predictions..
> >
> >For example, Gamow and others showed that if the Universe emerged
> >from a hot, dense state, the Universe should have a faint glow
> >in the microwave part of the EM spectrum. That prediction was made
> >in the 40s, and the CMBR was detected 20+ years after the prediction
> >was made.
> >
> >Thats one way. There are several other prediction that BBT makes
> >and those are discussed on Ned Wright's tutorial:
> >
> >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> >
> >If you can't be bothered to read and learn thats your problem.
> [...snip...]
>
> Also try Wikipedia article on "Big Bang", under heading "Observational
> evidence".
User editied websites, ...what a joke.
Stuart
> TomS wrote:
>
> > "On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:48:51 -0800 (PST), in article
> > stated..."
> > [...snip...]
> > >BBT makes several testable predictions..
>
> > >For example, Gamow and others showed that if the Universe emerged
> > >from a hot, dense state, the Universe should have a faint glow
> > >in the microwave part of the EM spectrum. That prediction was made
> > >in the 40s, and the CMBR was detected 20+ years after the prediction
> > >was made.
>
> > >Thats one way. There are several other prediction that BBT makes
> > >and those are discussed on Ned Wright's tutorial:
>
> > >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>
> > >If you can't be bothered to read and learn thats your problem.
> > [...snip...]
>
> > Also try Wikipedia article on "Big Bang", under heading "Observational
> > evidence".
>
> User editied websites, ...what a joke.
I noticed you ignored Ned Wright's website. He is a professional
astrophysicist.
Too much for you to handle.. eh? Long on mouth, short on brains?
Stuart
Robert Grumbine
> "On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:36:02 +1000, in article
><210120100036027041%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>>
>>In article <PAm3bACr...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major
>><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <200120102343277751%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins
>>> <jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>>> >In article
>>> ><ba6a8c46-bee6-4c0f...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>>> >Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Jan 20, 2:51 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > On Jan 19, 11:22 pm, Jaime Vargas <jaime.vargas...@gmail.com> wrote:
[trim]
>>> >> Heck even in the case of Newtonian Gravity a Universe is unstable.
>>> >>
>>> >Not quite: Lagrange and Laplace both showed that the universe could be
>>> >stable without Newton's angelic interventions. As Laplace said, "Je
>>> >n'avais pas besoin de cette hypoth�se-l�".
>>> >
>>> Laplace was referring to the Solar System. By analogy a finite Newtonian
>>> universe might be stable if its component galaxies had enough angular
>>> momentum about its centre of mass. The question then arises as to how
>>> much transverse velocity is needed.
I'll add that it was known that a Newtonian gas cloud (start with the
whole universe as your gas cloud) was definitely _not_ stable. This was
the Jeans instability mechanism. Now it wasn't so fast that it would give
you the expectation of fragmentation collapses being common within the age
of the universe.
>>> A globular cluster would be a smaller scale model. But galactic
>>> collisions tend to be less elastic that stellar collisions. (Collision
>>> here means a close pass.)
>>
>>By the time we knew about galaxies, Newtonian physics was long dead.
>>
>
> We knew about the existence of galaxies in the 18th century. Many
> people suspected that galaxies were "island universes" even back
> then. From Wikipedia "Galaxy" under the heading "Distinction from
> other nebulae":
>
> "In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his _An original theory or new hypothesis
> of the Universe_, speculated (correctly) that Milky Way was a flattened
> disk of stars, and that some of the nebulae visible in the night sky
> might be separate Milky Ways.[23][32] In 1755 Immanuel Kant introduced
> the term "island universe" for these distant nebulae."
I wouldn't say _knew_ about. The quotes you give adequately support
that some people suspected this was the case. But, reading late 1800's
and early 1900s astronomy (which I've done, though not tremendous amounts)
it seems clear that even at that date, even after it had been clearly
established that some of the 'nebulae' were gas clouds, and some were
composed of individual stars, it was still not obvious that some of
the ones composed of individual stars were firmly outside our galaxy.
I don't think it was a firm statement, or a widespread sentiment, until
after the Cepheid variables started to be used by Henrietta Levitt
(ca. 1910) and identified in some of the 'nebulae' far enough away to
be interesting (1920s).
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
TomS
<slrnhlh64...@saltmine.radix.net>, Robert Grumbine stated..."
I quite agree with you.
My wording was clumsy on this point. The existence of objects which
we now recognize as galaxies was known, but their nature was, at best,
suspected. There was "The Great Debate" between Shapley and Curtis in
(checking Wikipedia) 1920 about the nature of the "spiral nebulae".
alextangent
Which leads to the conclusion that without you there's no universe. I
hate to prick your personal bubble here, but if you disappeared in the
next 5 seconds in a puff of smoke, I am sure it would carry on without
you. So would talk.origins, evolution and a whole bunch of other stuff
you don't understand.
On a lighter note, perhaps you might like to consider this;
Attributed to Ronald Knox
There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."
Dear Sir,
Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
GOD.
Elmer
(snip)
> Without an audience, there is no light, no stars, no....beginning.
>
> The Starmaker
And if a tree falls in the forest and no one's around does it make a sound?
Sheest.
The Starmaker
Definitions of astrophysicist on the Web:
* an astronomer who studies the physical properties of celestial bodies
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
"an astronomer who studies the physical properties of celestial bodies", you mean like Marilyn Monroe?
I'm a starmaker. I study the physical properties of celestial bodies...it's how you make stars, ...movie stars.
The Starmaker
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Like lots of anti-scientific people ASI thinks you can change reality
by playing games with words. Obviously this is idiotic, but without
any facts or logic to support him it's the best he can do.
Christopher Denney
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:39:57 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Of course the Big Bang "theory" is flawed, to say the least. It's not
> >even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory.
>
> except, of course, it was predicted AND the prediction was verified
>
> the same can't be said of your astrology as science view. no one
> believes astrology anymore
Well, that's not actually true; at least there are plenty of people
who CLAIM to believe it.
As many as believe in YEC, probably more.
Look at all the books they sell, look at most major newspapers have an
astrology column.
A lot of them think of it as science too, probably don't grok the
difference between astronomy and astrology.
[snip]
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> If you don't mind, I would like to ask you a question. I have an
> interested layman's understanding of these things, so bear with me if
> I don't use the right words the right way. My understanding is that
> Alan Guth introduced the concept of Inflattion, as a separate stage of
> expansion, because the original description of the Big Bang didn't
> allow for the Universe to be as uniform as it is.
Well, roughly.
One of the basic issues is that without inflation, or something like
it, points more than a few degrees apart from each other in the sky
would not yet have had time to "communicate" with each other since
the big bang. But we observe that the cosmic microwave background
radiation ("CMBR" or "CMB") is uniform to a part in 100,000. There's
no obvious reason why the CMBR should look the same in patches of
the sky that have never been in contact with each other.
We *could* just hypothesize that the Universe started from a very
uniform early state -- since we don't know the relevant physics yet,
this is certainly possible. The issue isn't that the big bang model
is inconsistent without inflation, just that it requires an assumption
that many people considered "unnatural." There were a bunch of
attempts to explain this uniformity -- for instance, a chaotic early
stage that more thoroughly "mixed" the Universe -- but they mostly
didn't work in detail.
Inflation gives a different explanation: basically, that the whole
visible Universe grew from some very tiny initial region, in which
an assumption of uniformity might be more natural. It's not yet
completely clear whether this is a sensible explanation -- you still
need a tiny uniform patch of space for inflation to start, and a major
topic of research these days is how common such patches should be.
The major success of inflation was something that wasn't foreseen
at the start. As I said, the CMBR is uniform to a part in 100,000.
But at smaller levels, it has a very specific pattern of fluctuations.
Inflation explains these: they are ordinary quantum mechanical
fluctuations, due to the uncertainty principle, in the tiny initial
patch, blown up by inflation to the size of the Universe. Note that
this is not just a "story" -- it's a set of very detailed quantitative
predictions, which have been tested to very high accuracy. Again,
this is not a "proof" of inflation, but the only alternatives that have
been suggested so far seem very contrived.
> What I don't
> understand is what mechanism(s) caused inflation to start and stop
> when it did. Can you offer an explanation that I might understand?
Part of the problem is that the answer isn't unique -- there are a
number of different mechanisms that can cause inflation to start
and stop. I'll try to describe the simplest (and perhaps the most
likely).
The closest everyday analogy is bubbles of steam "inflating" in a pot
of boiling water. The basic feature is a phase transition, like the
transition from liquid to gas. When a quantum field undergoes a
phase transition, its pressure and energy change, again like water.
But according to general relativity, pressure and energy determine
the gravitational field and the structure of spacetime, and a phase
transition can drastically change the expansion of the Universe.
In particular, inflation will take place if a quantum field has a
constant, or nearly constant, nonzero potential energy. You should
think of this as the energy of the field's interaction with itself,
roughly analogous to the binding energy of molecules of water. If
a field jumps from one value of potential energy to another in some
small region -- either by quantum tunneling of through ordinary
thermal fluctuations -- this can nucleate an inflating "bubble" of
space. Inflation will continue until the potential energy drops
down to zero.
(By conservation of energy, that potential energy has to go somewhere.
It goes into "reheating" the Universe, creating a hot stew of particles
and antiparticles. That's where the standard hot big bang model
starts from.)
What I've described so far is a model, or a set of models, rather than
a detailed theory. To go farther, we would have to know exactly
what quantum field is responsible for this behavior, and we'd have to
understand its interactions, which determine its potential energy.
That's an open question. The hope is that more precise measurements
of the CMBR can help pin this down -- the *very* fine details of the
fluctuations depend on the details of inflation -- and that, conceivably,
a relevant particle could show up in accelerator experiments. But I
suspect this will take a while.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> How does one test big bang doofus?
with a constant temperature;
-- Detailed angular power spectrum of the fluctuations of the cosmic
microwave background radiation;
-- Red shift dependence of the temperature of the cosmic microwave
background radiation;
-- Red shift/distance relation for galaxies;
-- Tolman brightness test;
-- Time dilation of supernova light curves as a function of distance;
-- Cosmic abundances of primordial light elements (deuterium, helium,
helium 3, lithium 7);
-- Observed evolution of galactic structure and of source counts.
Will that do for a start?
Steve Carlip
el cid
Note, what's best about this isn't just the specific insights, it's
the transparency of the tenuous state of "knowing" these things.
Sometimes people make out as if we've figured out the whole
inflationary
model thing and , and, and "ignore that man behind the curtain".
I prefer this style of 'great and powerful wizard'.
On Jan 21, 5:16�pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
jillery
>
> - Show quoted text -
I say what you said only doubled. How do I second the nomination?
bpuharic
irrelevant comment
bpuharic
>"On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:48:51 -0800 (PST), in article
><bcad6e68-4d0d-478e...@15g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, Stuart
>stated..."
>[...snip...]
>>BBT makes several testable predictions..
>>
>>For example, Gamow and others showed that if the Universe emerged
>>from a hot, dense state, the Universe should have a faint glow
>>in the microwave part of the EM spectrum. That prediction was made
>>in the 40s, and the CMBR was detected 20+ years after the prediction
>>was made.
>>
>>Thats one way. There are several other prediction that BBT makes
>>and those are discussed on Ned Wright's tutorial:
>>
>>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>>
>>If you can't be bothered to read and learn thats your problem.
>[...snip...]
>
>Also try Wikipedia article on "Big Bang", under heading "Observational
>evidence".
simon singh's book on the big bang is also excellent
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Jan 21, 5:18�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:05:00 -0800, The Starmaker
>>
>> <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >jillery wrote:
>>
>> >> I just finished an eminently readable book on this subject. �If
>> >> anybody is interested, it's "Before the Big Bang" by Brian Clegg.
>>
>> >All those 'before the big bang' books all have the same ending...
>> >"I don't know what came before the big bang."
>>
>> >Why don't they say it at the beginning of the book? You won't buy it, so
>> >they put it at the end.
>>
>> >Before the big bang, before God, ...it's the same question...cosmic
>> >religion.
>>
>> why not try reading one of those books instead of telling us about
>> your wizard based view of reality?
>>
>> we can test the big bang
>
>How does one test big bang doofus?
like one tests any OTHER theory:
1. prediction based on a mechanism
does the BB have this? yes it does. it proposes a massive expansion of
spacetime
2. the PREDICTION states what OBSERVABLES can be seen based on the
theory.
does the BB do this? yes. hermann, alpher and gamow made a prediction
in the 40's, independently re-discovered by dicke and peebles, that
there should be a microwave background radiation due to the BB
3. does the data SUPPORT the theory?
yes. it does. penzias and wilson discovered the CMB in the mid 60's
sorry you don't know how science works. no doubt due to your religious
fanaticism
>
>It that cauldron thingy working yet? How many billions of dollars
>spent on that with so many people hungry?
more hatred of knowledge
if you really wanted to feed the ppor. then have the churches close
down and give all their money to the poor.
hypocrite
>
>
>>
>> how do we test god?
>
>Your baby step science has not figured out how yet.
so you've been saying except it's figured out more in 200 years than
your alzheimer based religion has in 2000
>
>
Burkhard
bpuharic
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>bpuharic wrote:
>>
>> of course, if the BB wasnt a THEORY, then there would be NO flatness
>> problem in the observations and inflation woudn't be needed.
>>
>> and inflation left an imprint on the BB which was predicted AND
>> testable....
>>
>> creationism? the only test of that is how much popcorn you eat during
>> the 'wizard of oz'.
>
>Before the movie 'wizard of oz' ...begins, it is dark...then there is...Light.
>And the audience watches as their observing creates stars on the screen.
and that, coupled with toto and the slippers, is what creationists
call 'truth'
>
>Without an audience, there is no light, no stars, no....beginning.
guess you forgot genesis didn't have an audience when the light was
created
bpuharic
wrote:
>carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in
>news:hj89uv$25hq$1...@news.telesweet.net:
>>
>> First, it's true that we don't currently know how to consistently
>> combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. It's not clear
>> whether this is because they're fundamentally incompatible, and one or
>> the other needs major changes, or whether we simply don't know the
>> right tricks. At the same time, though, it's also very clear, from an
>> enormous number of experiments, that both are extremely good
>> approximations.
>
>But GR, with its finite speed of influence and continuum of points in
>spacetime, is incompatible with QMs instantaneous transformations of
>systems of particles separated by finite distances. In GR, systems of
>particles cannot undergo instantaneous transformations like that.
to which one can only say 'so what'. they work in their respective
spheres...just like newtonian mechanics did before it
>
>GR and QM really are incompatible in that respect. Either GR or QM or
>both are incomplete models. And since the Big Bang really is based on
>these models, it is only a hoped-for theory.
uh no. it's accurate insofar as it can be described by these theories.
you j ust dont understand science
because scientists readily admit we can't understand the physics of
singularities
that's why the BB does not describe the theory down to time=zero
but, then, if you understood science you'd know the limits of the
theories
your logic is that, since science does not have ALL the answers, it
has NO answers
and that's plainly wrong
creationism, however? zero answers. for 3000 years. the best YOU"VE
come up with is
astrology....yes...astrology
>
>> This doesn't have anything to do with whether the big bang is a
>> "theory" or a "hoped-for theory." The big bang is not a theory of the
>> origin of the Universe, but of its history. In particular, it is the
>> set of statements that in the past, the Universe was extremely hot and
>> dense -- hot enough to dissociate atomic nuclei -- and that since that
>> time it has expanded and cooled in a manner that is very accurately
>> described by general relativity. We know this with a great deal of
>> confidence down to a scale of about one ten-billionth of the present;
>> we have some fairly good, but not conclusive, evidence for inflation,
>> which would take us back much earlier.
>
>But unless "history" is beginningless, any "theory" of it ought to say
>something about its beginning.
it can do so ONLY if the science is advanced enough to do this. our
science is not yet that advanced. but it IS advanced enough to
understand the universe back to about 10(-43) secs
The beginning is also "history". There is
>a great deal of talk about what we supposedly know about the state of the
>universe x seconds "after" the Bang. So whoever is saying these things
>obviously has a beginning of something in mind.
no, they don't. if they did, they'd propose a test of their
understanding
again and again you keep showing that your failed view of magic is
preventing you from understanding science
>
>> Contrary to some bad popularizations, the big bang model does not have
>> anything to say about a "beginning." As you say, we don't understand
>> the relevant physics well enough to extrapolate that far. There are
>> some interesting ideas, ranging from "eternal inflation" to a birth
>> from a quantum fluctuation that also marked the beginning of time, but
>> these are all speculative. (That's what makes this field so much fun.
>> Science would be pretty boring if we already knew everything, and
>> just had to fill in the details. It's the stuff we don't know that
>> makes it exciting.) But calling this a failure of the big bang theory
>> is a misunderstanding of what cosmologists mean when they say "big
>> bang."
>
>As you no doubt know, there are reputable scientists who dispute the Big
>Bang model, who deny that an initial singularity is necessary to explain
>the evolution of the universe. I respect your opinion, but there are
>other respectable opinions.
uh, so? where's their evidence? i've emailed halton arp, geoffrey
burbidge, etc. they simply have
no evidence. and that's about the entire group of scientists who doubt
the big bang
but NO scientist think astrology...the idea YOU believe in...is valid.
bpuharic
that's true. my grandmother used to check her horoscope...not sure if
she believed it.
apologies to grandmothers everwhere
>[snip]
bpuharic
wrote:
>el cid wrote:
>>> What I've described so far is a model, or a set of models, rather than
>>> a detailed theory. To go farther, we would have to know exactly
>>> what quantum field is responsible for this behavior, and we'd have to
>>> understand its interactions, which determine its potential energy.
>>> That's an open question. The hope is that more precise measurements
>>> of the CMBR can help pin this down -- the *very* fine details of the
>>> fluctuations depend on the details of inflation -- and that, conceivably,
>>> a relevant particle could show up in accelerator experiments. But I
>>> suspect this will take a while.
>>>
>>> Steve Carlip
>>
>>
>Seconded
3rd'd
John Wilkins
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
I have a nice book by Sir James Jeans from, if memory serves, around
1912, in which the other Messier objects we know as galaxies are called
"nebulae". Since Newtonian physics had been under challenge for some
time by then, I stand by my claim. If Jeans, one of the world's leading
exponents of current science of that time, did not feel the need to
include the notion of galaxies, I think we can safely infer that by the
time we knew of galaxies, Newtonian physics was long dead...
Eric Root
> On Jan 20, 6:39�am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jaime Vargas <jaime.vargas...@gmail.com> wrote in news:446f2001-071a-
> > 4c76-bd25-5dd2faef9...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > All the steps discussed as the sequence of progressive enlargement of
> > > the Universe beggining from a small packed-concentration of matter are
> > > acceptabe. What is not is the fact that the 'beginning' parted from
> > > such accumulation of particles concentated in one point, giving it the
> > > appearance and conditions of a black hole. If we want to concede this
> > > origin, all we need to know is from where all the particles
> > > concentrated came from. In other words, the 'initial explosion' turns
> > > to be just a step on a sequence that more likely had already occurred
> > > not once but on multiple previous occasions. This transfers the
> > > 'creation' of the Universe �at points way before the Big-Bang.
>
> > > Not being able to 'guess' the origin of this essential point makes the
> > > theory untennable as the real 'initial event'.
>
> > Of course the Big Bang "theory" is flawed, to say the least. It's not
> > even a theory, it's a hoped-for theory.
>
>
>
>
> > Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incompatible, they cannot
> > both be true in their present formulations. Therefore, the Big Bang
> > "theory" rests on a contradiction, since it rests on both QM and GR.
>
> Yes. That doesn't mean they are completely wrong, nor that the
> observations do not exists. When Einstein showed that Newton was
> wrong, that doesn't mean the military threw out their ballistics
> manuals and calculations. For certain scales of speed, distance, and
> accuracy. It's perfectly fine.
>
>
>
> > Yet most "scientists" are fully believing in it, thinking that sometime
> > "in the future", the incompatibilities will be ironed out. It's a post-
> > dated check.
>
> Yes. Experience shows that we continue to increase our understanding.
> The very rate of the increase in knowledge is increasing. We cannot
> know if this particular puzzle is ultimately comprehensible, but
> scientists do not see that as a reason for giving up trying to
> understand it. That's one of the differences between you and them.
>
>
>
> > More evidence that scientism is a religious faith.
>
> Ummm... You didn't provide any evidence. You only made that assertion.
>
Well, a good case can be made for scientism being a religious faith,
but you can't claim science itself is a religious faith without lying.
> Here's some evidence against it:
> Science has no holidays, no sacrament, no saints, no gods, no holy
> music, no sacred ground.
He said "scientism," not science. The old creationist bait-and-
switch.
> Science has practitioners who belong to no religions, or to various
> denominations of all the major religions.
> Religion has doctrine, science tests its theories.
> Religion has required and proscribed behavior in all aspects of life;
> science only has required procedures for doing science. A Hindu who
> eats hamburgers is not doing Hinduism well (at least in his moment of
> weakness). A scientist can eat anything she wants and it doesn't
> affect her science one way or the other.
>
> Kermit
odin
>
> could make up shit all day long and get paid
You don't have to be a scientist to make up shit all day long and get
paid for it. Much too much effort required. All you have to do is
become a dumb fuck preacher and pull a sermon out of your ass once a
week. Yah... that's the ticket man...
Desertphile
It is often far superior than other encyclopedias, because it is
user-edited.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > How does one test big bang doofus?
What is "big bang doofus?"
Shit-for-brain probably means "How does one test Big Bang
cosmology?" and if so, then he should have spent fifteen minutes
with the WikiPedia article on the subject instead of yet once
again making an ass out of himself.
> -- Thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation,
> with a constant temperature;
> -- Detailed angular power spectrum of the fluctuations of the cosmic
> microwave background radiation;
> -- Red shift dependence of the temperature of the cosmic microwave
> background radiation;
> -- Red shift/distance relation for galaxies;
> -- Tolman brightness test;
> -- Time dilation of supernova light curves as a function of distance;
> -- Cosmic abundances of primordial light elements (deuterium, helium,
> helium 3, lithium 7);
> -- Observed evolution of galactic structure and of source counts.
>
> Will that do for a start?
>
> Steve Carlip