Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Dear Big Bang Advocates: physical science questions.

  1. #1 Dear Big Bang Advocates: physical science questions. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Dear Big Bang Acolytes:

    The dynamics of the expanding universe do not exhibit a common center from which the alleged primordial explosion occurred.

    From whatever location the expansion is observed, its light sources are receding in direct line of sight.

    Accumulating measurements continue to find the spatially expanding universe to be accelerating.

    These are not the signatures of a primordial 'beginning' explosion.

    These are the signatures of an unidentified repelling force acting out of matter, exactly as the unidentified impelling force of conventional gravity, except having an opposite, parallel vector.

    Gravitational 'red shift' continues to collapse in dredged up 'dark matter'.

    How does radio telescope detected background static support any big bang?

    How does the big bang hypothesis qualify itself as a theory?

    How does a big bang 'beginning' accomodate the 4-D space-time continuum?

    Are these not reasonable questions?
    Petitioning corroborately reasonable answers.
    RSVP
    Thank you - in advance - for being.
    [/b]


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Dear Big Bang Advocates: physical science questions. 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
    Are these not reasonable questions?
    Your statements are reasonable, and your conclusions are possible. However, I do not see how they must follow, and I personally do not agree with them. (other than the part about the accelerating expansion)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I'm not really sure what you are getting at in some of those questions. But I can try a few of them at least:

    How does a big bang 'beginning' accomodate the 4-D space-time continuum?
    Well in terms of GR and the Big Bang, I am not sure that you can really ask about the "beginning". The Big Bang is more a description of the early universe, than an explanation FOR the universe. The universe as a whole - and thinking about the universe in 4D, this includes all states of the universe past, present, and future - came into existance all at once. The "beginning" is simply the point where time = 0, in much the same way that the South Pole is the point where "south" = 0 on the earth.

    How does radio telescope detected background static support any big bang?
    Not only does the background radiation support the Big Bang, it was a major prediction OF the Big Bang theory before it was ever discovered. The Big Bang is why we even looked for it in the first place, and its discovery is a monumental victory for the BB theory. It makes sense on an intuitive level as well - the early universe was extremely hot. As space expands, it cools off but the residual background energy is still there, and BB predicts that there should be a uniform background radiation coming from every direction. There is, and it does. Score 1 for the BB.[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    background microwave radiation (BMR) is acctualy radiation emited by the early universe becuase of its intensive heat. its like blackbody radiation. bu it have been expanded and redshifted sop much so that even if it were in gama radiation and even more than that its micro waves today. and big bangh have gotten so much support that its foolish to not go along with it. but its allways welcome to come with new ideas of explaining what big bang acctualy was.
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    Relative to the present, the 4-D space time continuum with all of its accompanying radiation was much more dense and hot in the past, relative to the present. In the 4-D scenario, there is no 'beginning', it just keeps getting smaller and hotter, forever, relative to the present and the future - as considered from the eternal now - the B, in an A, B, C (Past, Present and Future) standardized 4-D space time continuum. That is affirmative. This may be a comprehensive explanation for 'black holes' - a solution that seems to be inadvertantly or deliberately ignored.
    It seems that the issue of a 'beginning' and especially that of background radiation are the main bugaboos here. A point is no less scored for a Steady State 4-D universe - regarding background radiation - than it is on the BB. (Refer 4-D space time continuum <, with A at the 'intersection' - which backtracks ever smaller, forever, with correspondingly increased heat and density, B, in the middle, as the present, and C as the larger, more tenuous Future). 'Now', is always B - the middle of the sidways V diagram of the 4th D. There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass energy - it's the same amount of 4-D energy, distributing itself over an increasing volume of space, squared. All densities are relative.

    Apparently, few calculators wish to relate much to there being no common center, and that the observed recession is in direct line of sight regardless of the point of observation (this not being a signature of any big bang, but rather, that of a Steady State - Cosmological Constant - universe. And yes, the accelerating universe is annoying big bang advocates, as the later data continues to stack up on that formerly desolate ('biggest mistake'/ 'blundering') desk.

    As for a poll on how many big bangers there are, vs FILL IN HERE. I've said it before. If science were a democracy, the universe would still be revolving around the flat, square or hollow earth every 24 hours. Thanking all replies. Ostensibly, this issue is far from resolved. The Cosmological Constant continues to show every sign of reinstatement - that's basically the abandoned Steady State universe of Bondi, Gold and Hoyle. The 4-D space time continuum plays a key role in this debate and is not receiving the consideration that finds it explaining what is otherwise inexplicable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

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