Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 242

Thread: Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!!

  1. #1 Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!! 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm always against the Big Bang theory, but often run short of ammunition to throw at it. So, after a few months' break, here we go:

    The primary basis for belief in the BB is Hubble Redshift. It's been observed that light from distant stars is uniformly redshifted across the entire spectrum of emitted light, so that even the shades of light we don't see are moved.

    So we have:
    1) - Uniform shifting of spectrum

    2) - The only effect known to be able to create this is the Doppler Redshift effect ( which causes light emitted by objects moving away from us to shift toward longer wavelengths). Doppler Redshift has been confirmed in laboratory experaments, and is the underlying principle of operation for many devices, such as police radar guns.

    3) - The only thing that would create a Doppler Redshift effect would be for the distant objects to be moving away from us at some speed. Since Hubble observed a redshift that increases proportionally to the distance an object is away from us, this makes it likely that the universe is expanding.


    The BB seems very sound up to this point.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Next, an interesting logical developement happens.

    Mathematicians soon realized that, since it takes time for the light to reach us, Hubble's observations are actually not consistent with a doppler redshift. In order for the shift in color to be the result of actual motion, the objects he observed would have to be accelerating, not just moving, and that would result in a redshift that increases over time.


    So, Ad Hoc, a new theory emerges:

    The redshift, it is claimed, results not from a Doppler effect, but from the expansion of space itself. The light actually shifts red *after* being emitted, while its on its way here, because the space it's moving through is expanding.

    (The theory begins to look an awful lot like tired light, which never held a lot of credibility with people)


    Now we start with

    1) - Hubble's observations

    2) - An entirely undisprovable, but also unprovable theory of a light wave lengthening as space itself expands, which ties us to point 3.

    3) - Space must be expanding.

    Note how, in the original case, we could tie Hubble's observations to the final theory using a mechanism that had at least been tried and proven to work. Now, the mechanism is one based entirely on pure speculation, for which no experamental evidence exists, or ever could exist.

    We'd have to create expansion of space in a laboratory (to show that space even *can* expand.), and then pass a beam of light through the expanding space to see if its wavelength actually lengthens because of it.

    Do you see how closely this kind of speculation resembles religion? It's an uncallable bluff. Nobody can ever experamentally show that it *isn't* true, and so we are asked to accept it on faith.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!! 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    2) - The only effect known to be able to create this is the Doppler Redshift effect ( which causes light emitted by objects moving away from us to shift toward longer wavelengths). Doppler Redshift has been confirmed in laboratory experaments, and is the underlying principle of operation for many devices, such as police radar guns.

    3) - The only thing that would create a Doppler Redshift effect would be for the distant objects to be moving away from us at some speed. Since Hubble observed a redshift that increases proportionally to the distance an object is away from us, this makes it likely that the universe is expanding.
    .
    You might wish to note that (as far as I understand it, which is about two light years and the width of a plump ferret) the Hubble redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is not because the galaxies are moving away from us, it is because space is expanding, which is an altogether different thing.

    Warning: the foregoing is based upon an incomplete grasp, of an intermittently studied, poorly presented oversimplifcation. It may therfore be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I will preface this with the same disclaimer Ophiolite used, but I think Kojax has the history wrong.

    According to the Wikipedia articles on Expanding Universe and Big Bang, the sequence was: 1922 - Alexander Friedman postulates expanding universe. 1927-1931 Lemaitre develops big bang theory. 1929 - Hubble's law. The Big Bang Theory did not become dominant until the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    The BBU will be truly proven wrong when the NGST goes up. It will be a much larger telescope and will probe much deeper than the current Hubble Telescope can do.
    The sad thing here is that it will not go up untill 2012(?).

    I predict that all they will see is more galaxies with larger redshifts that should refute the BBU.

    Cosmo

    Pardon me but I am the former Mike NS.
    My computer was hacked and destroyed my OS, so I had to get another replacement and new OS and email to reregister.
    Hello to all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The BBU will be truly proven wrong when the NGST goes up. It will be a much larger telescope and will probe much deeper than the current Hubble Telescope can do. I predict that all they will see is more galaxies with larger redshifts that should refute the BBU.
    .
    Mike/Cosmo, welcome back. Remeber that at present we a change in character of galaxies as we move further away, i.e. further back in time. Are you suggesting this trend will be reversed/halted in more distant galaxies that may come into view?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I wish I had your optimism, Mike. The James Webb, currently having cost 4.6 billions (over budget a billion) and two years behind schedule (currently expected 2013) is a program of technology I am not sure exist.

    This observatory, is expected to be launched and travel a million miles into space (away from the sun), where it will then kind of build itself. The 20 foot mirror in 18 pieces will expand into one and a *sun shield* (to lower temperatures) about the size of a tennis court will also expand. For the telescope to work, both events will need to be successful. If not, its just 10-15 billion plus down the drain, at least for the foreseeable future. Currently there are no docking facilities planned, but some are suggesting this for future flights years from now that these be added.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    2) - The only effect known to be able to create this is the Doppler Redshift effect ( which causes light emitted by objects moving away from us to shift toward longer wavelengths). Doppler Redshift has been confirmed in laboratory experaments, and is the underlying principle of operation for many devices, such as police radar guns.

    3) - The only thing that would create a Doppler Redshift effect would be for the distant objects to be moving away from us at some speed. Since Hubble observed a redshift that increases proportionally to the distance an object is away from us, this makes it likely that the universe is expanding.
    .
    You might wish to note that (as far as I understand it, which is about two light years and the width of a plump ferret) the Hubble redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is not because the galaxies are moving away from us, it is because space is expanding, which is an altogether different thing.

    Warning: the foregoing is based upon an incomplete grasp, of an intermittently studied, poorly presented oversimplifcation. It may therfore be wrong.
    I think you're articulating my point better than I am. I was trying to address the misconception that it's a doppler effect. The doppler effect has been tested. The "expansion of space time" effect is not tested, and is pretty much untestable.

    It's funny to me how many scientists object to the claims of religion, because they are untestable, but see no problem with the BBU's "red shift caused by expansion of space itself" theory.

    I mean, while we're in the realm of untestable claims, why don't we just argue that unicorns did it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    I will preface this with the same disclaimer Ophiolite used, but I think Kojax has the history wrong.

    According to the Wikipedia articles on Expanding Universe and Big Bang, the sequence was: 1922 - Alexander Friedman postulates expanding universe. 1927-1931 Lemaitre develops big bang theory. 1929 - Hubble's law. The Big Bang Theory did not become dominant until the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964.
    Yeah, the CMBR was seen as some kind of world shattering "confirmation", because one of the BBU's predictions involved it.

    All I see is the same thing you see in religion. People see something extraordinary, and want it explained so badly that they're willing to disregard any sensible notion of empirical evidence, and suspend disbelief, just to have it explained.

    How can we, as scientists, look down our noses at religion, if we're just as bad? It seems to me that a true scientist would not always infer to the best theory, if there aren't any really credible theories in front of him/her, but sometimes just leave the matter open.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The BBU will be truly proven wrong when the NGST goes up. It will be a much larger telescope and will probe much deeper than the current Hubble Telescope can do. I predict that all they will see is more galaxies with larger redshifts that should refute the BBU.
    .
    Mike/Cosmo, welcome back. Remeber that at present we a change in character of galaxies as we move further away, i.e. further back in time. Are you suggesting this trend will be reversed/halted in more distant galaxies that may come into view?
    Ophi

    When I saw the Hubble Deep Field photos, I did not see any evolution as the current BB'ers see.

    So if we were to see any deeper into space than at present, I think there will just be more of same. Galaxies with larger redshifts.

    The question is, how large of a redshift can they detect?
    Right now, they detect the largest redshifts with the 'drop off' of the 'Lyman Spectrum' series.
    So now, they will need xray telescopes to read the larger redshifts since this region (xray) will move into the current Lyman or Balmer area.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I wish I had your optimism, Mike. The James Webb, currently having cost 4.6 billions (over budget a billion) and two years behind schedule (currently expected 2013) is a program of technology I am not sure exist.

    This observatory, is expected to be launched and travel a million miles into space (away from the sun), where it will then kind of build itself. The 20 foot mirror in 18 pieces will expand into one and a *sun shield* (to lower temperatures) about the size of a tennis court will also expand. For the telescope to work, both events will need to be successful. If not, its just 10-15 billion plus down the drain, at least for the foreseeable future. Currently there are no docking facilities planned, but some are suggesting this for future flights years from now that these be added.
    Yes, the placement of that telescope will be in deep space.
    So that telescope will have to be right when it is deployed.

    There is a movement against the BBU but they do not get much 'press' (news).
    There is a scheduled conference being programmed for next year in the state of Washington by the Aternative Cosmology Group scientists.

    However, this is beyond my 'budget' capabilities.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Another Brazen Attack Against the Big Bang!!! 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm always against the Big Bang theory
    Why? Is it because you don't understand it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cosmos; From what I can find on the *technology* behind the JW photographic abilities, they infer a difference between the Hubble and JW.
    As I understand it, Hubble relies on light energy and the JW is going after EM field in general. This would mean some mechanical or instrumental analysis/interpretations of whats seen. This worries me, as much of what Hubble is said to see at distant locations, are in fact offered as artist illustration already. They are also trying to figure a way allow Hubble and JW to work together (although not interfering with each other or disrupting there designed functions), which begs the question...Why? If JW is designed to handle all EME, this should include light and offer what many SSU proponents feel should offer, as you. A more clear understanding of what is 10-14 BLY away and beyond, then the questionable.

    Q; Understanding BBT, is not that complicated, at least to what is currently understood. One big problem with me is the foundation for the idea itself, who/why it was formulated and then add the singularity itself, which make no sense.

    Spontaneous creation of the Universe, dates back to 500-700 AD, in the Catholic Church. At the time, no reason or cause was needed to exploit the idea. Lamaitre (1927), offered what became the singularity, or something to form from and into what later became, nothingness. There is just so much information available to show a "need" for "creation" of everything, its objective purpose, it boggles my mind, the entire idea has progressed to where it is today.

    Most of us SSU proponents, do not object to BBT or its purpose, even it being taught but do object to, not being taught or mentioned, there may be another explanation for the existence of our Universe and most accept the idea in some manner its always existed. When BBT, takes a back seat in science and it will IMO, all these years, efforts and money will have been lost. Worse yet, many qualified people who have questioned BBT, have gone on to careers in other fields, just to maintain creditability. Wasted educations and in many cases even ruined lives have been associated with these objections...I won't go into the name calling, I have seen on Science Forums, especially to the young minds, trying to grasp BBT, people barred or banned and so on...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Q; Understanding BBT, is not that complicated, at least to what is currently understood. One big problem with me is the foundation for the idea itself, who/why it was formulated and then add the singularity itself, which make no sense.
    Hubble's observations were congruent with equations from General Relativity. Observations made later also followed GR, hence the theory became more clearly refined.

    The singularity is also predicted by GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm always against the Big Bang theory
    Why? Is it because you don't understand it?
    It frustrates me that people always assume that. It's like the story of the emporer's new clothes.

    I'm against theories that move continually, by degrees, further and further from observation. If the theory is especially complex, its final conclusions can be very far removed from the original observations, with a lot of circular reasoning included along the way.

    How do we explain redshift? Expansion of space itself. What's the evidence for the expansion of space itself? The redshift.

    Does anything else in nature tell us its possible for space itself to expand? Does anything else (other than the redshifted light) tell us that space is expanding?

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Q; Understanding BBT, is not that complicated, at least to what is currently understood. One big problem with me is the foundation for the idea itself, who/why it was formulated and then add the singularity itself, which make no sense.
    Hubble's observations were congruent with equations from General Relativity. Observations made later also followed GR, hence the theory became more clearly refined.

    The singularity is also predicted by GR.
    "Congruent with" and "followed" are the kinds of half baked appeals to credibility that religious arguements are always riddled with. What you're really saying is that there is room in those theories to accomodate the BBT.

    Yes, GR is subjective enough to allow for a lot of things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    When I saw the Hubble Deep Field photos, I did not see any evolution as the current BB'ers see.
    Why do you think hundreds of experts can see what you cannot see?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    (Q) asked Kojax why he was opposed to the Big Bang. I'll tell you why I am. It reminds me of the desparate efforts with epicycles to explain a geocentric Earth. Rather than look at alternative theories we are locked into adapting, changing, modifying, metamorphosing the existing theory till it looks like a Frankenstein monster. Like that monster it may eventually turn on its creators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    (Q) asked Kojax why he was opposed to the Big Bang. I'll tell you why I am. It reminds me of the desparate efforts with epicycles to explain a geocentric Earth. Rather than look at alternative theories we are locked into adapting, changing, modifying, metamorphosing the existing theory till it looks like a Frankenstein monster. Like that monster it may eventually turn on its creators.
    I AGREE!!!

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    When I saw the Hubble Deep Field photos, I did not see any evolution as the current BB'ers see.
    Why do you think hundreds of experts can see what you cannot see?
    They have a huge investment to protect.

    The HDFN and the HDFS were both posted in Sky and Telescope magazines. I noted that there was a lack of homogeneity in the South field in relation to the North field.
    Then when I checked out the South field on the internet (UCLA?), I noticed a change in the South field since it appeared to have some matter added.

    Check this out for yourself. The magazine photo was in the S & T, February 1999 issue on page 18. All I could see was one (SE corner of photo) and one half star at the top of the photo.
    The internet photo had more stars added plus other objects.

    You MUST see the magazine photo to compare to the internet photo.
    Most main libraries should have a copy of this magazine in their Archives.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    I'm against theories that move continually, by degrees, further and further from observation. If the theory is especially complex, its final conclusions can be very far removed from the original observations, with a lot of circular reasoning included along the way.
    That's not the case with BBT.

    How do we explain redshift? Expansion of space itself. What's the evidence for the expansion of space itself? The redshift.
    Does anything else in nature tell us its possible for space itself to expand? Does anything else (other than the redshifted light) tell us that space is expanding?
    One of the main pieces of evidence to support expansion is the fact that objects are moving away from each other proportional to their distance. The ONLY way that could happen is if space was expanding between those objects. Simple really.

    "Congruent with" and "followed" are the kinds of half baked appeals to credibility that religious arguements are always riddled with. What you're really saying is that there is room in those theories to accomodate the BBT.
    No, it has to do with the math.

    Yes, GR is subjective enough to allow for a lot of things.
    Ah, I see you also don't understand General Relativity. That would follow you don't understand BBT.

    Funny how you're against that which you don't understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    (Q) asked Kojax why he was opposed to the Big Bang. I'll tell you why I am. It reminds me of the desparate efforts with epicycles to explain a geocentric Earth. Rather than look at alternative theories we are locked into adapting, changing, modifying, metamorphosing the existing theory till it looks like a Frankenstein monster. Like that monster it may eventually turn on its creators.
    It appears Kojax doesn't understand those theories. Most everyone who is "against" BBT simply has no idea, they are against something they haven't spent the time to understand. I see it all the time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    130
    Question:
    If there was no expansion of the universe, where would the redshift come from, why would almost all galaxies drift away from us (since they do, all must have been at one point in the beginning)?
    I am.
    You can't deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Check this out for yourself. The magazine photo was in the S & T, February 1999 issue on page 18. All I could see was one (SE corner of photo) and one half star at the top of the photo.
    The internet photo had more stars added plus other objects.
    Cosmo, while I have serious reservations about the validity of Big Bang theory, your objections are wholly unscientific. You cannot compare a detailed statistical study of thousands of galaxies, including spectral and structural analysis, with the visual comparison of a couple of photogrpahs published in a popular monthly science magazine. With respect, to do so is pure nonsense. If that is the sole basis for your objection it is wholly and completely invalid. It is pure pseudo-science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Check this out for yourself. The magazine photo was in the S & T, February 1999 issue on page 18. All I could see was one (SE corner of photo) and one half star at the top of the photo.
    The internet photo had more stars added plus other objects.
    Cosmo, while I have serious reservations about the validity of Big Bang theory, your objections are wholly unscientific. You cannot compare a detailed statistical study of thousands of galaxies, including spectral and structural analysis, with the visual comparison of a couple of photogrpahs published in a popular monthly science magazine. With respect, to do so is pure nonsense. If that is the sole basis for your objection it is wholly and completely invalid. It is pure pseudo-science.
    Ophi

    Visit the below website for a view of the HDFN and then click on the HDFS.

    http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...s/mirror/hdfn/

    This site has the photos of both DF's.

    However, you would have to go to a library or get access to the S & T photo on their internet site.
    This would require registrationh to access their archives.
    All large libraries should have copies of the S & T magazines in their archives (Feb,1999, p 18).

    You must compare the S&T photo to the CalTech Photo.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    [quote="(Q)"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    ]How do we explain redshift? Expansion of space itself. What's the evidence for the expansion of space itself? The redshift.
    Does anything else in nature tell us its possible for space itself to expand? Does anything else (other than the redshifted light) tell us that space is expanding?
    Quote Originally Posted by Q
    One of the main pieces of evidence to support expansion is the fact that objects are moving away from each other proportional to their distance. The ONLY way that could happen is if space was expanding between those objects. Simple really.
    See my new post on the Expansion of the Light Waves.
    This post creates the same illusion that space would be expanding.
    Of course, this promotes a SSU.

    No, it has to do with the math.
    The galactic redshift observations by Slipher, Hubble and Humason has nothing to do with math.
    These observations are what the BBU is based on.
    The math followed after the BB was accepted.
    The BB math is erroneous regardind the CMBR. It predicted a CMBR temperature of 5K that was later increased to 10K.

    Prior to that, there was an observation done in 1940 of an 'interstellar' molecule that had a temperature of 2.3K.
    It was discovered by an Australian astronomer named McKellar.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    See my new post on the Expansion of the Light Waves.
    This post creates the same illusion that space would be expanding.
    Of course, this promotes a SSU.
    It's complete nonsense. I noticed you've aligned yourself with the crank, Arp.

    The galactic redshift observations by Slipher, Hubble and Humason has nothing to do with math.
    These observations are what the BBU is based on.
    The math followed after the BB was accepted.
    The BB math is erroneous regardind the CMBR. It predicted a CMBR temperature of 5K that was later increased to 10K.
    Your hand-waving has been noted and filed. If you reject the math simply on it's existence in cosmology, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

    Prior to that, there was an observation done in 1940 of an 'interstellar' molecule that had a temperature of 2.3K.
    It was discovered by an Australian astronomer named McKellar.
    So what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by mastermind
    Question:
    If there was no expansion of the universe, where would the redshift come from, why would almost all galaxies drift away from us (since they do, all must have been at one point in the beginning)?
    Why not just leave it unexplained for now?

    Ancient religions saw a world with life in it, and having no available explaination, just made one up. Why are we compelled to do the same thing in the modern world? Can't we just leave things unexplained?


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    I'm against theories that move continually, by degrees, further and further from observation. If the theory is especially complex, its final conclusions can be very far removed from the original observations, with a lot of circular reasoning included along the way.
    That's not the case with BBT.
    Um, it kind of seems to be the case.

    How do we explain redshift? Expansion of space itself. What's the evidence for the expansion of space itself? The redshift.
    Does anything else in nature tell us its possible for space itself to expand? Does anything else (other than the redshifted light) tell us that space is expanding?
    One of the main pieces of evidence to support expansion is the fact that objects are moving away from each other proportional to their distance. The ONLY way that could happen is if space was expanding between those objects. Simple really.
    The "fact" that objects are moving away from each other proportional to their distance? What possible observational criteria could we be basing such a claim on?

    More redshift analysis? If the basic Hubble Redshift is being caused by something we don't yet understand, then we can't rely on observations that require our understanding of redshift to bear out in their proof.


    Hubble's observations were congruent with equations from General Relativity. Observations made later also followed GR, hence the theory became more clearly refined.

    The singularity is also predicted by GR.

    "Congruent with" and "followed" are the kinds of half baked appeals to credibility that religious arguements are always riddled with. What you're really saying is that there is room in those theories to accomodate the BBT.
    No, it has to do with the math.
    It's the claim that a singularity is "predicted by" GR that kind of makes me shake my head.


    Yes, GR is subjective enough to allow for a lot of things.
    Ah, I see you also don't understand General Relativity. That would follow you don't understand BBT.
    Um.... either that or *you* don't.

    The subjectivity involved in the GR arises from the sheer complexity involved in trying to model it. When approaching things like black holes and singularities, even the most competent GR professionals are never sure their models are entirely correct, because there's never any way to be sure their models are taking into account all the details that they're supposed to.

    In simple things, like predicting the amount by which the sun will redirect light passing near it, or looking at the orbit of Mercury, sure. But, predicting a singularity?? Yeah. Whatever.


    Funny how you're against that which you don't understand.
    So might the Catholic church have said to Gallileo and his followers. "You reject Ptolemy's model merely because you don't understand it."

    Just like Ptolemy's model, the BBT is fascinating. Its sheer complexity makes it beautiful and interesting to mathematicians, who may value it more because of its ability to cause wonder than because they actually think the underlying logic to be accurate or sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    It's complete nonsense. I noticed you've aligned yourself with the crank, Arp.
    (Q) this is a science forum. I would appreciate it if you would not refer to bona fide scientists, who happen to hold unorthodox views, as cranks. Arp's work meets the requirements of scientific investigation and hypothesis construction. That his work may be incorrect merely puts it in the same category as many scientists of past, present and future.
    I have commented a moment ago, on another thread, of your tendency to take a dogmatic rather than a pragmatic view of current scientific theory. I do not believe it is a constructive approach in challenging the nonsense that arises from the likes of true pseudoscientists like SS, but rather provides grist for their mill. (In the words of SS, you might want to think about that.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    130
    @kojax:
    Why not just leave it unexplained for now?

    Ancient religions saw a world with life in it, and having no available explaination, just made one up. Why are we compelled to do the same thing in the modern world? Can't we just leave things unexplained?
    Well, what would this give to me? We got observations and plausible arguments for why the galaxies are moving away from us. And as long it's not disproved, why would/should I not believe in it?
    Just saying that we could leave it unexplained really doesn't satisfy me.
    This would be like being a runner and always having a pain in the back, but not knowing why it's there - just leaving it unexplained. And just because the first doc couldn't help you.
    I am.
    You can't deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by mastermind
    @kojax:
    Why not just leave it unexplained for now?

    Ancient religions saw a world with life in it, and having no available explaination, just made one up. Why are we compelled to do the same thing in the modern world? Can't we just leave things unexplained?
    Well, what would this give to me? We got observations and plausible arguments for why the galaxies are moving away from us. And as long it's not disproved, why would/should I not believe in it?
    Just saying that we could leave it unexplained really doesn't satisfy me.
    This would be like being a runner and always having a pain in the back, but not knowing why it's there - just leaving it unexplained. And just because the first doc couldn't help you.
    Analysis and interpretations of Red/Blue Shifts (going away/getting closer) and Background radiation are at the heart of BBT. It would not be considered and in fact didn't have much of following until this background radiation was said to have come from expansion (1950's). Both camps, fight these issues, knowing if some thing can explain one or the other to their side of the issue, the game is over.

    When drawing your conclusion, did you consider the science toward BBT is at best 80 years old, on a planet which people are just getting to read/write and evaluate with anything close to mass participation. That these things being judged happened (where observed) do so up to 14.2 billion years ago and pertaining to light or any energy have had numerous events that could cause not only what we figure happened but many other yet to figure out happenings...

    Sometimes its best to accept something is not explainable to an end, until its indisputable. You "runner" analogy is good, but what all does any athlete do on a daily basis that could cause a back pains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    (Q) this is a science forum. I would appreciate it if you would not refer to bona fide scientists, who happen to hold unorthodox views, as cranks.
    Your advice has been noted and duly ignored. Thanks.

    I have commented a moment ago, on another thread, of your tendency to take a dogmatic rather than a pragmatic view of current scientific theory.
    As you yourself do. Please don't feed me hypocrisy. Cheers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    Um, it kind of seems to be the case.
    It isn't, at least to those who understand it.


    The "fact" that objects are moving away from each other proportional to their distance? What possible observational criteria could we be basing such a claim on?
    Cosmological redshift coupled with the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metrics of spacetime.

    More redshift analysis? If the basic Hubble Redshift is being caused by something we don't yet understand, then we can't rely on observations that require our understanding of redshift to bear out in their proof.
    It is caused by the expansion of space. We don't know as yet what causes space to expand.


    It's the claim that a singularity is "predicted by" GR that kind of makes me shake my head.
    Why?



    Um.... either that or *you* don't.

    The subjectivity involved in the GR arises from the sheer complexity involved in trying to model it. When approaching things like black holes and singularities, even the most competent GR professionals are never sure their models are entirely correct, because there's never any way to be sure their models are taking into account all the details that they're supposed to.
    GR is very precise in those details as are the models. I have no idea where you get such notions.

    In simple things, like predicting the amount by which the sun will redirect light passing near it, or looking at the orbit of Mercury, sure. But, predicting a singularity?? Yeah. Whatever.
    I would agree that the prediction is certainly not intuitive to our worldview, but then, much of physics is not intuitive.

    Just like Ptolemy's model, the BBT is fascinating. Its sheer complexity makes it beautiful and interesting to mathematicians, who may value it more because of its ability to cause wonder than because they actually think the underlying logic to be accurate or sound.
    I seriously doubt that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by mastermind
    @kojax:
    Why not just leave it unexplained for now?

    Ancient religions saw a world with life in it, and having no available explaination, just made one up. Why are we compelled to do the same thing in the modern world? Can't we just leave things unexplained?
    Well, what would this give to me? We got observations and plausible arguments for why the galaxies are moving away from us. And as long it's not disproved, why would/should I not believe in it?
    Just saying that we could leave it unexplained really doesn't satisfy me.
    This would be like being a runner and always having a pain in the back, but not knowing why it's there - just leaving it unexplained. And just because the first doc couldn't help you.
    The burden of evidence is supposed to be against belief. That's called "skepticism", and forms the basis of any reliable scientific pursuit.

    It's kind of silly that, everytime we run out of explanations for things, we start abandoning that cardinal rule. That's why I liken the BBT to religion. Whenever people run short of explanations they start jumping to conclusions and then defending them doggedly for fear of having to simply admit they don't know the answer.

    In a time before modern medicine, a runner with an unexplained back pain would do well to do exactly what you just said. Or do you think leeches might help?

    To take your analogy further: The questions that lead to the BBT amount to a situation that predates modern medicine. We don't have a doctor we can go consult, who will then run tests so he/she can tell us what's wrong. All we have is a bunch of people making guesses, then meeting together so they can agree on a common guess, and then unite in defending it to the public.

    It's like so many witch doctors who all agree that the swamp leech is better than the pond leech.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    As you yourself do. Please don't feed me hypocrisy. Cheers.
    Crap. Document a single instance. Given my reservations about the Big Bang (based on evidence), my doubts about string theory (based on evidence), my concerns about aspects of evolutionary processes (based upon evidence) and a variety of other issues in geology, cosmology, biology, planetology and psychology (all based on evidence) I find it a startling comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    As you yourself do. Please don't feed me hypocrisy. Cheers.
    Crap. Document a single instance. Given my reservations about the Big Bang (based on evidence), my doubts about string theory (based on evidence), my concerns about aspects of evolutionary processes (based upon evidence) and a variety of other issues in geology, cosmology, biology, planetology and psychology (all based on evidence) I find it a startling comment.

    By the way, the request to stop referring to bona fide scientists as cranks was not a request, but a requirement. I had hoped you would see the good sense of it. Apparently not. Future references of that sort will be edited. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why not just leave it unexplained for now?
    Because that's not the way the scientific method works. You come up with hypotheses and test them. There is nothing wrong with that unless you stick to a theory after refuting evidence or a better theory become available.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Given my reservations about the Big Bang (based on evidence)
    Your reservations must be personal as the evidence supports BBT.

    my doubts about string theory (based on evidence)
    You actually understand string theory? Yeah, right.

    By the way, the request to stop referring to bona fide scientists as cranks was not a request, but a requirement.
    Halton Arp IS a crank. Censorship on your part in this matter MUST be purely of a personal nature and not based in science.

    I had hoped you would see the good sense of it. Apparently not. Future references of that sort will be edited. Thank you.
    Oh yes, it makes perfect sense to edit that. I'm sure the scientific community will be greatly pleased by your support for Arp and his very bad attempt at science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    I noticed you've aligned yourself with the crank, Arp.
    Have you seen his anomalies? See NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222. See S&T, April 1983, pages 307 to 309. These prints are positive unlike his prints in his book that are negatives.
    Evaluate these photos honestly and convince yourself that his work is credibe or as I evaluate it, actual.

    He was denied further research on the Hale telescope (200 inch) because it obviously refuted the 'expansion of space' as the cause of the cosmological redshift.

    Your hand-waving has been noted and filed. If you reject the math simply on it's existence in cosmology, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about
    The current crop of math in support of the BBUis unsupported like the Inflationary theory, the 'string theory(?), The CMBR temperatures that were overrated and the CMBR redshift of 1000 that is easily refuted.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Have you seen his anomalies? See NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 and AM 0328-222. See S&T, April 1983, pages 307 to 309. These prints are positive unlike his prints in his book that are negatives.
    Evaluate these photos honestly and convince yourself that his work is credibe or as I evaluate it, actual.
    His work is crap. His colleagues have repeatedly pointed that out to him. He has been refuted completely. His mathematics have in the past and continue to be his weakest attribute, of which has been corrected many times by his peers, yet he continues in his mirth of crankiness.

    He was denied further research on the Hale telescope (200 inch) because it obviously refuted the 'expansion of space' as the cause of the cosmological redshift.
    No, because he is a crank. He has refuted nothing.

    The current crop of math in support of the BBUis unsupported like the Inflationary theory, the 'string theory(?), The CMBR temperatures that were overrated and the CMBR redshift of 1000 that is easily refuted.

    Cosmo
    Yes, if YOU say so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Q; Perhaps it should be noted, you moderate on another *Science Forum*,
    which you have been posting since 2001. You and Ophi have over years been responding to the same questions, over and over again. I will give Ophi, a little credit, as he continues to offer opinions and or references to a rebuttal, no doubt for the 500th time in some cases. You seem to have lost the desire to convince and excuse others as ignorant, which in many cases, may be true. The problem is these folks have taken time to post getting opinions from other novices or possibly educated individuals in the field. IMO; these forums offer many, with ideas in science fields to express, even test a notion, opinion or a desire to understand a issue. As you know, many more visit a forum, than join or post.

    You are apparently, qualified and well versed (read) in science. Your opinions would probably influence more to your end desire, than writing off absolutely every comment offered. It may even be interesting to have your opinion, say on the BBT, singularity. I don't see a connection to GR, or is it important to most of us. However a good explanation, even if a hypothesis of yours, would be of interest, over "GR explains it".

    Harold; Most of us do not have a lab set up, a telescope to use or a means to test any idea. We can and most do read many papers, books or articles on a subject. When an article or some theory raises questions to the reader, that question itself may be a hypothesis in progress. Then when you get to the origin of the Universe, most everything is theory and the old meaning of theory IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Is there any evidence against the theory?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Is there any evidence against the theory?
    Good question. I think there's both evidence, lack of evidence, and confusion, on both sides of the BB argument.

    Of course, the last time I touched base with the BB subject, the major concern seemed to be that no one could figure out how the BB could exist. The last I heard, it seemed more plausible that a BB event could occur if there was some mechanic of existence BEFORE the BB, or an existence in which the BB was not a solitary event. Addressing BB gets really tough when you try to think of it as a T=0+ event, in which the BB is everything.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Is there any evidence against the theory?
    YES!
    The BB violates the Conservation Laws, the Michelson - Morley Interferometry Experiments that proved that space has NO influence on the light waves, Arps redshift anomaly, the CMBR (1000) redshift that is easily refuted by the redshift of the Virgo Galactic Clusters redshift of .0035 that is a fraction of just one, the Hubble redshift that needs 15 billion years to equal a redshift of ONE. No answer of what is driving the space expansion and their are other questions of lesser importance.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The BB violates the Conservation Laws,
    Cosmo, we have been over this countless times before. The current physical laws are thought to have come into play at the time of the Big Bang. They do not need to have been in effect before the Big Bang. You are, apparently assuming also, that there was nothing before the BB and therefore the Universe was created out of nothing. This is not necessarily the case.

    I do wish you would stop raising this particular item. It has been thoroughly discredited and should not be part of any structured scientific attack on BB theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Q; Perhaps it should be noted, you moderate on another *Science Forum*,
    which you have been posting since 2001. You and Ophi have over years been responding to the same questions, over and over again. I will give Ophi, a little credit, as he continues to offer opinions and or references to a rebuttal, no doubt for the 500th time in some cases.
    Yes, Ophi and I have had run-ins with each other as well. Usually it's because we are both envious of the others wit and style, hence we lash out against one another. It's all in good fun. Ophi's a smart guy, but is sometimes lead down the wrong garden path.

    You seem to have lost the desire to convince and excuse others as ignorant, which in many cases, may be true. The problem is these folks have taken time to post getting opinions from other novices or possibly educated individuals in the field.
    That is a different carbuncle altogether. There ARE those, as you say, who take the time getting opinions, yet some don't take the time to drill down those opinions and instead come onto these forums bleating in favor of cranks and crackpots, usually without understanding the subject matter in the first place. Ophi is also guilty of these offenses, as you can see. I will usually attempt an explanation grounded in science but those who follow suit continue bleating the cranks and crackpots positions.

    You are apparently, qualified and well versed (read) in science. Your opinions would probably influence more to your end desire, than writing off absolutely every comment offered.
    Ok, case in point. I offered, several times, the explanation of time in another thread, well defined and based in mathematics, yet many went on continuing to offer they're own opinions of what they imagine time to be.

    I can only conclude that the desire for a scientific community here is sourly lacking, and only the writing off of comments seems to incite responses.

    It may even be interesting to have your opinion, say on the BBT, singularity. I don't see a connection to GR, or is it important to most of us. However a good explanation, even if a hypothesis of yours, would be of interest, over "GR explains it".
    I would be happy to invest the time to provide such explanations as best as the theories will allow. Will they simply go unnoticed in favor of cranks and crackpots, though? You tell me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Q

    Your replies seem to be nothing but 'name' calling and excuses for not providing any answers.

    As a teacher, you are a failure.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Q

    Your replies seem to be nothing but 'name' calling and excuses for not providing any answers.

    As a teacher, you are a failure.

    Cosmo
    You aren't looking for answers. You appear to be satisfied with crank explanations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Ah, flame war.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cosmo, we have been over this countless times before. The current physical laws are thought to have come into play at the time of the Big Bang.
    "Thought to"? Doesn't sound very convincing. Maybe we should stick to what we know?
    They do not need to have been in effect before the Big Bang.
    Right. But one would think something must have been in effect.

    Bottom line, it seems that you admit we don't know what was in effect. So how can you knock the one idea over another?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    If nothing existed other than the singularity, which could not exist under the current laws of physics, why would something else need to be...Remember the expansion itself was into total nothingness. Its the cause for the beginning your trying to give reason for, which is said by some to include divine intervention.

    Try reading something on the BB Nucleosynthesis. Temperatures suggested in the trillions of trillion down to 40 trillion kelvin or so...

    This is the main reason, I have chose to further my understanding of a Steady State Universe, which at least can hold to current understandings..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    If we consider that the BB was not an ultimate event (ie - the beginning of everything) that makes things a bit easier.

    As for what the BB expanded into...well...are we really sure there was nothing here before?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Keep in mind BBT, as well as SSU have different scenarios with given time lines to understandings....

    BBT, by many today believe the singularity contained everything. Time, space and all entities were inside this unit. They then explain, this unit began to expand, which includes space, into what is referred to as nothingness. However to answer your question; No one is sure of anything (regarding the origin/not of the U)or in this case nothingness was what BB did or is currently expanding into. Its just another hypothosis...

    According to most in the SSU camp, space has always existed. Even probably the universe. Where ever the universe ends, space continues beyond into infinity...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Senior TvEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Maybe we should stick to what we know?
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Bottom line, it seems that you admit we don't know what was in effect.
    So which is it? Do we know or don't we know? Don't keep me in suspense
    "First we build the tools, then they build us" - Marshall McLuhan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    This is the main reason, I have chose to further my understanding of a Steady State Universe, which at least can hold to current understandings..
    Why would you do a such a thing considering that theory does not follow with observations and evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Q; Let me put it a little different; In choosing to support SSU, my objective is to encourage study of SSU, as opposed to shelving it while BBT is somewhat vague to the mind...

    *Regeneration* of matter, even back to hydrogen from helium, under certain natural conditions is no less conceivable than elements evolving from super hot plasma into them..IMO. Since I am stepping into a mess anyway, I think energy EM, does go above/below our spectrum and all EME has a sub particle mass. I also feel, gravity is instilled into mass from its original forming and gravity itself requires velocity into its formula. On GR, I am completely back wards. To the traveler time remains the same and to the observer it slows. I don't think C is the ultimate speed/velocity but that there are many yet unknown things in constant C+ speeds, possibly even our universe. I also think infinity goes both direction or to bigness or smallness. We could be part of an object and any object you see could have billions/trillions of what we call galaxy with in it. I am not convinced realms and dimensions do not exist and most of all much of this could/would have been explored, but not done for the sake of maintaining a religious favor in science. Actually, I have many more ideas, but this this should get me into the insane optimist club, so will end here...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Q; Let me put it a little different; In choosing to support SSU, my objective is to encourage study of SSU, as opposed to shelving it while BBT is somewhat vague to the mind...
    The BBT is not vague to the mind, whatever gives you that idea? The SSU simply doesn't follow observations and evidence. Period. It was shelved long ago.

    On GR, I am completely back wards. To the traveler time remains the same and to the observer it slows.
    Don't you mean Special Relativity?

    I don't think C is the ultimate speed/velocity
    And yet, it is, verifiable, with mountains of evidence.

    but that there are many yet unknown things in constant C+ speeds, possibly even our universe.
    That makes no sense. If something is unknown, how can you presume to know its velocity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    You missed the point of my rant.

    Yes, SSU was shelved, think mentioned as such. The argument or idea has not gone away. Rather than argue the merits of SSU, we seem to be satisfied trying to dismantle BBT, which I feel is an error. Long after I am gone, I think a good share of both ideas will play in the next explanation for our universe existance...I just don't think it will have some starting point to explain creation.
    Yes SR or R not GR.

    You know velocity/speed is based on observance of another object.
    Just for fun imagine the universe and everything in it is traveling 2C.
    All we know or think we know, would still be the same. Not saying I think it does, but anything above C would have no referance point, could be understood or be known. This goes to transfer of mass on dual (manipulated) laser photons which travel at C, which I am sure your have read...

    Many things are unknown, but we assume many other things based on that unknown, trying our best to explain one unknown with other unknowns....Sound familiar.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by TvEye
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Maybe we should stick to what we know?
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Bottom line, it seems that you admit we don't know what was in effect.
    So which is it? Do we know or don't we know? Don't keep me in suspense
    Do you claim to know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    If nothing existed other than the singularity, which could not exist under the current laws of physics, why would something else need to be...Remember the expansion itself was into total nothingness.
    I am not a believer in the expansion. I think they simply backwards extrpolated a dream land.


    Its the cause for the beginning your trying to give reason for, which is said by some to include divine intervention.
    Not sure who you are talking to, but since you really don't know all that, I will keep my own ideas of creation.

    Try reading something on the BB Nucleosynthesis. Temperatures suggested in the trillions of trillion down to 40 trillion kelvin or so...

    Like, what, it is hard to 'suggest' a high temp?? No. One could suggest a tooth fairy. The crux comes in trying to prove it.

    This is the main reason, I have chose to further my understanding of a Steady State Universe, which at least can hold to current understandings..
    For a steadey state, we need a steady state. Any proof that this present state was steadily here in our past?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Do you have a better theory, creation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cosmo, we have been over this countless times before. The current physical laws are thought to have come into play at the time of the Big Bang.
    "Thought to"? Doesn't sound very convincing. Maybe we should stick to what we know?
    Greetings creation. You are new to the forum so I do not know how extensive your science knowledge is: if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, my apologies.
    All scientific 'conclusions' are actually works in progress. We do never arrive at a definitive answer. We do not say, as the creationists do, 'it is only a theory'. In science, a theory is as good as it gets. Hence it is wholly appropriate, accurate and scientific, to say "thought to" in the above context.
    [quote="creation"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cosmo, we have been over this countless times before. The current physical laws are thought to have come into play at the time of the Big Bang.
    "Thought to"? Doesn't sound very convincing. Maybe we should stick to what we know?
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    They (The Laws of Conservation) do not need to have been in effect before the Big Bang.
    Right. But one would think something must have been in effect.
    Bottom line, it seems that you admit we don't know what was in effect. So how can you knock the one idea over another?
    I was not aware that I was knocking any ideas. I am stating, I thought rather clearly, that the Laws of Conservation did not necessarily exist before the Big Bang. Therefore, the Big Bang would not then be in violation of those Laws. Cosmo seems to think the Big Bang, emerging out of nothing, does violate these Laws.
    Alternatively, if there was some other form of matter/energy before the Big Bang (as allowed for in some cyclical Universe theories) the Conservation Laws again would not be violated.
    So, I am not knocking any ideas. I am simply pointing out that this objection of Cosmo is invalid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by creation

    I am not a believer in the expansion. I think they simply backwards extrpolated a dream land

    Like, what, it is hard to 'suggest' a high temp?? No. One could suggest a tooth fairy. The crux comes in trying to prove it.

    For a steadey state, we need a steady state. Any proof that this present state was steadily here in our past?
    Whether the Universe is expanding or not, makes little difference as to BBT or SSU IMO....The rate would...

    In order to accommodate matter in sub-particle (soup/plasma or whatever)units, the heat has to be above about 10B Kelvin, or so its said.

    Yes, we have about a 10-12 billion year clear picture of what the Universe has looked like. Its in the images offered by NASA. What was going on then is about what goes on near by today. When the James Webb goes up, in 2013, we are hoping to see a clear picture further back. It really won't upset either theory (SSU or BBT) provided the expected is what is seen....But a steady state has been for 11-12 billion years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Steady state? Have the observations started to show something other than the continuing acceleration and expansion?

    If things are accelerating and expanding, then if we roll back the clock through history, things slow and compress. If we're expanding from something, where or what was that something? What point did we expand from? What other theories explain expansion without a previous point of pre-expansion?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Whether the Universe is expanding or not, makes little difference as to BBT or SSU IMO....The rate would...
    What makes a difference to the little creator speck theory is that it can't be supported. The CMB and so called expansion all can be otherwise explained.

    In order to accommodate matter in sub-particle (soup/plasma or whatever)units, the heat has to be above about 10B Kelvin, or so its said.
    Present matter. So what? Can you prove matter was as it now is then?? If not, the point seems moot.
    Yes, we have about a 10-12 billion year clear picture of what the Universe has looked like. Its in the images offered by NASA. What was going on then is about what goes on near by today.
    No, not at all is that remotely connected to the truth. The interpretation of what we see is all that gives any imagined age.



    When the James Webb goes up, in 2013, we are hoping to see a clear picture further back. It really won't upset either theory (SSU or BBT) provided the expected is what is seen....But a steady state has been for 11-12 billion years.
    You hope. Wouda coulda shouda. Meanwhile, we see a present state universe as it now works. Applying that to infinity and beyond is purest religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Steady state? Have the observations started to show something other than the continuing acceleration and expansion?

    If things are accelerating and expanding, then if we roll back the clock through history, things slow and compress. If we're expanding from something, where or what was that something? What point did we expand from? What other theories explain expansion without a previous point of pre-expansion?
    You forgot one thing. IF the universe was in the same state. If it was different we can't role back anything. Far as I know so far, science can't address that. If you have other info, do share.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Greetings creation. You are new to the forum so I do not know how extensive your science knowledge is: if I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, my apologies.
    Thanks for sharing.

    All scientific 'conclusions' are actually works in progress. We do never arrive at a definitive answer.
    On some issues it is a lot less definite than others. For example, if you jump up, you are going to come down, definitely. Now, if you talk of some universe state in the past you know squat about, that is a different matter.

    We do not say, as the creationists do, 'it is only a theory'. In science, a theory is as good as it gets. Hence it is wholly appropriate, accurate and scientific, to say "thought to" in the above context.
    Yes you can say whatever you like. What some of us look for is what it is based on, other than just your, and grannies say so.


    I was not aware that I was knocking any ideas. I am stating, I thought rather clearly, that the Laws of Conservation did not necessarily exist before the Big Bang. Therefore, the Big Bang would not then be in violation of those Laws. Cosmo seems to think the Big Bang, emerging out of nothing, does violate these Laws.
    Right, in other words, the laws of present physics break down before we reach the imagined singularity. But some laws must have existed, no?? Or are you saying it was nothing??

    Alternatively, if there was some other form of matter/energy before the Big Bang (as allowed for in some cyclical Universe theories) the Conservation Laws again would not be violated.
    So, I am not knocking any ideas. I am simply pointing out that this objection of Cosmo is invalid.
    If he objected based on caring a whit about present conversation laws, you could have a point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Do you have a better theory, creation?
    Yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Do you have a better theory, creation?
    Yes.
    Please, enlighten me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; Beyond 10-12 billion year old light, requires some interpretation offered as artist simulation, by NASA. Where ever you justify as occurrences in the past, 5-7-9 or 12 billion years ago, it represents what was at that time. Stars formed, stars die, galaxy evolved and in all directions from us things are pretty much as is very nearby today. If nothing else you have to consider the KNOWN Universe to be in a steady state, with a means to regenerate its own existence.

    Since the range of observing technology has increased, BBT has been predicting evidence to show or prove a BB. Expansion and I agree radiation background can be explained. IMO, the Universe does end (not infinite) in infinite space (never ends), however thats not the point of SSU, nor does it infer a faith to understand. Faith in (Not theological) an existence of a singularity to base a science on seems counter productive to advancement of understanding. Also I feel that offers only a brick wall, for the acceptance of a religious understanding of the Universe.

    I will go one step further, as an agnostic to the religious mind. Since most conceived creators (God's) are eternal (no beginning or end) the logic seems to be in a place for their god to exist. Wouldn't an eternal Universe fit their scenario, at least better than the emptiness or nothingness suggested for the home of a *singularity*...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69 BB Evolution 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    To All

    I have as book here authored by Michael Zeilik that shows a picture of the BB evolution on the inner covers.
    This book is entitled ASTRONOMY, An Evolving Universe.
    This book was highly recommrnded by Ned Wright at Cal Tech.

    So the BB starts of with:

    At Planck time of 10^-44 seconds, super gravity starts things off, at a temperature of 10^32K, followed by the Gut era, inflation era, radiation era, heavy particle era, light particle era, nucleosynthesis era, end of radiation era, start of matter era, matter era, present era.

    When I look at this, it seams to me to be a 'creation theory'.

    Ophi, did they have PlancksQuant um physics at that time? Since they did not have the Conservation laws, I should think there would be no Quantum physics also.
    What is your opinion?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Faith in (Not theological) an existence of a singularity to base a science on seems counter productive to advancement of understanding. Also I feel that offers only a brick wall, for the acceptance of a religious understanding of the Universe.

    Wouldn't an eternal Universe fit their scenario, at least better than the emptiness or nothingness suggested for the home of a *singularity*...
    Where does it state an "emptiness or nothingness" contained in a singularity?

    Where do you get the idea that current accepted theory is religous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71 Re: BB Evolution 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    When I look at this, it seams to me to be a 'creation theory'.
    So, who or what, in your opinion, is the creator?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    The evidence suggests that at a point in the distant past the universe was in an extremely hot, dense state. The Big Bang is a description of the early universe and not an explanation FOR the universe.
    If you want to willy-nilly question such assumptions as "the laws of physics didn't drastically change at some point in the past" then feel free. But then you may as well throw all knowledge out the window.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Where does it state an "emptiness or nothingness" contained in a singularity?

    Where do you get the idea that current accepted theory is religious?[/quote]

    The singularity, is said was in a nothingness, not contains nothingness. If a singularity, did exist with space, time and all, it could hardly have been empty or nothing!!!

    BBT, IMO has a religious foundation (not IS religious), which many in Science have tried to further, using the personal feelings. Those promoting the theory, don't say its religious, but its hard to deny from where its comes...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    The singularity, is said was in a nothingness, not contains nothingness. If a singularity, did exist with space, time and all, it could hardly have been empty or nothing!!!
    Ok, I see.

    BBT, IMO has a religious foundation (not IS religious), which many in Science have tried to further, using the personal feelings. Those promoting the theory, don't say its religious, but its hard to deny from where its comes...
    Sorry, that is entirely incorrect. Personal feelings have nothing to do with BBT and everything to do with hard evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    The evidence suggests that at a point in the distant past the universe was in an extremely hot, dense state. The Big Bang is a description of the early universe and not an explanation FOR the universe.
    If you want to willy-nilly question such assumptions as "the laws of physics didn't drastically change at some point in the past" then feel free. But then you may as well throw all knowledge out the window.
    BBT, describes the formation of the Universe and from what. An early "extremely hot and dense state" comes from BB. Where do you get those conditions w/o BB, preferably your opinion....

    SSU, has no assumptions and all laws of physics were applicable through out time and will be for eternity. What exist in the Universe, past or present also also subject and in time may offer a different understanding...
    in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    SSU, has no assumptions and all laws of physics were applicable through out time and will be for eternity. What exist in the Universe, past or present also also subject and in time may offer a different understanding...
    in time.
    Yet, SSU does NOT follow the observations, hence it is a useless assertion. It doesn't matter in the least that the laws of physics didn't exist prior to the BB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Q; The notion of a spontaneous universe goes well back in the Catholic Church (1500AD), the Church has had an Astronomy and Science interest since its founding, what became BBT itself from a Priest... The idea has a religious foundation, whether correct, accepted or not accepted. Guess I better add...........IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    SSU, has no assumptions and all laws of physics were applicable through out time and will be for eternity. What exist in the Universe, past or present also also subject and in time may offer a different understanding...
    in time.
    Yet, SSU does NOT follow the observations, hence it is a useless assertion. It doesn't matter in the least that the laws of physics didn't exist prior to the BB.
    This is almost funny...SSU does not agree with BBT for a creation of the Universe. For the sake of this discussion, lets say most SSU proponents accept the Universe has always existed in near its current state. Regeneration and so on...then all laws of physics have always, at least to our understanding and if correct, applied through out time..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    [quote="jackson33"]

    This is almost funny...SSU does not agree with BBT for a creation of the Universe.
    SSU does not agree with observations.

    For the sake of this discussion, lets say most SSU proponents accept the Universe has always existed in near its current state. Regeneration and so on...then all laws of physics have always, at least to our understanding and if correct, applied through out time..
    Doesn't matter in the least. SSU does not follow observations, hence it is useless as a theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Do you have a better theory, creation?
    Yes.
    Please, enlighten me.
    I'll try.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Creation; Beyond 10-12 billion year old light, requires some interpretation offered as artist simulation, by NASA. Where ever you justify as occurrences in the past, 5-7-9 or 12 billion years ago, it represents what was at that time. Stars formed, stars die, galaxy evolved and in all directions from us things are pretty much as is very nearby today. If nothing else you have to consider the KNOWN Universe to be in a steady state, with a means to regenerate its own existence.
    I know you think you have a handle on what you are talking about. let's look at the claim you made, that stars form, and galaxies die. How long have we observed this in years?? 100 years? 20 years? I mean really. HOW many have died exactly??? I think you refer mostly to the processes at work, and how they would die, if there was time?

    Since the range of observing technology has increased, BBT has been predicting evidence to show or prove a BB. Expansion and I agree radiation background can be explained. IMO, the Universe does end (not infinite) in infinite space (never ends), however thats not the point of SSU, nor does it infer a faith to understand. Faith in (Not theological) an existence of a singularity to base a science on seems counter productive to advancement of understanding. Also I feel that offers only a brick wall, for the acceptance of a religious understanding of the Universe.
    Well, my point is that the state was not steady since creation, that we can prove at all. Does it need to get more complicated than that??

    I will go one step further, as an agnostic to the religious mind. Since most conceived creators (God's) are eternal (no beginning or end) the logic seems to be in a place for their god to exist. Wouldn't an eternal Universe fit their scenario, at least better than the emptiness or nothingness suggested for the home of a *singularity*...
    No. Not if they believed the bible. That indicates we are in a temporary universe! It cannot be eternal. Period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82 Re: BB Evolution 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    To All

    I have as book here authored by Michael Zeilik that shows a picture of the BB evolution on the inner covers.
    This book is entitled ASTRONOMY, An Evolving Universe.
    This book was highly recommrnded by Ned Wright at Cal Tech.

    So the BB starts of with:

    At Planck time of 10^-44 seconds, super gravity starts things off, at a temperature of 10^32K, followed by the Gut era, inflation era, radiation era, heavy particle era, light particle era, nucleosynthesis era, end of radiation era, start of matter era, matter era, present era.

    When I look at this, it seams to me to be a 'creation theory'.

    Ophi, did they have PlancksQuant um physics at that time? Since they did not have the Conservation laws, I should think there would be no Quantum physics also.
    What is your opinion?

    Cosmo
    You are right, it is a creation theory. Present laws, quantum or otherwise do not apply, unless they can be proven to have applied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    The evidence suggests that at a point in the distant past the universe was in an extremely hot, dense state. The Big Bang is a description of the early universe and not an explanation FOR the universe.
    If you want to willy-nilly question such assumptions as "the laws of physics didn't drastically change at some point in the past" then feel free. But then you may as well throw all knowledge out the window.
    No. The evidence shows that IF this present universe state and fabric and laws were in place, then, ...it woulda coulda shoulda been a small hot soup. That is a lotta maybes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    I'll try.
    So far you've failed miserably. You have not told me anything about your theory, why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by creation
    I'll try.
    So far you've failed miserably. You have not told me anything about your theory, why?
    Well, this is a science forum. I thought I would try to look at what science support you have for your claims. My ideas go beyond science, because science only can go so far. My experience and conviction is that you will not be able to prove the same state past you need. If we stick to science, that is all we need to look at here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Creation; The death of a star is thought to take about a billion or two years, if you count what happens as the fuel runs out (expansion). What we can see however are different stages of the process, this in both formation and death.

    No, with regards to BBT, I have a handle on nothing. Its difficult for me to comprehend such a scenario.

    As I understand it, some religions feel a Heaven exist in the Universe, not on the earth. If they do, an eternal universe would be required to exist in eternity or you do get into realms/dimensions, which few clergy would understand.

    I agree with *obviously*; For me to know where your coming from on the issue BBT, would make it easier to direct a response.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87 Re: BB Evolution 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    When I look at this, it seams to me to be a 'creation theory'.
    So, who or what, in your opinion, is the creator?
    Well, from what I read, Georges Lemaitrae was the creator back in the late 20's after he observed the Slipher redshift observations.

    In the SSU, there was no creator. As far as I know, everything around us was already here.

    Mike C
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    No, with regards to BBT, I have a handle on nothing. Its difficult for me to comprehend such a scenario. Most of the theory post BB is better, but fits SSU as well.
    That is completely incorrect. SSU does NOT fit with observations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    You are absolutely correct....

    Edit, completed and I apologize..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    You are absolutely correct....

    Edit, completed and I apologize..
    Sorry to be such a stickler for detail. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    'Q'

    All you need to do to refute the BBU with the SSU is to replace the 'expansion of space' as the Cosmological Redshift with the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' as the cause of the CR.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    'Q'

    All you need to do to refute the BBU with the SSU is to replace the 'expansion of space' as the Cosmological Redshift with the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' as the cause of the CR.

    Cosmo
    Sorry, I'm not so readily apt to replace observation with the imaginative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93 Re: BB Evolution 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Ophi, did they have PlancksQuant um physics at that time? Since they did not have the Conservation laws, I should think there would be no Quantum physics also.
    Conservation laws did not necessarily apply prior to the Big Bang. At 10^-44 seconds we are well into the current Universe, so quantum physics may now apply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94 Re: BB Evolution 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Ophi, did they have PlancksQuant um physics at that time? Since they did not have the Conservation laws, I should think there would be no Quantum physics also.
    Conservation laws did not necessarily apply prior to the Big Bang. At 10^-44 seconds we are well into the current Universe, so quantum physics may now apply.
    Right so if you want warp technology just go back to the big bang
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    'Q'

    All you need to do to refute the BBU with the SSU is to replace the 'expansion of space' as the Cosmological Redshift with the 'Expansion of the Light Waves' as the cause of the CR.

    Cosmo
    Sorry, I'm not so readily apt to replace observation with the imaginative.
    Before space existed, a singularity from which the universe sprang from, make up of that unit, hurry up speed of giant stars and galaxy to allow for what we now see through Hubble, expansion as in baking a raisin cake, or blowing up a balloon....

    Nope, nothing imaginative here...just pure scientific explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Sorry, I'm not so readily apt to replace observation with the imaginative.
    Observation was the source of the 'geocentric ' theory.

    It was replaced by the Heliocentric theory. This required some thought as well as precise observations.

    What does this tell you?

    That you have to 'think' also before accepting what may be obvious.

    The expansion of space (nothing or a vacuum) does not seem realistic
    since a vacuum would shrink instead of expand.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Before space existed, a singularity from which the universe sprang from, make up of that unit, hurry up speed of giant stars and galaxy to allow for what we now see through Hubble, expansion as in baking a raisin cake, or blowing up a balloon....
    Now, GR does predict a singularity, based on the fact that mass and angular momentum are present. However, prior to the BB, such a mass may or may not have been present. We can also postulate, based on GR, that energy may have been borrowed and then never returned, resulting in the creation of the universe, similar to virtual particles and pair production. Where that energy was borrowed is yet another question.

    Please remember though, BBT does NOT involve the initial event, but only the results AFTER that initial event. We therefore cannot postulate that a singularity was the cornerstone of the initial event.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    The expansion of space (nothing or a vacuum) does not seem realistic
    since a vacuum would shrink instead of expand.
    Are you sure you know the definition of a vacuum?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Before space existed, a singularity from which the universe sprang from, make up of that unit, hurry up speed of giant stars and galaxy to allow for what we now see through Hubble, expansion as in baking a raisin cake, or blowing up a balloon....
    Now, GR does predict a singularity, based on the fact that mass and angular momentum are present. However, prior to the BB, such a mass may or may not have been present. We can also postulate, based on GR, that energy may have been borrowed and then never returned, resulting in the creation of the universe, similar to virtual particles and pair production. Where that energy was borrowed is yet another question.

    Please remember though, BBT does NOT involve the initial event, but only the results AFTER that initial event. We therefore cannot postulate that a singularity was the cornerstone of the initial event.
    Guess your inferring Triply Special Relativity, String Theory, Duality or some explanation speculating on a speculation. Keep in mind, this level of conversation is well over my pay grade. I am addressing it only for those striving to understand BB over SSU...

    Don't you think, w/o having to consider logic, known physics or what is acceptable principle; Any person with a basic knowledge could offer a scenario for what is seen or that known universe or under SSU develop a theory, where other than our current, was something else...yet explaining everything else into that theory.

    I'll go way out there and this speculation is today, never researched, no doubt full of holes and contrary to anything I have ever read: What if the exact opposite is true. Instead of a singularity, there was open space with minimal matter (primarily hydrogen) per square meter in an infinite space. At some point matter accumulated, quite by accident creating enough gravity to draw matter from greater distances. A chain reaction which formed the first stars, creating a pressure in this space which pushed matter away from the first star. This chain reaction continued faster and faster, but as things settled in the original area, galaxy formed. In this case space is not expanding, but matter taking shape. Think you get the idea...

    Angular momentum does puzzle me, if is said to be constant. I see no consistency and much inconsistency around the KU. Velocities and directions have no common denominator, other than galaxy or solar systems and easily explained in similar formation...Since I doubt known elements, stability of them or what makes them up are incomplete in definition, I'll leave the virtual particles alone. Borrowed energy only creates a thousand additional questions, certainly elimination of a singularity containing all things....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,659
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Guess your inferring Triply Special Relativity, String Theory, Duality or some explanation speculating on a speculation.
    Not really.

    Don't you think, w/o having to consider logic, known physics or what is acceptable principle; Any person with a basic knowledge could offer a scenario for what is seen or that known universe or under SSU develop a theory, where other than our current, was something else...yet explaining everything else into that theory.
    An analogy can be used here.

    Look out your window. Is the Earth flat? It sure looks that way from out my window. Yet, with some logic, known physics and accepted principles, we found the Earth to be spherical.

    Instead of a singularity, there was open space with minimal matter (primarily hydrogen) per square meter in an infinite space. At some point matter accumulated, quite by accident creating enough gravity to draw matter from greater distances. A chain reaction which formed the first stars, creating a pressure in this space which pushed matter away from the first star. This chain reaction continued faster and faster, but as things settled in the original area, galaxy formed. In this case space is not expanding, but matter taking shape. Think you get the idea...
    Yeah, sorta. But, what you're inferring is that the universe was entirely homogeneous and isotropic, except for a single point in space, rather than the many perturbations observed throughout.

    As well, in your model, we wouldn't see objects moving away from each other proportional to their distances, as cosmological redshift would demonstrate, but instead similar velocities from all objects everywhere.

    Borrowed energy only creates a thousand additional questions, certainly elimination of a singularity containing all things....
    Borrowed energy is not uncommon. Quantum physics predicts it. It could very well be a good candidate for whatever the cause was that kick-started Inflationary theory and the BB.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
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
  •