Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20
Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By Jeaunse23

Thread: Big Bang or Big Hoax?

  1. #1 Big Bang or Big Hoax? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    So i will go over the big bang from a quantum viewpoint, and show how its ridiculous claims have been more complicated to condition the big bang into a workble theory. It seems that big bang originally caused more problems than what it solves.

    The First Incongruity

    Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

    A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?

    In the principle of least action, it seems that a ground state universe would have begun much like the laws that govern a ground state atom. An atom in a ground state will arrange it's electrons to a specific frequency which allows it to yield as little energy as possible. But to do this, it would need to make sure to give up certain properties of location with respect with one another (1).

    If our universe did begin in a ground state then the laws of physics cannot permit it to have any unique radius or time, or even a beginning. A ground state universe could not have begun therego as a singular region (2) in spacetime with a sturcture similar to a black hole. Instead of a singular region in the center of this black hole, there would be a wormhole at its center.

    If it didn't it would have to have chosen an excited state, where there will be a point eventually where the universe will quantum leap into a new state, and a catastrophic reduction of energy will unfold. This means that the energy contained in this universe could in the future vanish totally from this spacetime realm, and quite possibly ''seep'' through womrholes into another universe which is in a ground state.

    The second Incongruity

    There was not enough time to start the universe!

    The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micrwave temperatures to be homogeneous (3).

    The Third Incongruity

    So, because we have a model of the big bang which did not fit the discription of what we are observing in the vast universe, we had to allow even more changes. To give the universe more time, we have to begin it from a much smaller size, but to also balance (a reasonably smooth background radiation), we also had to invite the idea of the particle called the Inflaton, and an entirely new and almost proposterous concept called The Inflationary Phase of the universe where spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light. Fine tuning opportunists took hold of this an asked exactly why inflation began when it did. But more importantly, if inflation is just a mathematical trick which it seems to be then a beginning of time is very troublesome for any modern day concept of big bang.

    The Fourth Incongruity

    And yet, this is the best to come. With the New Physics overuling the classical, we could no longer think of the universe beginning as simply as saying ''it just came into existence.'' With the wave function governing every possibility in the universe, we now have to deal with an absurd model where the universe had at its disposal, an infinite amount of choices it could have chose from... infinitely a many amount of universe which could never have sustained life, and an infinite amount of universes which could, and even an infinite amount of possibilities where the universe simply wouldn't have shown up at all.

    The problem here is simple. Why this universe out of so many?

    The Fifth Incongruity

    To answer this problem, many scientists have adopted the parallel universe model of physics to reconcile why this universe came into existence. It seems that from this particular model, each and every universe that was a possibility did come into existence. But the consequences are almost just as bizarre, because not only do we have equally many universes (an infinite amount to be exact), we also have an infinite amount of universe overlapping each other in a myriad of superpositining where everytime something comes into contact with anything else, or even a mere observation would send all these superpoitioned univeres flying apart, and then to emerge again with new born universes. It's like having a coin. Flip a coin, and not only do the universes fly apart, but in this universe you are left with either a heads or a tails, but at the same time, an entire universe has been created ''somewhere out there,'' where you are standing with the opposite result. If you think that is strange, imagine you stopped to flip a coin a hundred times... you would create exactly universes! That is by scientific notation, a little over universe possibilities have been turned into the real manifestation just as much as ours!

    This easy creation of universes disturbs many physicists, and most of all, one of the largest proponents whom it disturbed came in the skin called Fred Hoyle, a famous astrophysicist who took his contempt for the beginning of the universe to grave.

    (1) - See Wolf's ''Parallel Universes, 1985'' pg 192
    (2) - A singularity says that some point of spacetime possesses a negative region where every peice of matter and every bit of energy and even the spacetime itself is blown into unimaginal proportions.
    (3) - Actually, we often read that the background temperatures aka (the radiation in all parts of the universe) is homogeneous and smooth. We are often not told however that it is not completely smooth. We have to allow about a degree of a 1000th part of error in each direction of the universe.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The big bang has lots of problems with it which are mainly dealt with by claiming that it is true and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Sounds like a religion to me.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    The big bang has lots of problems with it which are mainly dealt with by claiming that it is true and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Sounds like a religion to me.
    Show me a scientist who does. Those claims are coming mostly from the popular press that don't want to hear or know anything about doubts. I recently visited a public talk on cosmology by an actual top cosmologist, who admitted that there are lots of inconsistencies and the Big Bang theory is always on the verge of a breakdown. But he also said that it is currently the theory that explains all observations best. Apparently, all the other possible theories have much more problems explaining the actual observations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Big Bang or Big Hoax? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    So i will go over the big bang from a quantum viewpoint, and show how its ridiculous claims have been more complicated to condition the big bang into a workble theory.
    I don't think using an emotional term like ridiculous in a scientific discussion is appropriate. You have previously stated, more than once, that you are always scientific. Using a term like ridiculous to describe a broadly accepted theory is not scientific. By all means criticise its weaknesses, but adding emotional content to your criticism is not the scientific way to go.

    One really minor and separate point: as far as I can determine there is no such word as therego. I think you mean therefore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Big Bang or Big Hoax? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    So i will go over the big bang from a quantum viewpoint, and show how its ridiculous claims have been more complicated to condition the big bang into a workble theory.
    I don't think using an emotional term like ridiculous in a scientific discussion is appropriate. You have previously stated, more than once, that you are always scientific. Using a term like ridiculous to describe a broadly accepted theory is not scientific. By all means criticise its weaknesses, but adding emotional content to your criticism is not the scientific way to go.

    One really minor and separate point: as far as I can determine there is no such word as therego. I think you mean therefore.
    As minor as your point is, i've always used it.

    And yes, many scientific and prominent leaders of the astrophysical world sought to express the ''ridiculous'' nature of big bang. I'm simply seeking to inspire that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Big Bang or Big Hoax? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    So i will go over the big bang from a quantum viewpoint, and show how its ridiculous claims have been more complicated to condition the big bang into a workble theory. It seems that big bang originally caused more problems than what it solves.

    The First Incongruity

    Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

    A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?

    In the principle of least action, it seems that a ground state universe would have begun much like the laws that govern a ground state atom. An atom in a ground state will arrange it's electrons to a specific frequency which allows it to yield as little energy as possible. But to do this, it would need to make sure to give up certain properties of location with respect with one another (1).

    If our universe did begin in a ground state then the laws of physics cannot permit it to have any unique radius or time, or even a beginning. A ground state universe could not have begun therego as a singular region (2) in spacetime with a sturcture similar to a black hole. Instead of a singular region in the center of this black hole, there would be a wormhole at its center.

    If it didn't it would have to have chosen an excited state, where there will be a point eventually where the universe will quantum leap into a new state, and a catastrophic reduction of energy will unfold. This means that the energy contained in this universe could in the future vanish totally from this spacetime realm, and quite possibly ''seep'' through womrholes into another universe which is in a ground state.

    The second Incongruity

    There was not enough time to start the universe!

    The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micrwave temperatures to be homogeneous (3).

    The Third Incongruity

    So, because we have a model of the big bang which did not fit the discription of what we are observing in the vast universe, we had to allow even more changes. To give the universe more time, we have to begin it from a much smaller size, but to also balance (a reasonably smooth background radiation), we also had to invite the idea of the particle called the Inflaton, and an entirely new and almost proposterous concept called The Inflationary Phase of the universe where spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light. Fine tuning opportunists took hold of this an asked exactly why inflation began when it did. But more importantly, if inflation is just a mathematical trick which it seems to be then a beginning of time is very troublesome for any modern day concept of big bang.

    The Fourth Incongruity

    And yet, this is the best to come. With the New Physics overuling the classical, we could no longer think of the universe beginning as simply as saying ''it just came into existence.'' With the wave function governing every possibility in the universe, we now have to deal with an absurd model where the universe had at its disposal, an infinite amount of choices it could have chose from... infinitely a many amount of universe which could never have sustained life, and an infinite amount of universes which could, and even an infinite amount of possibilities where the universe simply wouldn't have shown up at all.

    The problem here is simple. Why this universe out of so many?

    The Fifth Incongruity

    To answer this problem, many scientists have adopted the parallel universe model of physics to reconcile why this universe came into existence. It seems that from this particular model, each and every universe that was a possibility did come into existence. But the consequences are almost just as bizarre, because not only do we have equally many universes (an infinite amount to be exact), we also have an infinite amount of universe overlapping each other in a myriad of superpositining where everytime something comes into contact with anything else, or even a mere observation would send all these superpoitioned univeres flying apart, and then to emerge again with new born universes. It's like having a coin. Flip a coin, and not only do the universes fly apart, but in this universe you are left with either a heads or a tails, but at the same time, an entire universe has been created ''somewhere out there,'' where you are standing with the opposite result. If you think that is strange, imagine you stopped to flip a coin a hundred times... you would create exactly universes! That is by scientific notation, a little over universe possibilities have been turned into the real manifestation just as much as ours!

    This easy creation of universes disturbs many physicists, and most of all, one of the largest proponents whom it disturbed came in the skin called Fred Hoyle, a famous astrophysicist who took his contempt for the beginning of the universe to grave.

    (1) - See Wolf's ''Parallel Universes, 1985'' pg 192
    (2) - A singularity says that some point of spacetime possesses a negative region where every peice of matter and every bit of energy and even the spacetime itself is blown into unimaginal proportions.
    (3) - Actually, we often read that the background temperatures aka (the radiation in all parts of the universe) is homogeneous and smooth. We are often not told however that it is not completely smooth. We have to allow about a degree of a 1000th part of error in each direction of the universe.
    Now i add two more problems Big Bang faces with modern physics.

    The Sixth Incongruity

    No One Was There to Measure the Big Bang

    And so it seems, that if our universe was a single universe, there is still no Superintelligence or Alpha Observer to define the laws of nature. Worst still is that this ultimately breaks down at the singular region of the universe where the laws of physics are obsolete. How did steady structures of the universe like entrie galaxies collapse in the early universe? What gave them a defined structure?

    To answer this, some scientists have adopted two idea's. First the Bohmian Interpretation of QM states that the universes wave function had collapsed at some distant time in the past. The wave function was all ''predetermined'' through the use of certain wave functions that peaked above the rest - the use of Pilot Wave Phenomena.

    The second adaptation was the known phenomenon of decoherence. Eventually certain wave functions would decohere in their solutions to provide some steady defined mass in the universe. But how come the observable universe seems almost completely defined? How can the universe, in other words, have a consistent matter which only takes up 1% of all spacetime decohere so... elegently. There should still be large parts of the universe which are in a ghostly apparition of waves.

    The Seventh Incongruity

    Dark Energy

    And the model of big bang had to undergo a new change - the receeding galaxies seemed to be pushing away in the observable universe - or rather dragged away by spacetime itself faster than the speed of light. What is this force causing this? Negative energy densities where now involved, and proceeded the existence of a new type of energy called Dark Energy which must need to make up at least 70% of all the matter and energy in the universe!

    How many changes yet are we going to adopt to answer for this strange event we call Big Bang? How many inconsistencies are we going to allow before we start to gather scientists together to give an answer to the universe which did not begin in a big bang (1)?

    (1) - Actually, the big bang, was niether big. Nor was it a bang. One major astrophysicist mentioned in the OP called Fred Hoyle who disliked big bang till his death recently ws ironically the man who coined the term ''big bang.''
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Big Bang or Big Hoax? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    One really minor and separate point: as far as I can determine there is no such word as therego. I think you mean therefore.
    As minor as your point is, i've always used it.
    Then you have always been wrong. I have checked against the complete edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and there is no therego. Therefore, therefro, thereof, therein, therefrom, theregain, therehence, thereinto, thereat, thereas, thereamong, thereabout, thereafter, but definitely not therego.
    May I recommend you change the practices of a lifetime if you wish your meaning to be clearer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Lightingbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    63
    Ok I have to say this.

    My whole thing with the big bang thing is this....

    How on earth would any of us know? We haven't even left expanse of the earth and moon yet. Sure experts can factor in many different things but how can anyone really know?

    Anyone see my point? Logically, it just makes no sense to me. Sure the big bang theory can make sense. Might even be exactly what happened. Although, I'm simply saying that there could be many many other actual reasons of what happened. Sure the universe is expanding. Do we know why? NO! It's all speculation that's all.

    Either way, in a sense, I agree with the OP.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Big Bang or Big Hoax? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    One really minor and separate point: as far as I can determine there is no such word as therego. I think you mean therefore.
    As minor as your point is, i've always used it.
    Then you have always been wrong. I have checked against the complete edition of the Oxford English Dictionary and there is no therego. Therefore, therefro, thereof, therein, therefrom, theregain, therehence, thereinto, thereat, thereas, thereamong, thereabout, thereafter, but definitely not therego.
    May I recommend you change the practices of a lifetime if you wish your meaning to be clearer.
    Old habbits die young i guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Many

    The Ground State is generaly applicable the the nature of the hydrogen atom (HA).
    In this state, it is in a state of balance between the forces and the momentum of the electron.
    In this state, it is generating a continuous EM wave with a wavelength of about one angstrom (10^-10 meters). The electric field that surrounds the atom is vibrating at that wavelength frequency (3^17/s).

    The establishment scientists claimed that with Newtonian math, the HA would collapse\, but I will post an article tomorrow of why this does not happen.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Many

    The Ground State is generaly applicable the the nature of the hydrogen atom (HA).
    In this state, it is in a state of balance between the forces and the momentum of the electron.
    In this state, it is generating a continuous EM wave with a wavelength of about one angstrom (10^-10 meters). The electric field that surrounds the atom is vibrating at that wavelength frequency (3^17/s).

    The establishment scientists claimed that with Newtonian math, the HA would collapse\, but I will post an article tomorrow of why this does not happen.

    Cosmo
    It is also applicable in quantum cosmology where we are invited to view the early universe much like a hydrogen atom, if you like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Big Bang or Big Hoax? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    Quote Originally Posted by Manynames
    So i will go over the big bang from a quantum viewpoint, and show how its ridiculous claims have been more complicated to condition the big bang into a workble theory. It seems that big bang originally caused more problems than what it solves.

    The First Incongruity

    Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

    A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?

    In the principle of least action, it seems that a ground state universe would have begun much like the laws that govern a ground state atom. An atom in a ground state will arrange it's electrons to a specific frequency which allows it to yield as little energy as possible. But to do this, it would need to make sure to give up certain properties of location with respect with one another (1).

    If our universe did begin in a ground state then the laws of physics cannot permit it to have any unique radius or time, or even a beginning. A ground state universe could not have begun therego as a singular region (2) in spacetime with a sturcture similar to a black hole. Instead of a singular region in the center of this black hole, there would be a wormhole at its center.

    If it didn't it would have to have chosen an excited state, where there will be a point eventually where the universe will quantum leap into a new state, and a catastrophic reduction of energy will unfold. This means that the energy contained in this universe could in the future vanish totally from this spacetime realm, and quite possibly ''seep'' through womrholes into another universe which is in a ground state.

    The second Incongruity

    There was not enough time to start the universe!

    The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micrwave temperatures to be homogeneous (3).

    The Third Incongruity

    So, because we have a model of the big bang which did not fit the discription of what we are observing in the vast universe, we had to allow even more changes. To give the universe more time, we have to begin it from a much smaller size, but to also balance (a reasonably smooth background radiation), we also had to invite the idea of the particle called the Inflaton, and an entirely new and almost proposterous concept called The Inflationary Phase of the universe where spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light. Fine tuning opportunists took hold of this an asked exactly why inflation began when it did. But more importantly, if inflation is just a mathematical trick which it seems to be then a beginning of time is very troublesome for any modern day concept of big bang.

    The Fourth Incongruity

    And yet, this is the best to come. With the New Physics overuling the classical, we could no longer think of the universe beginning as simply as saying ''it just came into existence.'' With the wave function governing every possibility in the universe, we now have to deal with an absurd model where the universe had at its disposal, an infinite amount of choices it could have chose from... infinitely a many amount of universe which could never have sustained life, and an infinite amount of universes which could, and even an infinite amount of possibilities where the universe simply wouldn't have shown up at all.

    The problem here is simple. Why this universe out of so many?

    The Fifth Incongruity

    To answer this problem, many scientists have adopted the parallel universe model of physics to reconcile why this universe came into existence. It seems that from this particular model, each and every universe that was a possibility did come into existence. But the consequences are almost just as bizarre, because not only do we have equally many universes (an infinite amount to be exact), we also have an infinite amount of universe overlapping each other in a myriad of superpositining where everytime something comes into contact with anything else, or even a mere observation would send all these superpoitioned univeres flying apart, and then to emerge again with new born universes. It's like having a coin. Flip a coin, and not only do the universes fly apart, but in this universe you are left with either a heads or a tails, but at the same time, an entire universe has been created ''somewhere out there,'' where you are standing with the opposite result. If you think that is strange, imagine you stopped to flip a coin a hundred times... you would create exactly universes! That is by scientific notation, a little over universe possibilities have been turned into the real manifestation just as much as ours!

    This easy creation of universes disturbs many physicists, and most of all, one of the largest proponents whom it disturbed came in the skin called Fred Hoyle, a famous astrophysicist who took his contempt for the beginning of the universe to grave.

    (1) - See Wolf's ''Parallel Universes, 1985'' pg 192
    (2) - A singularity says that some point of spacetime possesses a negative region where every peice of matter and every bit of energy and even the spacetime itself is blown into unimaginal proportions.
    (3) - Actually, we often read that the background temperatures aka (the radiation in all parts of the universe) is homogeneous and smooth. We are often not told however that it is not completely smooth. We have to allow about a degree of a 1000th part of error in each direction of the universe.
    Now i add two more problems Big Bang faces with modern physics.

    The Sixth Incongruity

    No One Was There to Measure the Big Bang

    And so it seems, that if our universe was a single universe, there is still no Superintelligence or Alpha Observer to define the laws of nature. Worst still is that this ultimately breaks down at the singular region of the universe where the laws of physics are obsolete. How did steady structures of the universe like entrie galaxies collapse in the early universe? What gave them a defined structure?

    To answer this, some scientists have adopted two idea's. First the Bohmian Interpretation of QM states that the universes wave function had collapsed at some distant time in the past. The wave function was all ''predetermined'' through the use of certain wave functions that peaked above the rest - the use of Pilot Wave Phenomena.

    The second adaptation was the known phenomenon of decoherence. Eventually certain wave functions would decohere in their solutions to provide some steady defined mass in the universe. But how come the observable universe seems almost completely defined? How can the universe, in other words, have a consistent matter which only takes up 1% of all spacetime decohere so... elegently. There should still be large parts of the universe which are in a ghostly apparition of waves.

    The Seventh Incongruity

    Dark Energy

    And the model of big bang had to undergo a new change - the receeding galaxies seemed to be pushing away in the observable universe - or rather dragged away by spacetime itself faster than the speed of light. What is this force causing this? Negative energy densities where now involved, and proceeded the existence of a new type of energy called Dark Energy which must need to make up at least 70% of all the matter and energy in the universe!

    How many changes yet are we going to adopt to answer for this strange event we call Big Bang? How many inconsistencies are we going to allow before we start to gather scientists together to give an answer to the universe which did not begin in a big bang (1)?

    (1) - Actually, the big bang, was niether big. Nor was it a bang. One major astrophysicist mentioned in the OP called Fred Hoyle who disliked big bang till his death recently ws ironically the man who coined the term ''big bang.''
    The Ninth Incongruity

    It Just Came From Nowhere...

    And thus, this brings me to the ninth problem. The standard model has no ''standard interpretation'' to how things came into existence. The denial of this would only lead to ''no satisfactory conclusion'' that makes ''logical sense'' to the birth of the vacuum itself. It turns out we simpletons are to believe that ''it simply came from nowhere'' because none of our math so far can account for the existence of something sporadically appearing in space and time.

    Often assumed is that scientists bring forth the arguement that in physics we deal with things appearing from nowhere all the time when we consider virtual particles. But it is a ''red-herring'' of an arguement, because ultimately, they evolve from being virtual from a virtual field. Eventually when you trace all of reality back, you come to a point where no field exists, but rather a point of pure singularitarian form.

    How did the singularity come into existence? It begs the quetsion which begs an answer, which has yet to be fulfilled. It turns out that ''Ekpyrotic Theory'' is only a speculation but the first attempt in modern physics to attribute a time existing before our universe, by introducing a ''big bounce'' between two universes. But as i said, this is speculation, and the existence of other universes has yet to be proven.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    There is no ninth incongruity. Just as evolution deals with, well, evolution, not abiogenesis, so BB theory deals with the Universe's development after about 10^-30 seconds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    My article is posted on the HA.

    Quantum Physics is applicable to the HA and light as a quanta.

    Einsteins GR is applicable to gravity and space.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Why this preoccupation with any theory being 'Actuality' ? So many people, including most of the media get caught out incorrectly assuming that the current best model is believed by the scientific community to be 'actually what happened' whereas as any real scientist will tell you, it is simply the model that the majority of workers in that particular field field think best fits the best currently available data. It is one of the things which clearly differentiates science from religion: There is no dogma, beliefs can change overnight as better models or new data is collected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    67
    black hole do exist , Big bang's nature is considered by some sort that of black hole. suck in side and vomit out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightingbird View Post
    How on earth would any of us know? We haven't even left expanse of the earth and moon yet. Sure experts can factor in many different things but how can anyone really know?
    I hear this surprisingly often in regards to cosmological phenomena.

    We have no reason to believe that the laws of physics change relative to the distance from Earth or that they have changed over time. We should be able to predict stellar phenomena, planetary formations, etc all the way across the universe at different periods in our universe's history.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightingbird View Post
    How on earth would any of us know? We haven't even left expanse of the earth and moon yet. Sure experts can factor in many different things but how can anyone really know?
    I hear this surprisingly often in regards to cosmological phenomena.
    Yes. And there is this thing called "deduction" whereby we can observe A and deduce B without having to observe B.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    We know because we can see it. Light has no limit on how far it can travel and our instruments are getting pretty good.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    We know because we can see it. Light has no limit on how far it can travel and our instruments are getting pretty good.
    In general, light from any distant source provides information about the intervening space along the line-of-sight, including a timestamp of events based on redshifts. Furthermore, because the cosmic microwave background radiation back-lights everything inside this cosmic spherical background, we can make observations of events that occurred before there was any visible objects, as well as of the intergalactic medium, including when these events occurred. For example, we can observe the Lyman-alpha forest.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •