Notices
Results 1 to 69 of 69

Thread: The Big Bang Theory

  1. #1 The Big Bang Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Hello,

    I have been interested in this topic for a very long time, and I would be very glad to know your opinion on the BB theory. Personally, I believe in this theory and ignore all of the other theories that I hear about. I even started a blog completely dedicated to it, please do not forget to jump in http://scikronos.blogspot.com, read, and leave a comment. Even though I will not change my opinion (yes, I am very stubborn), I want to know what other people think about it.

    http://scikronos.blogspot.com


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 BB Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Ok, I see that no one wants to reply to this since I just ask the question without specifying my own opinion about it. To me, there are three main, most believable, theories about world creation or cycle. The Bing Bang Theory, the String Theory, and the Big Crunch Theory. All of us, hopefully, know what the Bing Bang Theory is. It is a theory that the universe began with a huge explosion of singularity. The String Theory is that if the universe was pulled by a gravitational force of its own, thus, forming a big bang. And last but not least, the Big Crunch Theory is that the universe began with the Big Bang, and now all of the matter is racing away into space, and will continue to do so, unless the universe creates a gravitational force. The gravitational force will pull all of the matter of the universe into a highly dense point that will turn into singularity. All three of these theories sound right, and are very believable. But I still stick with the good ol' Big Bang Theory. Since all of these theories have the BB Theory included in them, I decided that all were completely based on the idea of it. Honestly, I've been thinking about writing a research paper on this topic for a very long time now, and never got around to doing it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: BB Theory 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Ok, I see that no one wants to reply to this since I just ask the question without specifying my own opinion about it. To me, there are three main, most believable, theories about world creation or cycle. The Bing Bang Theory, the String Theory, and the Big Crunch Theory. All of us, hopefully, know what the Bing Bang Theory is. It is a theory that the universe began with a huge explosion of singularity. The String Theory is that if the universe was pulled by a gravitational force of its own, thus, forming a big bang. And last but not least, the Big Crunch Theory is that the universe began with the Big Bang, and now all of the matter is racing away into space, and will continue to do so, unless the universe creates a gravitational force. The gravitational force will pull all of the matter of the universe into a highly dense point that will turn into singularity. All three of these theories sound right, and are very believable. But I still stick with the good ol' Big Bang Theory. Since all of these theories have the BB Theory included in them, I decided that all were completely based on the idea of it. Honestly, I've been thinking about writing a research paper on this topic for a very long time now, and never got around to doing it.
    Where in the world did you ever get such notions ?

    You need to do some research and get your facts straight. You will find some reference material here. http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: BB Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Ok, I see that no one wants to reply to this since I just ask the question without specifying my own opinion about it. To me, there are three main, most believable, theories about world creation or cycle. The Bing Bang Theory, the String Theory, and the Big Crunch Theory. All of us, hopefully, know what the Bing Bang Theory is. It is a theory that the universe began with a huge explosion of singularity. The String Theory is that if the universe was pulled by a gravitational force of its own, thus, forming a big bang. And last but not least, the Big Crunch Theory is that the universe began with the Big Bang, and now all of the matter is racing away into space, and will continue to do so, unless the universe creates a gravitational force. The gravitational force will pull all of the matter of the universe into a highly dense point that will turn into singularity. All three of these theories sound right, and are very believable. But I still stick with the good ol' Big Bang Theory. Since all of these theories have the BB Theory included in them, I decided that all were completely based on the idea of it. Honestly, I've been thinking about writing a research paper on this topic for a very long time now, and never got around to doing it.
    Where in the world did you ever get such notions ?

    You need to do some research and get your facts straight. You will find some reference material here. http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php
    It seems that contradicting everyone is your usual commenting style. Well, you HAVE sent me that link before, and I have went through it already. And the world is pretty big as we know it, so I have heard, and read about it a lot before. If you are trying to make a point, please just state it right away. Where did I go wrong? And please don't just say "the whole thing is wrong", be more specific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: BB Theory 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    It seems that contradicting everyone is your usual commenting style. Well, you HAVE sent me that link before, and I have went through it already. And the world is pretty big as we know it, so I have heard, and read about it a lot before. If you are trying to make a point, please just state it right away. Where did I go wrong? And please don't just say "the whole thing is wrong", be more specific.
    Answer the question. What is the source for your assertions ?

    Alternative: Read the references and discover the actual content of current mainstream theory.

    You have clearly stated that nothing will cause you to change your opinions so I have no intention of trying to teach you anything. Besides learning for oneself is usually superior to instruction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: BB Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    It seems that contradicting everyone is your usual commenting style. Well, you HAVE sent me that link before, and I have went through it already. And the world is pretty big as we know it, so I have heard, and read about it a lot before. If you are trying to make a point, please just state it right away. Where did I go wrong? And please don't just say "the whole thing is wrong", be more specific.
    Answer the question. What is the source for your assertions ?

    Alternative: Read the references and discover the actual content of current mainstream theory.

    You have clearly stated that nothing will cause you to change your opinions so I have no intention of trying to teach you anything. Besides learning for oneself is usually superior to instruction.
    I will read your research again. But first, answer my question. I am definitely not trying to reel you into an argument (which it is turning into), but I just want to know for my own good. Besides, It'll be great for all of the other people who read this page, wont it? Now, lets hear it please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: BB Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    It seems that contradicting everyone is your usual commenting style. Well, you HAVE sent me that link before, and I have went through it already. And the world is pretty big as we know it, so I have heard, and read about it a lot before. If you are trying to make a point, please just state it right away. Where did I go wrong? And please don't just say "the whole thing is wrong", be more specific.
    Answer the question. What is the source for your assertions ?

    Alternative: Read the references and discover the actual content of current mainstream theory.

    You have clearly stated that nothing will cause you to change your opinions so I have no intention of trying to teach you anything. Besides learning for oneself is usually superior to instruction.
    Here, just to make you talk I will answer you question. I have read about the theories in many books which I can not refer to at the moment. Here are simple links to wikipedia articles and such that will present the same information I presented.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    And I do not need to explain the Big Bang theory to such an "expert" as you are, I guess. So, what do you have to say?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: BB Theory 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Here, just to make you talk I will answer you question. I have read about the theories in many books which I can not refer to at the moment. Here are simple links to wikipedia articles and such that will present the same information I presented.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    And I do not need to explain the Big Bang theory to such an "expert" as you are, I guess. So, what do you have to say?
    1. Your links are correct, and they contradict your statements.

    2. The Big Crunch is not a cosmological theory, but is simply thev result of an eventual re-contraction of the univerese, were there sufficient mass to cause that contraction. With the observation that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating thios scenario has largely fallen by the wayside (that could change as we learn more about the cause of the accelerating expansion).

    3. String btheory is not a cosmological theory, but rather a class of theories of the fundamental forces. It is very much a work in progress, and no meaningful cosmological models have come from it. Your assertion that "The String Theory is that if the universe was pulled by a gravitational force of its own, thus, forming a big bang." has no basis in fact.

    Those links over-simplify things a bit, but they do get across the flavor of the subject. Buit one woders if you read them since they hardly support your statements.

    If you formed your notions from books, then either you did not understand the books or else you need better books. There are some good hard-core technical books in the link provided earlieer. Some less demanding popularizations are discussed in this thread. http://www.thescienceforum.com/What-...ead-27426t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: BB Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Here, just to make you talk I will answer you question. I have read about the theories in many books which I can not refer to at the moment. Here are simple links to wikipedia articles and such that will present the same information I presented.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    And I do not need to explain the Big Bang theory to such an "expert" as you are, I guess. So, what do you have to say?
    1. Your links are correct, and they contradict your statements.

    2. The Big Crunch is not a cosmological theory, but is simply thev result of an eventual re-contraction of the univerese, were there sufficient mass to cause that contraction. With the observation that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating thios scenario has largely fallen by the wayside (that could change as we learn more about the cause of the accelerating expansion).

    3. String btheory is not a cosmological theory, but rather a class of theories of the fundamental forces. It is very much a work in progress, and no meaningful cosmological models have come from it. Your assertion that "The String Theory is that if the universe was pulled by a gravitational force of its own, thus, forming a big bang." has no basis in fact.

    Those links over-simplify things a bit, but they do get across the flavor of the subject. Buit one woders if you read them since they hardly support your statements.

    If you formed your notions from books, then either you did not understand the books or else you need better books. There are some good hard-core technical books in the link provided earlieer. Some less demanding popularizations are discussed in this thread. http://www.thescienceforum.com/What-...ead-27426t.php
    I am absolutely right about the Big Crunch Theory, and my link DOES support it. And about the String Theory, yes, it is explained very oddly. But lets look deeper inside it. It can also be related to cosmology and the creation of the universe, I believe. Many may mis-interpret the String Theory thinking that it is related only to strings, as string were mentioned a lot on the page, but it is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Hi!

    The Big-Crunch is not an alternative cosmology, it is a possible outcome to Big-Bang cosmology. It belongs in the same category as the "Big-Rip" or the "heat death" of the universe - a possible final outcome for the Big-Bang universe.

    String theory, or more accurately M-Theory, may sometime in the future provide us with a mechanism that caused the Big-Bang universe.

    Neither the Big-Crunch nor String theory are alternatives to the Big-Bang, as, by neccessity, both have to include the Big-Bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: BB Theory 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Here, just to make you talk I will answer you question. I have read about the theories in many books which I can not refer to at the moment. Here are simple links to wikipedia articles and such that will present the same information I presented.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    And I do not need to explain the Big Bang theory to such an "expert" as you are, I guess. So, what do you have to say?
    1. Your links are correct, and they contradict your statements.

    2. The Big Crunch is not a cosmological theory, but is simply thev result of an eventual re-contraction of the univerese, were there sufficient mass to cause that contraction. With the observation that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating thios scenario has largely fallen by the wayside (that could change as we learn more about the cause of the accelerating expansion).

    3. String btheory is not a cosmological theory, but rather a class of theories of the fundamental forces. It is very much a work in progress, and no meaningful cosmological models have come from it. Your assertion that "The String Theory is that if the universe was pulled by a gravitational force of its own, thus, forming a big bang." has no basis in fact.

    Those links over-simplify things a bit, but they do get across the flavor of the subject. Buit one woders if you read them since they hardly support your statements.

    If you formed your notions from books, then either you did not understand the books or else you need better books. There are some good hard-core technical books in the link provided earlieer. Some less demanding popularizations are discussed in this thread. http://www.thescienceforum.com/What-...ead-27426t.php
    I am absolutely right about the Big Crunch Theory, and my link DOES support it. And about the String Theory, yes, it is explained very oddly. But lets look deeper inside it. It can also be related to cosmology and the creation of the universe, I believe. Many may mis-interpret the String Theory thinking that it is related only to strings, as string were mentioned a lot on the page, but it is not.
    You are absolutely wrong about the content of the theoties.

    You are absolutely wrong about the content of your own links.

    You are absolutely wrong about being absolutely right.

    You don't understand that you don't understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: BB Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Here, just to make you talk I will answer you question. I have read about the theories in many books which I can not refer to at the moment. Here are simple links to wikipedia articles and such that will present the same information I presented.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

    And I do not need to explain the Big Bang theory to such an "expert" as you are, I guess. So, what do you have to say?
    1. Your links are correct, and they contradict your statements.

    2. The Big Crunch is not a cosmological theory, but is simply thev result of an eventual re-contraction of the univerese, were there sufficient mass to cause that contraction. With the observation that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating thios scenario has largely fallen by the wayside (that could change as we learn more about the cause of the accelerating expansion).

    3. String btheory is not a cosmological theory, but rather a class of theories of the fundamental forces. It is very much a work in progress, and no meaningful cosmological models have come from it. Your assertion that "The String Theory is that if the universe was pulled by a gravitational force of its own, thus, forming a big bang." has no basis in fact.

    Those links over-simplify things a bit, but they do get across the flavor of the subject. Buit one woders if you read them since they hardly support your statements.

    If you formed your notions from books, then either you did not understand the books or else you need better books. There are some good hard-core technical books in the link provided earlieer. Some less demanding popularizations are discussed in this thread. http://www.thescienceforum.com/What-...ead-27426t.php
    I am absolutely right about the Big Crunch Theory, and my link DOES support it. And about the String Theory, yes, it is explained very oddly. But lets look deeper inside it. It can also be related to cosmology and the creation of the universe, I believe. Many may mis-interpret the String Theory thinking that it is related only to strings, as string were mentioned a lot on the page, but it is not.
    You are absolutely wrong about the content of the theoties.

    You are absolutely wrong about the content of your own links.

    You are absolutely wrong about being absolutely right.

    You don't understand that you don't understand.
    Just saying I'm wrong doesn't prove me wrong. Just a tip for future arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Hi!

    The Big-Crunch is not an alternative cosmology, it is a possible outcome to Big-Bang cosmology. It belongs in the same category as the "Big-Rip" or the "heat death" of the universe - a possible final outcome for the Big-Bang universe.

    String theory, or more accurately M-Theory, may sometime in the future provide us with a mechanism that caused the Big-Bang universe.

    Neither the Big-Crunch nor String theory are alternatives to the Big-Bang, as, by neccessity, both have to include the Big-Bang.
    Absolutely right. And I am very glad that you are right. And you just proved me right, for I never mentioned that they were an alternative. I said that they are other cosmological theories that relate to the Big Bang, in a way. They are all theories that include the beginning, and the cycle of the universe, thus, also predicting the future. Thank you for the comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    The Big-Bang does not include the beginning of the universe, nor does the Big-Crunch, the Big-Rip or heat death. In all the above scenarios, there is a singularity that prevents us from including a beginning.

    As of yet, M-Theory does not give us a beginning, either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    The Big-Bang does not include the beginning of the universe, nor does the Big-Crunch, the Big-Rip or heat death. In all the above scenarios, there is a singularity that prevents us from including a beginning.

    As of yet, M-Theory does not give us a beginning, either.
    Wrong. Your previous comment made everything much easier. You already proved me right so there is no reason for trying to do the opposite anymore.

    Search it up and get some right answers. Saying that the Big Bang theory is not about the creation of the universe is your first mistake, so start from that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Nope, the current Big-Bang cosmology (Lambda-CDM concordance) only takes us back as far as t=10^-43 seconds. It doesn't reach back as far as t=0.

    No current theory takes us to the beginning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Nope, the current Big-Bang cosmology (Lambda-CDM concordance) only takes us back as far as t=10^-43 seconds. It doesn't reach back as far as t=0.

    No current theory takes us to the beginning.
    The beginning of time= the Big Bang. Yes, there was a world BEFORE the Big Bang, but it was singularity. But what exactly is singularity? It is nothing. The Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe as we know it today. Again, look at the words more carefully and grasp the idea, it makes life much easier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    You are making many inferences that are not actually part of Big-Bang theory. The theory definitely does not speak of a world before the Big-Bang, nor does it attribute any properties of nothingness to the singularity, these are your own interpretations only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    You are making many inferences that are not actually part of Big-Bang theory. The theory definitely does not speak of a world before the Big-Bang, nor does it attribute any properties of nothingness to the singularity, these are your own interpretations only.
    No.

    I never said that there was a part about a universe before the Big Bang in the Big Bang theory. It was just a solid statement that proved me right, and proved you wrong. I do not make rules, I follow them. And again, stop trying to win an argument when the argument is already over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Both I, and DrRocket, know the argument is over, because we know what we are speaking of, whereas it seems you do not.

    You asked for thoughts about your blog, well, I have looked at your blog, and it is full of misconceptions about what the current theory actually says. Don't worry, these are common misconceptions, usually based in reading about the theory through popular analogies.

    For starters, the Big-Bang was not an explosion in an unimaginable space that has no location, mass or size, as you claim. An explosion requires a pressure differential.

    It was not an explosion in "nothing" either. The Big-Bang model says nothing about what came before the Big-Bang, but this does not mean the Big-Bang came from nothing - it simply means we cannot use the theory to say anything about "before".

    The explosion did not have a diameter that is such a big number that we cannot imagine how many zeros it contains, for it was not an explosion. As to the diameter of the fundamental domain of the universe, we do not know this.

    You are making all this stuff up, to fit with your pre-conceived notions of what you think the theory ought to be, rather than what it actually is.

    It is laudable that you wish to promote the Big-Bang theory, but it would make sense to have a very good understanding of the theory before you argue for it.

    I might recommend you might start at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
    It addresses quite a few things that you state in your blog.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    For starters, the Big-Bang was not an explosion in an unimaginable space that has no location, mass or size, as you claim. An explosion requires a pressure differential.

    It was not an explosion in "nothing" either. The Big-Bang model says nothing about what came before the Big-Bang, but this does not mean the Big-Bang came from nothing - it simply means we cannot use the theory to say anything about "before".

    The explosion did not have a diameter that is such a big number that we cannot imagine how many zeros it contains, for it was not an explosion. As to the diameter of the fundamental domain of the universe, we do not know this.

    You are making all this stuff up, to fit with your pre-conceived notions of what you think the theory ought to be, rather than what it actually is.
    1. MOST of the sources on the net, books and other types of media support the idea of an "explosion". Even the very name of the theory suggests that there was an explosion (as silly as it is to support my statement with this little detail.)

    2. Try to define singularity. Singularity is where the explosion of the Big Bang is thought to have happened.

    3. Re-read #1.

    I am definitely NOT making this up, and please stop stating my information wrong, for it is not. You can have as many people as you want to take your side, but I can already see that they will be so called "trolls" that contradict everything that a person with less supporters states.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    I am just trying to make sure that some of the most popular misconceptions about the current cosmology do not get repeated too often, that is all. It is an attempt to halt the spread of a "dumbed down" description of cosmology that has so watered down the contents as to render them a pale and insipid version of the original. This completely changes the taste! :wink:

    If a lot of popular resources support the idea of an "explosion", they are helping to perpetuate a misconception that was first introduced by Fred Hoyle, for it was he who coined the term "Big-Bang" in an attempt to belittle the theory (Hoyle was an opponent of Big-Bang cosmology).

    An important part of the theory is that the space expands with the universe, rather than the universe expanding into pre-existing space. This is, therefore, nothing like an explosion. Also, what I just described is an analogy, as are all descriptions of what the equations tell us, and that "expanding space" paradigm is itself subject to misconceptions, due to these popular descriptions.

    Another point is that there is no focal point in space that is the origin of expansion, there is only a focal point in time when, if we trace time backwards, everything seems to converge. That's a focal point in time, rather than space, as the Big-Bang happened everywhere. Again, this is nothing like an explosion.

    In fact, when that expansion is described in more rigorous terms, such as those DrRocket or a theoretical physicist might use, it completely loses any passing resemblance to an explosion at all! Here it is all 1-parameter foliations that act as a surrogate for time across 3 dimensional hyper-slices that represent space!

    A singularity means we cannot define time or space. How can time start at a singularity then? We cannot even define time where there is a singularity. So, when we go back as far as we can define, we only get as far back as t=10^-43 seconds.

    Big-Bang theory does not include a beginning to the universe, and this is fully acknowledged by science, which is why we need to find a new theory to describe what happened any further back than t=10^-43 seconds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    I am just trying to make sure that some of the most popular misconceptions about the current cosmology do not get repeated too often, that is all. It is an attempt to halt the spread of a "dumbed down" description of cosmology that has so watered down the contents as to render them a pale and insipid version of the original. This completely changes the taste! :wink:

    If a lot of popular resources support the idea of an "explosion", they are helping to perpetuate a misconception that was first introduced by Fred Hoyle, for it was he who coined the term "Big-Bang" in an attempt to belittle the theory (Hoyle was an opponent of Big-Bang cosmology).

    An important part of the theory is that the space expands with the universe, rather than the universe expanding into pre-existing space. This is, therefore, nothing like an explosion. Also, what I just described is an analogy, as are all descriptions of what the equations tell us, and that "expanding space" paradigm is itself subject to misconceptions, due to these popular descriptions.

    Another point is that there is no focal point in space that is the origin of expansion, there is only a focal point in time when, if we trace time backwards, everything seems to converge. That's a focal point in time, rather than space, as the Big-Bang happened everywhere. Again, this is nothing like an explosion.

    In fact, when that expansion is described in more rigorous terms, such as those DrRocket or a theoretical physicist might use, it completely loses any passing resemblance to an explosion at all! Here it is all 1-parameter foliations that act as a surrogate for time across 3 dimensional hyper-slices that represent space!

    A singularity means we cannot define time or space. How can time start at a singularity then? We cannot even define time where there is a singularity. So, when we go back as far as we can define, we only get as far back as t=10^-43 seconds.

    Big-Bang theory does not include a beginning to the universe, and this is fully acknowledged by science, which is why we need to find a new theory to describe what happened any further back than t=10^-43 seconds.
    I admire your focus and your devotion of time to this argument. You are truly a nice chatter. Yes, expansion is the right word, but explosion is a alternative which makes things much more understandable. Your last paragraph does not have to do anything to what what we are talking about. And I have also never mentioned that singularity was a specific location in space, no, that is the opposite of what I was saying. I don't know how you see it, but I see that both of us are right with the portion of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: BB Theory 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    You don't understand that you don't understand.
    Just saying I'm wrong doesn't prove me wrong. Just a tip for future arguments.[/quote]

    Your own links adequately demonstrate that you are wrong.

    Best to understand any references that you use.

    Just a tip for educating yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: BB Theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    You don't understand that you don't understand.
    Just saying I'm wrong doesn't prove me wrong. Just a tip for future arguments.
    Your own links adequately demonstrate that you are wrong.

    Best to understand any references that you use.

    Just a tip for educating yourself.[/quote]

    For the last time, my links are highly supportive of what I say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    2. Try to define singularity. Singularity is where the explosion of the Big Bang is thought to have happened.
    The existence of a singularity in GR is the failure of spacetime to be timelike geodesically complete.

    If you need a reference try The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis.

    Your definition is wrong. No surprise there.

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    I am definitely NOT making this up, and please stop stating my information wrong, for it is not. You can have as many people as you want to take your side, but I can already see that they will be so called "trolls" that contradict everything that a person with less supporters states.
    Since you are not "making this up" one concludes that you believe what you are saying. That is likely the result of insufficient background or insufficient intelligence to understand the underlying theory. What you are saying is WRONG, and your protests do not change that.

    In any case you don't know what you are talking about. As you have been told, serious mainstream sources for the theory are listed here. http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...gy-28430t.phpu

    Now go read and understand them if you can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: BB Theory 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You don't understand that you don't understand.
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    "Just saying I'm wrong doesn't prove me wrong. Just a tip for future arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Your own links adequately demonstrate that you are wrong.

    Best to understand any references that you use.

    Just a tip for educating yourself.
    For the last time, my links are highly supportive of what I say.
    No they are not. You are simply demonstrating the lack of ability to understand your own links.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    2. Try to define singularity. Singularity is where the explosion of the Big Bang is thought to have happened.
    The existence of a singularity in GR is the failure of spacetime to be timelike geodesically complete.

    If you need a reference try The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis.

    Your definition is wrong. No surprise there.

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    I am definitely NOT making this up, and please stop stating my information wrong, for it is not. You can have as many people as you want to take your side, but I can already see that they will be so called "trolls" that contradict everything that a person with less supporters states.
    Since you are not "making this up" one concludes that you believe what you are saying. That is likely the result of insufficient background or insufficient intelligence to understand the underlying theory. What you are saying is WRONG, and your protests do not change that.

    In any case you don't know what you are talking about. As you have been told, serious mainstream sources for the theory are listed here. http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...gy-28430t.phpu

    Now go read and understand them if you can.
    Scientists can look back to 10^-43 seconds after the creation of the universe. It is when the fireball started to expand, thus, creating the universe. Yes, no one knows what was going on at t=0, but we assume that it was singularity. Singularity has no mass, no location, and no dimensions as well. Therefore many assume that it was basically nothing. I do not understand what part of this does not live up to your expectations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Honestly, I've been thinking about writing a research paper on this topic for a very long time now, and never got around to doing it.
    You really do get all sorts of people on a forum such as this one.

    GioNikola: I am finding it hard to imagine your position on all of this. You show an interest in the big bang and have read a lot about it, but because of this you imagine that your interpretation of what you have read is beyond contestation for some reason. You have people offering to correct your misunderstanding, but instead you stand fast and refuse to move.Why is it so hard for you to accept healthy direction on this? Do you think you know all there is to know about this topic? This isn't simply a jab at you, but any "research paper" you have written with the misunderstandings you have shown will fail miserably to be published by any reputable journal.


    Your last post alone is rife with misconceptions:

    1)No, they can't look earlier than seconds after the big bang, because we have no theories that can describe the conditions earlier than that.

    2)No "fireball" expanded. There wasn't anything to burn yet. You keep stubbornly holding on to the idea that an explosion is an accurate enough description of what the big bang was. It simply is not. If the big bang was the start of the universe, where did everything expand into? Well that's another misconception you see. There was no "there" for it to expand into.

    To imagine expansion, think about what it means to stand on the surface of a small sphere. You can start walking and end up back where you started. If the sphere was to start expanding, you will gradually start to have to walk longer and further to end up back where you started. The 2D surface of the sphere in this analogy corresponds to our 3 space-like dimensions. There is nothing else to consider, nothing else that exists. Try and stop yourself from imagining a point hanging in the middle of nowhere that explodes, because that is entirely the wrong idea.

    3)Singularities represent the point where our current theories break down. The maths point towards a singularity, but we have no idea what actually goes on on such scales. What we do know of their theoretical properties though, is that they most certainly do have mass, charge and angular momentum. They are not simply nothing and I would love to see a citation for this "many" who assume it is.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Honestly, I've been thinking about writing a research paper on this topic for a very long time now, and never got around to doing it.
    You really do get all sorts of people on a forum such as this one.

    GioNikola: I am finding it hard to imagine your position on all of this. You show an interest in the big bang and have read a lot about it, but because of this you imagine that your interpretation of what you have read is beyond contestation for some reason. You have people offering to correct your misunderstanding, but instead you stand fast and refuse to move.Why is it so hard for you to accept healthy direction on this? Do you think you know all there is to know about this topic? This isn't simply a jab at you, but any "research paper" you have written with the misunderstandings you have shown will fail miserably to be published by any reputable journal.
    I really do not want to argue about anything anymore, just seems pointless to do so. I stated a very straight forward thing that is not MY interpretations at all. It really is the first time for me that I see people correcting the actual theory.

    Now, here are the points that I am trying to make:
    - The Big Bang theory is the most accepted, and the best, theory to explain the origin of the universe.
    - The Big Bang theory IS about the origin of the universe.
    - Before the sudden expansion, there was singularity.

    That is basically it. And please prove me wrong if you can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    - The Big Bang theory is the most accepted, and the best, theory to explain the origin of the universe.
    - The Big Bang theory IS about the origin of the universe.
    Agreed.

    - Before the sudden expansion, there was singularity.
    See my last post.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    - The Big Bang theory is the most accepted, and the best, theory to explain the origin of the universe.
    - The Big Bang theory IS about the origin of the universe.
    Agreed.

    - Before the sudden expansion, there was singularity.
    See my last post.
    Thank you for agreeing. And I will definitely consider and research more about my last point, since everyone is proving it wrong. Speed Freek was proving my second point wrong also, and you just ended that argument too.

    Fantastic, thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Let me comment on this thread here. I agree that it is admirable that someone tries to support the so called "Big Bang" theory (or hypothesis, paradigm). In this way, we are on solid ground wrt accepted scientific knowledge. However, it is diluting the effort, when some of the views of of the supporter do not reflect what is actually explained or even part of an accepted theory, but rather the repetition or - even worse - the derivative of such popularisations. This is exactly the problem, when self-proclaimed geniuses (like we had just recently) use these popularised sketches and analogies to oppose broadly accepted science, while they do not actually reflect them properly.

    Science is a delicate business, that does not allow for sloppy definitions or handwaving arguments that seem to support or somehow be related to the actual theories or hypotheses. So, I would be glad, if we could all agree on the following terms.

    1. The term "Big Bang" does not adequately summarise the heart of the underlying theory, because we cannot know, whether there was a "bang" caused by an explosion. Most probably not. Arguing that an "explosion" is a "reasonable" representation, also because it is supported by the "name of the theory" is an unscientific argument. An "explosion" cannot have caused the universe to start expanding.

    2. The so called "Big Bang" theory is about the history of the universe back to an age that is covered by physics and math.

    3. We don't know and we can't know, how the universe began. And as such, the so called "Big Bang" theory does not cover the beginning of the universe, because the underlying physical theory (General Relativity) is not applicable there.

    4. The universe (i.e. space) is expanding since. What is actually driving the expansion, is unknown. Call it "Dark Energy", if you want, but it is definitely not the result of an explosion.

    5. The universe is not expanding into some kind of a god-given space. It is space itself that is expanding.

    6. Whether or not the universe began with a singularity is not known, and it is also not part of the so called "Big Bang" theory. It is a popularisation, an analogy not supported by physics. Pure speculation without an physical background. Possible but not inevitable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Let me comment on this thread here. I agree that it is admirable that someone tries to support the so called "Big Bang" theory (or hypothesis, paradigm). In this way, we are on solid ground wrt accepted scientific knowledge. However, it is diluting the effort, when some of the views of of the supporter do not reflect what is actually explained or even part of an accepted theory, but rather the repetition or - even worse - the derivative of such popularisations. This is exactly the problem, when self-proclaimed geniuses (like we had just recently) use these popularised sketches and analogies to oppose broadly accepted science, while they do not actually reflect them properly.

    Science is a delicate business, that does not allow for sloppy definitions or handwaving arguments that seem to support or somehow be related to the actual theories or hypotheses. So, I would be glad, if we could all agree on the following terms.

    1. The term "Big Bang" does not adequately summarise the heart of the underlying theory, because we cannot know, whether there was a "bang" caused by an explosion. Most probably not. Arguing that an "explosion" is a "reasonable" representation, also because it is supported by the "name of the theory" is an unscientific argument. An "explosion" cannot have caused the universe to start expanding.

    2. The so called "Big Bang" theory is about the history of the universe back to an age that is covered by physics and math.

    3. We don't know and we can't know, how the universe began. And as such, the so called "Big Bang" theory does not cover the beginning of the universe, because the underlying physical theory (General Relativity) is not applicable there.

    4. The universe (i.e. space) is expanding since. What is actually driving the expansion, is unknown. Call it "Dark Energy", if you want, but it is definitely not the result of an explosion.

    5. The universe is not expanding into some kind of a god-given space. It is space itself that is expanding.

    6. Whether or not the universe began with a singularity is not known, and it is also not part of the so called "Big Bang" theory. It is a popularisation, an analogy not supported by physics. Pure speculation without an physical background. Possible but not inevitable.
    Agreed.

    Yes, I have made some mistakes but your points just supported some of mine. Again, I do not make things up, I just suggest what I have heard and believe in.

    Thank you for your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    3. We don't know and we can't know, how the universe began. And as such, the so called "Big Bang" theory does not cover the beginning of the universe, because the underlying physical theory (General Relativity) is not applicable there.
    Ah, missed the subtlety. I guess when people think " big bang" they think of the whole event from t=0. I was just thinking that when future theories can advance us ever closer to t=0, I don't suppose we will ever stop calling it part of the big bang theory? I do understand that our current theories can't go that far and that the full theoretical framework of the big bang only extends back to a certain time after the "bang" of the big bang.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    The Big-Bang is not, as it stands, a theory describing the origin of the universe, it is a theory describing the evolution of the universe.

    In order to describe the origin, we need to remove that singularity. There have been attempts to do this - one notable example is "loop quantum gravity", which replaces the singularity with a previously collapsing universe, but as of yet LQG makes no testable predictions that aren't already included in the Standard Model or General Relativity. So the jury is well and truly still out on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    The Big-Bang is not, as it stands, a theory describing the origin of the universe, it is a theory describing the evolution of the universe.
    precisely

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    In order to describe the origin, we need to remove that singularity. There have been attempts to do this - one notable example is "loop quantum gravity", which replaces the singularity with a previously collapsing universe, but as of yet LQG makes no testable predictions that aren't already included in the Standard Model or General Relativity. So the jury is well and truly still out on the subject.
    Close but not quite.

    Singularities in GR are subtle, and what one sees in popularizations is misleading.

    The pictures that one sees are of singular points of some function the domain of which is all points except one (the singular point) on some set. That could easily be extended to a larger set of singular points, but the key is that the singular points are a subset of a given set.

    In GR, spacetime is the entire manifold,the universe, the whole enchilada. There is no larger set. Moreover spacetime is not given explicitly. Spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold, and the metric defines the topology. The metric is required to be well-defined at each point of spacetime -- there are no singular points in spacetime and defining what is meant by singular behavior takes some work. You have a singularity when spacetime fails to be timelike geodesically complete -- meaning there are inextendible geodesics that cannot defined over all of (which is itself a rather technical condition). There are a set of equations, the Einstein field equations, that determine the metric by determining the curvature and thereby determine the topology of the entire manifold -- the manifold is determined implicitly, not explicitly. The main point is that whatever a singularity is, it is not a set of points in spacetime.

    So "getting rid of the singularity" means finding a theory in which there is no singular behavior, and not somehow excising a singular set from the spacetime manifold.

    LQG claims to be "not background dependent", meaning in loose terms that space and time arise from within the theory rather than being imposed, as dimensions, from the start as in GR. Unfortunately these loose terms are all that exists and LQG proponents cannot provide a precise definition of the term.

    In any case this stuff is important to understanding, maybe, t=0 and a small fraction of a second afterward. If one is satisfied with t= 10^-33 s or so and subsequent to that then the existing model is fairly good. The basic idea of the big bang is solid. Any future better theory will have to be consistent with it also -- the correspondence principle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Here's what the experts are saying about the origin of the universe:

    NASA: "The universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."
    http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...se/b_bang.html

    UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."
    http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ng_Primer.html

    University of Michigan: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other."
    http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

    PBS: There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dp27bi.html

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."
    http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar...rsesummary.pdf

    Now, as you see all of these statements have try to make the same point as I tried to do.

    What you people are saying is the details of all of the above, but almost do not change the point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Thank you for the clarification DrRocket, I can see how my statement about removing the singularity and perhaps replacing it with a previously collapsing universe is misleading. I meant we need a better theory, not that we need to remove the singularities from GR. GR leads to singularities, or singular behaviour, so we need a better theory, one that contains no singular behaviour, in order to penetrate deeper into the origins of the universe. And of course, the better theory has to satisfy the correspondence principle - it has to reflect the results of established theories, within their respective domains of applicability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Here's what the experts are saying about the origin of the universe:

    NASA: "The universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."
    (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...se/b_bang.html)
    This link doesn't work. In any case the Marshal Spaceflight Center is a propulsion center and not a center for bcosmology, or indeed science.

    There are several NASA sites thatn discuss the big bang. They are not consistent. Some of them are right. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."
    (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ng_Primer.html)
    Paul Shestople is neither a cosmologist nor a physicist (neither a BA nor a pending MS are good enough).

    Your "expert" is not an expert. In fact he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~shestopl/Resume.html

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    University of Michigan: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other."
    http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm)
    This link doesn't work either, though I don't see why.

    But this one does, matches yours,and contains the passage that you quoted. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

    This appears to be some sort of class project by a couple of students, not a product of an expert faculty member fron the University of Michigan. It is good for undergraduates, but is distorted by over-simplification.

    So again your experts are not experts.



    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    PBS: There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."
    (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dp27bi.html)
    PBS is not a bastion of scientific veracity. Some good popularization, but lots of distortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."
    (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar...rsesummary.pdf)
    This is accurate. But it does not support your earlier errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Now, as you see all of these statements have try to make the same point as I tried to do.

    What you people are saying is the details of all of the above, but almost do not change the point.
    Wrong.

    You are relying on distorted popularizations. Some of what you have quoted is just plain wrong, and I don't give damn if it came from some university site.

    Try reading a real no-kidding cosmology test, like Cosmology by Weinberg, The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis or Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.

    Much as I hate reliance on internet sources, Ned Wright's site is pretty good. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

    You have missed the point of what everyone has been telling you.

    You need to do quite a bit more research, in greater depth, and understand the real basis for the current theories. It is based on subtleties in general relativity that do not come across in popularizations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Here's what the experts are saying about the origin of the universe:

    NASA: "The universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions."
    (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...se/b_bang.html)
    This link doesn't work. In any case the Marshal Spaceflight Center is a propulsion center and not a center for bcosmology, or indeed science.

    There are several NASA sites thatn discuss the big bang. They are not consistent. Some of them are right. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    UC Berkeley: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."
    (http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Educat...ng_Primer.html)
    Paul Shestople is neither a cosmologist nor a physicist (neither a BA nor a pending MS are good enough).

    Your "expert" is not an expert. In fact he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~shestopl/Resume.html

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    University of Michigan: "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other."
    http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm)
    This link doesn't work either, though I don't see why.

    But this one does, matches yours,and contains the passage that you quoted. http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

    This appears to be some sort of class project by a couple of students, not a product of an expert faculty member fron the University of Michigan. It is good for undergraduates, but is distorted by over-simplification.

    So again your experts are not experts.



    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    PBS: There was an "initial explosion" of a "primordial atom which had contained all the matter in the universe."
    (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/dp27bi.html)
    PBS is not a bastion of scientific veracity. Some good popularization, but lots of distortion.

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    American Association for the Advancement of Science: "In the last fifty years a great deal of evidence has accumulated in support of a "consensus" theory of the evolution of the universe. The theory holds that a "big bang" precipitated a huge split-second inflation of the universe, followed by a gradual expansion that continues to this day and is now accelerating."
    (http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/seminar...rsesummary.pdf)
    This is accurate. But it does not support your earlier errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Now, as you see all of these statements have try to make the same point as I tried to do.

    What you people are saying is the details of all of the above, but almost do not change the point.
    Wrong.

    You are relying on distorted popularizations. Some of what you have quoted is just plain wrong, and I don't give damn if it came from some university site.

    Try reading a real no-kidding cosmology test, like Cosmology by Weinberg, The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis or Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.

    Much as I hate reliance on internet sources, Ned Wright's site is pretty good. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

    You have missed the point of what everyone has been telling you.

    You need to do quite a bit more research, in greater depth, and understand the real basis for the current theories. It is based on subtleties in general relativity that do not come across in popularizations.
    I had this stored on my computer for some time now. I did not think of them as popularizations. Do you call all of these popularizations only because they are widely accepted by not just random personalities, but also by scientists at NASA?

    I really do not see a point to argue here.

    But now, I need some information from you. If I decide to start over (completely) on researching and reading about cosmology just to "get my facts right", which books would you advice me to read?

    Are there some researches you know about that just state some basics (main points) of cosmology? If so then please send me the links in a PM. I will honestly be glad to see those, thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    I had this stored on my computer for some time now. I did not think of them as popularizations. Do you call all of these popularizations only because they are widely accepted by not just random personalities, but also by scientists at NASA?

    I really do not see a point to argue here.

    But now, I need some information from you. If I decide to start over (completely) on researching and reading about cosmology just to "get my facts right", which books would you advice me to read?

    Are there some researches you know about that just state some basics (main points) of cosmology? If so then please send me the links in a PM. I will honestly be glad to see those, thank you.
    They are popularizations because they are written for an audience of non-scientists and over-simplify the theory because they cannot use the mathematics necessary for a complete and accurate representation. I think this is often because the authors do not really understand the theory. That is why, among popularizations, I strongly recommend books written by first-rank researchers.

    "Scientists at NASA" is a meaningless phrase. NASA has some good scientists. They also have some idiots. They most certainly have a HUGE public relations organization.


    Books:

    Popularizations (most by first-rank researchers}

    A Brief History of Time --Stephen Hawking
    Black Holes and Baby Universes and other Essays -- Stephen Hawking
    The Universe in a Nutshell -- Stephen Hawking
    The Future of Spacetime -- Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Igor Novikov, Alan Lightman
    The Nature of Space and Time -- Stephen Hawking and Roge Penrose
    The First Three Minutes -- Steven Weinberg
    The Discovery of Sub-atomic Particles -- Steven Weinberg
    Dreams of a Final Theory -- Steven Weinberg
    The Character of Physical Law -- Richard Feynman
    QED -- Richard Feynman
    The Pleasure of Finding Things Out -- Richard Feynman
    The Meaning of it All -- Richard Feynman
    The Quark and the Jaguar -- Murray Gell-Mann
    Beyond Star Trek -- Lawrence Kraus
    Space, Time and Gravity -- Robert Wald
    The Trouble with Physics -- Lee Smolin
    The Emperor's New Mind -- Roger Penrose
    The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe -- Roger Penrose
    The God Particle -- Leon Lederman
    Conversations on the Dark Side of Physics -- Edward Teller
    Superstrings -- edited by Paul Davies and J. Brown
    The Inflationary Universe -- Alan Guth
    The Elegant Universe -- Brian Greene
    The Fabric of the Cosmos -- Brian Greene
    Relativity, the Special and General Theory -- Albert Eiinstein


    BTW Hawking's latest, The Grand Design, is awful.

    Serious physics books -- those of particular interest for cosmology in bold, but you need to undrestand physics generally to understand cosmology

    The Feynman Lectures on Physics -- Feynman, Leighton and Sands
    Fundamentals of Physics, Extended -- Haliday, Resnick and Walker
    Thermal Physics --Morse
    Elements of Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer -- Obert and Young
    Theory of Elasticity -- Timoshenko and Goodier
    Fluid Dynamics for Physicists -- T.E. Faber
    Supersonic Flow and Shock Waves -- R. Courant and K.O. Friedrichs
    The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow I.II --Shapiro
    Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems -- Marion
    Classical Electromagnetic Radiation --Marion
    Classical Mechanics -- Goldstein
    Classical Electrodynamics -- Jackson
    A Course in Theoretical Physics ( 10 volumes ) -- Landau and ____
    Quantum Mechanics -- Messiah
    Quantum Mechanics -- P.J.E. Peebles
    The Principles of Quantum Mechanics --P.A.M. Dirac
    Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics -- John Von Neumann
    Relativistic Quantum Mechanics -- Bjorken and Drell
    Relativistic Quantum Fields -- Bjorken and Drell
    The Quantum Theory of Fields I, II, III -- Steven Weinberg
    Particles, Sources and Fields I, II, III -- Julian Schwinger
    Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell --A. Zee
    Modern Elementary Particle Physics, The Fundamental Particles and Forces ? -- Gordon Kane
    Gravitation and Cosmology, Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity -- Steven Weinberg
    Cosmology -- Steven Weinberg
    General Relativity -- Robert Wald
    Gravitation -- Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler
    The large scale structure of space-time -- S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis
    Priinciples of Physical Cosmology -- P.J.E. Peebles

    Plasma Physics -- S. Chandrasekhar
    Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability -- S. Chandrasekhar
    The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes -- S. Chandrasekhar
    Cosmical Electrodynamics -- Hannes Alfven and Carl-Gunne Falthammar
    Methods of Mathematical Physics --Courant and Hilbert
    Quantum Field Theory and Strings, A Course for Mathematicians I, II-- Pierre Deligne, Pavel Etingof, Daniel S. Freed, Lisa C. Jeffrey, David Kazhdan, John W. Morgan, David R. Morrison, and Edward Witten
    Superstriing Theory I and II -- M.B. Greene, J.H. Schwartz and E. Witten
    The Principle of Relativity -- Einstein, Lorentz, Weyl and Minkowski
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    But now, I need some information from you. If I decide to start over (completely) on researching and reading about cosmology just to "get my facts right", which books would you advice me to read?
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Try reading a real no-kidding cosmology test, like Cosmology by Weinberg, The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis or Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.

    Much as I hate reliance on internet sources, Ned Wright's site is pretty good. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
    Try reading a real no-kidding cosmology test, like Cosmology by Weinberg, The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis or Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.

    Much as I hate reliance on internet sources, Ned Wright's site is pretty good. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
    Try reading a real no-kidding cosmology test, like Cosmology by Weinberg, The large scale structure of spacetime by Hawking and Ellis or Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles.

    Much as I hate reliance on internet sources, Ned Wright's site is pretty good. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
    So far I've just been lurking on this thread, but your(GioNikola) willful density is so annoying I find myself repeating other people. If you are going to stand there with your finger's stuffed in your ear's, shouting "LA LA LA LA", then please do so elsewhere. Or perhaps you are a disguised miscreant and this is a method of trolling?

    For all other's who have posted on this thread, thank's for your time and effort.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    So far I've just been lurking on this thread, but your(GioNikola) willful density is so annoying I find myself repeating other people. If you are going to stand there with your finger's stuffed in your ear's, shouting "LA LA LA LA", then please do so elsewhere. Or perhaps you are a disguised miscreant and this is a method of trolling?
    At first, sure, but I think he has come quite a way from when he started out. Well done GioNikola and good luck with your studies. :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So far I've just been lurking on this thread, but your(GioNikola) willful density is so annoying I find myself repeating other people. If you are going to stand there with your finger's stuffed in your ear's, shouting "LA LA LA LA", then please do so elsewhere. Or perhaps you are a disguised miscreant and this is a method of trolling?
    At first, sure, but I think he has come quite a way from when he started out. Well done GioNikola and good luck with your studies. :wink:
    Well yea, I wouldn't have bothered kicking the mule if I truly believed it dead.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46 Big Bang was not 
    Wak
    Wak is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5

    Big Bang was not.
    The reason of cosmological redshift — "ageing" of photons.
    My scientific concept does not give an occasion to Universe expansion.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    [quote="KALSTER"]
    At first, sure, but I think he has come quite a way from when he started out. Well done GioNikola and good luck with your studies. :wink:
    Thank you.

    I have come a long way and learned a LOT of new, to me, facts.

    Well, to say the truth I am no expert or think that I am an expert of this at all. I am a teenager that just got carried away with cosmology, a wonderful study that I will definitely major in.

    In fact, I started this topic out with a series of false statements on purpose, I am no fool at all. Although I HAVE thought some of the later statements of mine WERE true, but now I think of it to be the opposite.

    I am glad I reeled so many "smarties" in this argument, it really taught me a lot, thank you. And I'm sincerely sorry if I "annoyed" some of you. I am actually not as stubborn at all.

    Thanks for the info.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48 Re: Big Bang was not 
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Wak

    Big Bang was not.
    The reason of cosmological redshift — "ageing" of photons.
    My scientific concept does not give an occasion to Universe expansion.


    Your scientific concept sounds like a "tired light" hypothesis, which has already been considered and discarded.

    How does the "ageing" of photons account for the time-dilation observed in the light-curves of type Ia supernovae? By what mechanism are the photons "ageing"? Is the "ageing" intrinsic, or due to them passing through something that "ages" them, and if so, how does it do it without any scattering?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman I.B.1.Dance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15
    I think one day the big Bang theory will be disproved .

    when science begins looking inward as much as it looks out.

    And Gets a more balanced insight .

    Just out of curiosity does anyone know the magnitude of the most powerful telescopes & microscopes science has too date ?

    Does science have the technology to look inward in equal proportion that it looks out into space ?

    If not then the instrumentation science is using can only be giving a disproportionate view .

    The universe can only be expanding proportionally to it contracting .

    When science understand that all things are founded on balance then science will look from a balanced view point .

    This Big bang Theory is has "as out of touch" as religion is ! in fact it's just another world made in seven days story .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman hotplasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    12
    'The Big Bang Theory' is a term to describe the origins of our current universe (the one we are presently in)

    Are you saying you want it to be 'disproven'?

    It's still happening - there is an already enormous space expanding at an accelerating pace

    Say the universe is about 15 billion years old - a long time to the human lifespan, but cosmologically speaking if it was a child it hasn't yet learnt to talk, read or walk - let alone even feed itself

    In a billion aeons (or trillion or zillion) it will no longer be accelerating but decelerating and in (more or less) the same amount of unknown time it will stop through final overreach of the initial energy burst

    Universal energy not being infinite, there will begin a separate event called the Big Collapse where gravital attraction will draw everything together again. It will take a further few billion aeons to result in The Big Crunch, or Big Bang, where the sheer volume of compressed hot energy wll 'generate' countless powerful opposing magnetic fields simultaneously within a milimicronanosecond.

    This will force the plasma to burst apart and become the New Universe - but don't worry about that, it's a long time away, so sit back, grab a beer and decent cigar, and tune into some television, say, 'The Big Bang Theory'?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    'The Big Bang Theory' is a term to describe the origins of our current universe (the one we are presently in)

    Are you saying you want it to be 'disproven'?

    It's still happening - there is an already enormous space expanding at an accelerating pace

    Say the universe is about 15 billion years old - a long time to the human lifespan, but cosmologically speaking if it was a child it hasn't yet learnt to talk, read or walk - let alone even feed itself

    In a billion aeons (or trillion or zillion) it will no longer be accelerating but decelerating and in (more or less) the same amount of unknown time it will stop through final overreach of the initial energy burst

    Universal energy not being infinite, there will begin a separate event called the Big Collapse where gravital attraction will draw everything together again. It will take a further few billion aeons to result in The Big Crunch, or Big Bang, where the sheer volume of compressed hot energy wll 'generate' countless powerful opposing magnetic fields simultaneously within a milimicronanosecond.

    This will force the plasma to burst apart and become the New Universe - but don't worry about that, it's a long time away, so sit back, grab a beer and decent cigar, and tune into some television, say, 'The Big Bang Theory'?
    This seems rather unlikely in view of the observation that the expansion of space is accelerating.

    On what do you base such assertions ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman hotplasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    12
    Why, my enormous accelerating brain of course

    This, and my background in commonsense (that was a joke)



    Did I just arrive at a new theory?

    If so then on Monday 17/January/2011 A.D. at about 10am hotplasma arrives at the Theory of Magnetic Field Causality of the Big Bang



    What do I win?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    What do I win?
    That's a tough one. Possibly a strong suspicion on the part of other members that you haven't done much research in this area.

    Welcome to the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma


    What do I win?
    The chance to make a future intelligent post. So far, no cigar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    'The Big Bang Theory' is a term to describe the origins of our current universe (the one we are presently in)
    Yup, sounds good so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    It's still happening - there is an already enormous space expanding at an accelerating pace
    Okay, I'm still with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    Say the universe is about 15 billion years old - a long time to the human lifespan, but cosmologically speaking if it was a child it hasn't yet learnt to talk, read or walk - let alone even feed itself
    Hmm. By whose standards are you saying this? The universe grew to "adulthood" ages ago - its "children" (the stars) are already three generations down the line. Galaxies full of stars appeared within the first billion years, and here we are, 13 billion years later.

    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    In a billion aeons (or trillion or zillion) it will no longer be accelerating but decelerating and in (more or less) the same amount of unknown time it will stop through final overreach of the initial energy burst
    On what do you base this? The universe was decelerating for the first 8 billion years or so, and has only been accelerating for the past 5 billion years or so. It has already "outreached the initial energy burst" as you put it.

    The Big-Crunch has fallen out of favour since we found that the initial deceleration had levelled out about 5 billion years ago and turned into an acceleration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    Entropy is always the winner in the end, when there’s no more money left to lend. Meanwhile we stabilize, in nature’s way, rearranging resources temporarily.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman hotplasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    12
    I'm saying it expands in waves or 'growth spurts' if you will, but it's still a child relative to what's to come, and billions and zillions are interchangeable in it's possible timeframe

    And it is about that timeframe - it contains its own spacetime to in its own way do within itself whatever suits it whenever

    We can detect the CMB, but ultra ultra low frequencies are more complicated because we and our instruments and the local universe ride on the wave oblivious of it

    This universe may have a unique set of fundamental laws different to previous and future universes, this is a problem when looking for a unified field theory, and maybe an un-unified theory would be more appropriate

    When the energy was first released it didn't all appear simultaneously, rather different frequencies emerged at different rates because that's what frequencies are like

    High plucked notes fade from of hearing sooner and are harder to discern at far distances, where bass notes have more energy, travel farther and linger longer

    It's this ultra ultra bass wave that causes the periodic acceleration and deceleration

    Someone's about to shoot me down but if you think about it for a moment a supersubsonicboom would be the perfect accompaniment to a Big Bang


    okay - hands up, who's first?

    __________________________________________________ ________
    I put my instant coffee in the microwave and it went back through time
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    I'm saying it expands in waves or 'growth spurts' if you will, but it's still a child relative to what's to come, and billions and zillions are interchangeable in it's possible timeframe

    And it is about that timeframe - it contains its own spacetime to in its own way do within itself whatever suits it whenever

    We can detect the CMB, but ultra ultra low frequencies are more complicated because we and our instruments and the local universe ride on the wave oblivious of it

    This universe may have a unique set of fundamental laws different to previous and future universes, this is a problem when looking for a unified field theory, and maybe an un-unified theory would be more appropriate

    When the energy was first released it didn't all appear simultaneously, rather different frequencies emerged at different rates because that's what frequencies are like

    High plucked notes fade from of hearing sooner and are harder to discern at far distances, where bass notes have more energy, travel farther and linger longer

    It's this ultra ultra bass wave that causes the periodic acceleration and deceleration

    Someone's about to shoot me down but if you think about it for a moment a supersubsonicboom would be the perfect accompaniment to a Big Bang


    okay - hands up, who's first?

    __________________________________________________ ________
    I put my instant coffee in the microwave and it went back through time
    word salad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman hotplasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    12
    Well maybe to you - but it was a reply

    I think the real problem of physicists is to get past the idea that the Universe is at its Perfect state right now, and has been since humans have been studying it

    This is wrong

    To me a physicist who may not only see the wood but also the trees, and misses the leaves, the shadows, the roots, the supported eco-system, the worms in the dirt and all other subtleties, should be called a sebaceous cyst and lanced forthwith


    A tree is only one way of looking at a tree, but it may also be a wave of life surging up from the soil in reach of the sun


    If physics texts were written with flair (less dryer than dust) then we'd all read them closer rather than having to resort to other books for our human needs


    Professor Julius Sumner Miller (R.I.P.) said that you may have the mind of Einstein, but if you can't communicate you're an idiot

    So which is more important - the fact that the universe exists in two states, one briefly, the other a seeming eternity?

    Or that you're alive to appreciate it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    Well maybe to you - but it was a reply

    I think the real problem of physicists is to get past the idea that the Universe is at its Perfect state right now, and has been since humans have been studying it

    This is wrong

    To me a physicist who may not only see the wood but also the trees, and misses the leaves, the shadows, the roots, the supported eco-system, the worms in the dirt and all other subtleties, should be called a sebaceous cyst and lanced forthwith


    A tree is only one way of looking at a tree, but it may also be a wave of life surging up from the soil in reach of the sun


    If physics texts were written with flair (less dryer than dust) then we'd all read them closer rather than having to resort to other books for our human needs


    Professor Julius Sumner Miller (R.I.P.) said that you may have the mind of Einstein, but if you can't communicate you're an idiot

    So which is more important - the fact that the universe exists in two states, one briefly, the other a seeming eternity?

    Or that you're alive to appreciate it?
    Utter nonsense, which implies no communication, which, in your own words, implies idiocy.

    Better learn to read those dry physics books. Education is not entertainment.


    "To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’. To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. C.P. Snow talked about two cultures. I really think that those two cultures separate people who have and people who have not had this experience of understanding mathematics well enough to appreciate nature once." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    If physics texts were written with flair (less dryer than dust) then we'd all read them closer rather than having to resort to other books for our human needs.
    I think I see your problem. You have this perception that physics ought to be easy, that the universe should be simple to understand, that it is only fair that the fundamental laws are straightforward, that persons of low intellect, or poor work habits should still be able to grasp the basics. You are mistaken.

    And to echo The Rocket, you can't communicate. At the very least, why don't you explore the concept of good grammar. You may come to like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman hotplasma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    12
    I do understand grammar, but I am coming from a completely different starting point - I could explain you that I have had to teach myself to read and write after a severe brain injury, but I am not looking for sympathy, only answers

    If it is the case that If I am not communicating in a manner appropriate to this forum then I shall leave and find somewhere else for my (admittedly) unusual means of inquiry

    Another trouble is that as a result of my mishap I am perpetually half in sleep

    I can but ask that you be patient and try to understand from my perspective the way three or more consecutive posts meld into one


    But returning to the subject of the Big Bang, is it a possibility that there are two centres of the universe? Two separate Big Bangs that occur one and then the other in pulses?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by hotplasma
    But returning to the subject of the Big Bang, is it a possibility that there are two centres of the universe? Two separate Big Bangs that occur one and then the other in pulses?
    Not that we know of.

    As it stands, there isn't even one centre of the universe, in terms of an origin point, except of course for the origin in time. The universe used to be very dense and it is now less dense. Apart from any local motions due to gravity, any galaxy can consider itself to be at rest in relation to the expansion of the universe - it is everything else (at cosmological scales) that is receding.

    Wherever you are in the universe, if you run time backwards, everything heads towards you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64 Re: Big Bang was not 
    Wak
    Wak is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    Your scientific concept sounds like a "tired light" hypothesis, which has already been considered and discarded.

    How does the "ageing" of photons account for the time-dilation observed in the light-curves of type Ia supernovae?
    In the cycle of my posts the new Universe outlook concept is presented. From it the impossibility of the Big Bang follows. However it is impossible to deny cosmological expansion categorically.
    The infinite Universe which was always extends, and always was infinite. The niches formed at expansion, are filled with a matter — according to my concept — generated by vacuum. New galaxies are gradually formed of this matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
    By what mechanism are the photons "ageing"? Is the "ageing" intrinsic, or due to them passing through something that "ages" them, and if so, how does it do it without any scattering?
    Read here, please!

    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Senior questor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    385
    If I had to get rid of the Big Bang, which is only predicated on redshift, I'd say:

    Photon Decay

    A photon’s polarization is the result of the asymmetry of its spacial footprint going through the crystal lattice of a polarizing substance.

    Redshift is due to photon energy loss, the photons being stretched, as well, the photon loss being gradual over immense distances. A weak gravitational field is the only possible source of the intergalactic redshift, for, any collisions would only cause the loss of energy in individual photons and wouldn’t increase the distance between them. Space is not perfectly rectilinear, but has a slight fourth-dimensional curvature, and so it is that curved space simulates spatial expansion.

    Gravity’s universal curvature creates a differential velocity per unit distance, and so the energy distributed throughout a photon’s substructure accrues differential velocity at a steady pace. A photon’s leading edge has traveled farther than its trailing edge by it wavelength, and this stretches photons, causing an expansion—and so the universe isn’t expanding; but intergalactic photons are—along their epic journey, which is predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity (which he himself did not notice).

    The difference between a billion light years now and a billion years ago is not linear, which gives the false impression of universal expansion. When a photon expands over time, it has to release energy, and so it is forced to decay—as a speed less than ‘c’ is of an unstable, relativistic system. It must reserve its Planck/energy relationship as its wavelength is distended by curved space. And, by the way, this is a quantitized, discrete change, very much unlike the proposed continuous spacial expansion. The decaying starlight fills deep space to the CMB energy density.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by GioNikola
    Hello,

    I have been interested in this topic for a very long time, and I would be very glad to know your opinion on the BB theory. Personally, I believe in this theory and ignore all of the other theories that I hear about. I even started a blog completely dedicated to it, please do not forget to jump in http://scikronos.blogspot.com, read, and leave a comment. Even though I will not change my opinion (yes, I am very stubborn), I want to know what other people think about it.

    http://scikronos.blogspot.com
    This is somewhat off-topic.

    You say no matter what anyone says, your opinion is immutable. Isn't that a perverse and contradictory way of conducting yourself? I mean, you come here spouting your 'belief' in the BB theory, a scientific theory, and, yet, in the same breath you voice your inability for change in light of new evidence, something that is as far as I know, a fundamental property of science.

    I apologise if I misunderstood you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by questor
    If I had to get rid of the Big Bang, which is only predicated on redshift, I'd say:

    Photon Decay

    A photon’s polarization is the result of the asymmetry of its spacial footprint going through the crystal lattice of a polarizing substance.

    Redshift is due to photon energy loss, the photons being stretched, as well, the photon loss being gradual over immense distances. A weak gravitational field is the only possible source of the intergalactic redshift, for, any collisions would only cause the loss of energy in individual photons and wouldn’t increase the distance between them. Space is not perfectly rectilinear, but has a slight fourth-dimensional curvature, and so it is that curved space simulates spatial expansion.

    Gravity’s universal curvature creates a differential velocity per unit distance, and so the energy distributed throughout a photon’s substructure accrues differential velocity at a steady pace. A photon’s leading edge has traveled farther than its trailing edge by it wavelength, and this stretches photons, causing an expansion—and so the universe isn’t expanding; but intergalactic photons are—along their epic journey, which is predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity (which he himself did not notice).

    The difference between a billion light years now and a billion years ago is not linear, which gives the false impression of universal expansion. When a photon expands over time, it has to release energy, and so it is forced to decay—as a speed less than ‘c’ is of an unstable, relativistic system. It must reserve its Planck/energy relationship as its wavelength is distended by curved space. And, by the way, this is a quantitized, discrete change, very much unlike the proposed continuous spacial expansion. The decaying starlight fills deep space to the CMB energy density.
    There is not a single statement here that is even approximately correct. It is not even worthy of discussion in detail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Marks, you might want to make it clear that you are referring to the comments made by gionikola in the OP. A lot of discussion has flowed across the thread since then and it is not immediately clear who you were referencing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Marks, you might want to make it clear that you are referring to the comments made by gionikola in the OP. A lot of discussion has flowed across the thread since then and it is not immediately clear who you were referencing.
    !

    I had no idea there were so many replies. Oops. Anyway, I've edited my post. Thanks.
    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
  •