Thread: the standard model

1. My big question. Have scientists located an area in space where the big bang has occured by measuring the direction at which galaxies are moving? Or was it beyond the visible universe?

2.

3. The big bang occurred everywhere. As we look out, galaxies are all moving away from us, with the speed they are receding at being directly proportional to how far away they are, with the farthest one we can see receding at near light speed. The same thing would be seen by anyone, anywhere in the universe. The only explanation for this is that the galaxies are not so much moving through space away from each other, but moving with space, meaning space is expanding everywhere in the universe. This means that beyond the galaxies we can see receding at near light speed, there are probably galaxies receding at apparent speeds exceeding that of light. This does not violate Special relativity, because they are moving with space, as opposed to through it. This expansion is negated by the effect of gravitationally locked bodies of mass like galaxies and clusters, but it does start to have an effect on superclusers and above.

This means the universe does not have a centre, nor and edge.

The traditional way to imaging this, is to imagine the point of view of a 2D being living on the 2D surface of an expanding ball covered in magic marker dots (forget about the rest, as it does not form part of the analogy). As the surface of the ball expands, he would see all dots moving away from him, with those further away also receding faster. If he was to go on a journey in any perfectly straight line from his perspective, he would never reach an edge or a centre and would in fact end up back where he started.

This provides a way to help imagine the nature of a Big Bang universe through the eyes of general relativity and curvature. It is possible to describe a 2D space with curvature as in the surface of the ball without using a 3rd spacial dimension. Similarly, our universe is described as a 3D "surface" with curvature, the 4th dimension being time.

The above describes a spherical shape to our universe. For more, take a look at this Wiki page: Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. If what you are saying is true then there really isn't a big bang. If there was it could be measured and located. Your saying that poof here is a massive universe and no central point where it emerged but its expanding. That sounds like contracting matter theory. I like this web forum a lot and not discrediting you. They are only theories. Does anyone know how a singularity could of happened that can not be measured? It seems like unified field is at work again haha. Did you read my other post about my theory? I know its farfeched. But aren't they all? When you say galaxies are moving away from us near light speed. What happens when they cross that critical barrier? Would they simply vanish from view? Or appear to travel backward through time? I understand everything you said. I just like asking new questions.

5. You're jumping to conclusions. That the big bang didn't happen at one point isn't proof of its non-existence.

6. Originally Posted by KALSTER
The big bang occurred everywhere.
Altho' I agree with the above I'm probably only speaking for myself when I say I could find that flat statement, taken by itself, confusing. It almost suggests that space already existed and that the BB occurred at every point within that space.
The way I understand the process is that the BB created space which has since expanded from the original "point" source.
In other words "the big bang occurred everywhere" in space.

7. but... every physicst call the BB an explosion of space and matter.. and explosions can be measured.. unless we can not see with visable light the very center of it.. is it possible that we are so far away from the pin point that all matter around us is percieved this way?

8. 1 more quick thing. If gravity is effected by c then space expansion would folllow the rules of c also. Right?

9. 1 more quick thing. If gravity is effected by laws of c then space expansion would folllow the laws of c also. Right?

10. Originally Posted by brandon
. Have scientists located an area in space where the big bang has occured by measuring the direction at which galaxies are moving?
Yes. They are moving away from us. So the big bang occurred right here.

That is also true of every other location in the visible universe.

Originally Posted by brandon
unless we can not see with visable light the very center of it.. is it possible that we are so far away from the pin point
Until recently that was true - we were too far from the "center of it" to see it. Recently we developed telescopes that can see far enough, and computers capable of processing the data, and we have been looking at the "center of it" in all directions - since it is in all directions, to get a good picture you have to combine the data from very wide and detailed surveys of the deep sky, including the whole sky view from the Southern Hemisphere and both poles if possible.

11. So bang, here is space and matter expanding very fast and always going faster and faster every second, climbing at an exponential rate. equal all over the visible universe. so space time is stretching on forever with no possible edge or center point from our prospective. hmm. then why would anyone mention a singularity? the 2 ideas cancel each other, unless we detect a very small difference in velocity on opposite sides of the visible universe... i remember all of this from a few years ago. it just seems wrong, like we're missing the big picture of what is really happening. i dont believe there will be a big rip or crunch, but the universe recycles itself lasting and producing a true infinity. but thank you everyone for explaining.

12. The singularity of the big bang was the original point of space-time-matter. No one knows what it was or how it came to be, and the naive approach gives an infinite answer (a singularity).

13. Is traveling in a circle or cycle considered an infinate answer?

14. Originally Posted by Brandon
then why would anyone mention a singularity? the 2 ideas cancel each other...
A singularity is commonly thought of as some ultra-mega dense region of spacetime, as in the case of a black hole, however this is only an example of a gravitational singularity. Singularity, as i understand it anyway, refers to the breakdown in the mathematical treatment of a problem, in this case the breakdown occurs in the theory of General Relativity at scales where Quantum Mechanical processes become important. So the "Singularity" at the moment of the universes birth need not take the same form as that in a black hole. (Of course i couldn't be certain of this since i find the mathematics involved to be depressing)

Originally Posted by Brandon
Is traveling in a circle or cycle considered an infinate answer?
An infinite answer to what? One could theoretically travel in a circular path and never come to the end, but a circle still has a finite circumference, this is an example of a path with no boundary.

15. Yes, the singulary is basicly the space-time where GR and QP do not agree anymore...?

Infinite distance can be reached by traveling in the footsteps of an electron. i love it.

If you really want to know what the answer is for go check out "my amazing new theory of the cosmos" in the new idea hypothesis section.. although its just an idea not a theory yet. dont just read it and dismiss it due to lack of evidence or what not. just try to understand it and leave some feedback.

16. If what you are saying is true then there really isn't a big bang. If there was it could be measured and located.
No. This means you didn't understand what I was saying. Think again on the surface of the ball. If the surface starts shrinking, its surface area will get smaller and smaller until it is a mere dot. There you have the source of the big bang. When that dot started to expand, everywhere was the dot and the dot was everything. So, in our current universe, it is entirely correct to say that the big bang happened everywhere.

Your saying that poof here is a massive universe and no central point where it emerged but its expanding.
No.

Let's say you have a meter long ruler divided into 1cm increments. Now suddenly the ruler starts growing in size at the rate that each 1cm division is 2cm in length after an hour. From the perspective of the zero, the 1 has moved at 1cm per hour, but the 2 has moved at 2cm per hour and so on. The 100 will have moved 100cm in the hour. But, each point has simply been swept along by the expanding ruler. It is this distance/recession speed relationship that we are seeing, which can only be explained by an isotropically expanding universe. This is not the same thing as an explosion.

This means that if you run the clock backwards, you realise that everything was once at the same point and since it is space itself that has been expanding, it means that whatever caused this expansion produced space itself as well.

I like this web forum a lot and not discrediting you. They are only theories.
Thanks, but be careful how you use the term "theory". I see you have learned at least this much (apparently), so let's move on.

Did you read my other post about my theory? I know its farfeched. But aren't they all?
Not really. Scientific theories are base on countless observations, measurements and experiments. The Big bang theory is simply where our established knowledge and direct observation has lead us.

When you say galaxies are moving away from us near light speed. What happens when they cross that critical barrier? Would they simply vanish from view?
As with the ruler, they are not moving through space, with respect to the huge apparent velocities at least. The light from those galaxies with apparent velocities exceeding the speed of light are basically infinitely red shifted. They disappear.

17. Thank you Kalster.. I have to admit, I do understand more now. I just needed a better explenation I guess..
Since space is expanding could it create the illusion of time? Is there any evidence of it? The way you explain "Let's say you have a meter long ruler divided into 1cm increments. Now suddenly the ruler starts growing in size at the rate that each 1cm division is 2cm in length after an hour. From the perspective of the zero, the 1 has moved at 1cm per hour, but the 2 has moved at 2cm per hour and so on. The 100 will have moved 100cm in the hour. But, each point has simply been swept along by the expanding ruler." almost implies that expanding space creates the perception of time. Is there any evidence? or is it considered the same thing?

Sorry if my questions are annoying anyone. im just curious.

It is possible that our current measurements and theories of standard could lead us toward a new theory. (besides M)

18. Measurements and new ideas will eventually lead to a new theory, unless the universe is actually indescribable, which would be bad. Basically, we already know that we don't know everything (the disconnect between GR and QM being a gaping hole, for example), so as we learn more, we'll discover new theories to fill those holes.

As KALSTER said though, theories are only meaningful when backed up by data. Without data, it's not a theory, just an idea.

19. Originally Posted by Brandon
but... every physicst call the BB an explosion of space and matter.. and explosions can be measured.. unless we can not see with visable light the very center of it.. is it possible that we are so far away from the pin point that all matter around us is percieved this way?
No they don't. "Explosion" is the wrong word, which leads to your misperception.

20. I stand corrected.

21. Originally Posted by Brandon
but... every physicst call the BB an explosion of space and matter..
No, no they don't.

22. O duh. The word bang is associated with and explosion. but when i watched every episode of the history channel: the universe. "In the begining there was darkness, and then, BANG". sorry i was confused but there is where i got the wrong idea.... haha

23. I blame Fred Hoyle. It was he who coined the term "Big Bang", and as I understand it he was using the term derisively, as he opposed the theory.

24. Ok I have learned so much I amazed myslef. My ridiculus first post is a complete failure haha.... here is where I am now. When the universe is a singularity. With all the forces combines with all the energy. Then the bb happens, gravity is the first to seperate from the other 3. Now this is a qp problem. I propose that gravity was an outside force that started the bb. A massive gravity wave hits the "prime evil atom" an causes the bb. In qp what happens when we combine the 3 forces then add gravity? Complete chaos? I would imagine. When gravity begins to act on the energy it pulls in toward the cente, making it extremely unstable therefore bb and gravity is introduced to the universe for the first time. Is that what anyone thinks? Or am I crazy? Or both? Haha

25. I don't think you're making much sense. Where's "outside" of the universe? (Ok, some theories would say there's other universes out there, but that doesn't sound like where you're going with this.)

Also, unifying the forces wouldn't lead to complete chaos. I can't see where you're getting that at all.

26. Using qp to unite the 4 forces. The 3 unite easily. But what happens when you add gravity? Do the numbers suggest "chaos"? What makes them so hard to unite? And yes I'm suggestsing an outside force (predicted by string theory) that adds gravity to the mix to cause bb. You forgot to call me crazy haha. Me asking these ridiculus questions is helping me learn like never before.. I appreciate everyones input. I'm suggesting they do not unite at all. We are talking about nanoseconds after the bb. Gravity instantly escapes the hold, and the other 3 remain unified for an entire second. It leads me to ask this question could gravity have unbalanced the "prime evil atom" to go bb?

27. You should probably read up on "singularity" now.
Singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

28. Ok sorry for saying singularity. I was refering to the prime-evil atom that physicts refered to as in infinitly small small space that contained our universe. Thank you and I will make the edit.

29. We don't actually know that the universe started as some kind of singularity Brandon. The Big Bang looks pretty solid, in that galaxies do appear to be receding from us. Wind things back and keep winding things back, and you get a smaller and smaller universe. But you can only go back so far with this before everything starts getting conjectural.

To get a handle on it, get yourself a stress-ball, squeeze it down in your fist, then let go. Think of the stress ball as being space itself. When you let go it kind of "explodes". But it didn't start out as a singularity. A block of C4 didn't start out as a singularity either. There are some issues with singularities. You hear a lot about singularities in a black hole context, but don't take them for granted.

30. I understand that farsight. That's why I used the prime evil atom for my model, the qp forces are united easily. But gravity doesn't go in at all, apparently It could have been added to the prime evel atom to cause the bb. I watched the entire video on youtube of the history of the standard model. The size of the prime evil atom isn't relivant, its a qp idea that when you add gravity, does it cause an unbalence to possibly explain the reason the pea to go bb? I also ask is there any record of this idea that gravity came from a different dimention (somehow)?

31. according to new ideas in QM,gravity could be an emergent property of the universe.

32. I know.. I don't know why I Wrote it that way. I think I'm gettin ahead of myself again.. I think its possible an outside force caused gravity to become unstable or something like that, its just odd that they all 4 don't split at once, but gravity first, then the other 3 all at once. That's what the model showed me atleast. Sorry.. if we look at the pea a different way, could the "superforce" be possible to recreate one day?

33. Originally Posted by Brandon
I understand that farsight. That's why I used the prime evil atom for my model, the qp forces are united easily. But gravity doesn't go in at all, apparently It could have been added to the prime evel atom to cause the bb. I watched the entire video on youtube of the history of the standard model. The size of the prime evil atom isn't relivant, its a qp idea that when you add gravity, does it cause an unbalence to possibly explain the reason the pea to go bb?
No. Gravity is only there because "things are unbalanced". If you had a limitless universe with a uniform energy density, there wouldn't be any gravity at all. You only get gravity surrounding a concentration of energy, usually in the form of matter in the form of a star or planet.

Originally Posted by Brandon
I also ask is there any record of this idea that gravity came from a different dimention (somehow)?
Sorry, I don't know. You hear people saying gravity is so weak because an extra hidden dimension is involved, but IMHO that's a speculation that isn't in line with tried and trusted general relativity.

Originally Posted by Brandon
I know.. I don't know why I Wrote it that way. I think I'm gettin ahead of myself again.. I think its possible an outside force caused gravity to become unstable or something like that, its just odd that they all 4 don't split at once, but gravity first, then the other 3 all at once. That's what the model showed me atleast. Sorry.. if we look at the pea a different way, could the "superforce" be possible to recreate one day?
Hmmn. In electromagnetism there's electrostatic force and magnetic force, but there's only one field, the electromagnetic field. So electrostatic force and magnetic force are just two different aspects of electromagnetic force. In similar vein I think people will discover that the "superforce" is really just the strong force, and the other forces are just aspects of that. Then they realise that they don't need to recreate it, it's already here in disguise. Something like that. In physics there's something called low-energy proton-anttiproton annihilation to gamma photons. The strong force that was there in the proton and antiproton has just gone, and you're left with electromagnetism. (Or electroweak if you prefer). I have a hunch that it hasn't really gone, it's just hidden.

34. I see. But isn't there an idea floating around that gravity was a lot stronger in the early universe? As space/time expands gravity grows weaker causing the big rip? Like the easy example of a bolwing ball on a blanket, when you stretch the blanket the ball rises an is percieved as having less mass? Even though only the fabric is being stretched.. gravity could well of held the pea stable, and this dark energy made it unstable. But how could gravity split first? Simply because gravity is a perception just like space time. We percieve gravity as the force of matter attracting matter. But its really just a wrinkle in the fabric, not really a force at all. Is time a force? Is space a force? Not that I know of so how can we expect it to combine with qp perfectly to create a mathmatical pea? Even in the model it expands with space/time. Faster than light, could gravity actually travel faster than c in the bb? And the stretching of space weakened it down to c? Where c is the minimum speed of gravity because matter cannot warp space faster than space itself?............do any physicsts hypothesise that gravity is directly percieved with space-time and gravity was more effective during the bb?

35. BTW, primeval. Similar to medieval.

Also, the big rip comes when expansion overtakes the strong nuclear force and atoms fall apart. It has nothing to do with gravity getting weaker.

36. ok. Thank you. The idea was floating around my sub-concious again.. dam

37. Originally Posted by Farsight
Gravity is only there because "things are unbalanced". If you had a limitless universe with a uniform energy density, there wouldn't be any gravity at all. You only get gravity surrounding a concentration of energy, usually in the form of matter in the form of a star or planet.
It's important for people to know that this is a misreading of general relativity that Farsight peddles, figuratively, in many places around the internet and, literally, in his self-published book. Farsight likes to cherry pick a single quotation from a single lecture by Einstein in order to support this position. However, as Farsight has admitted that he cannot follow the mathematics of general relativity, he has admittedly not taken the time to learn the theory.

There are many models of spacetime that have a uniform distribution of mass and energy and that are solutions to the Einstein field equation and thus are models that are allowable under general relativity. The current model favored by cosmologists is one such model. It is felt that this model is an excellent approximation to the behavior of the universe, even though the universe is not perfectly homogeneous.

The dynamics of these models are governed by gravity as indicated by general relativity. To claim that there is no gravity in these models is grossly and, if one studies them to any small extent, obviously wrong.

38. Yea that's why I'm. Going to school to study einstiens work and master in qp. Can't wait

39. Originally Posted by Brandon
Yea that's why I'm. Going to school to study einstiens work and master in qp. Can't wait
While you are waiting. there is a very good, small book (158 pages), written by the man himself in 1916 entitled Relativity: The Special and the General Theory. It is geared toward a high school senior, so it is relatively [pun alert] free of mathematics. Best \$6 you will ever spend.

Here it is on Amazon:

Amazon.com: Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (9781891396304): Albert Einstein: Books

I have this book on CD also, wonderfully read by Julian Lopez-Morillas

40. I thank you pumaman.. I will defonatly be reading it by next week. I will just borrow it from the public library haha. Thank you though

41. Here's a mini-review:

From Scientific American

"The present book is intended," Einstein wrote in 1916, "as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics.... In the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler." But it is elegant, in part because of the 1920 translation, by Robert W. Lawson, a British physicist who had polished his German while a prisoner of war in Austria. The introduction, by science writer Nigel Calder, guides the reader through the work section by section, even giving advice on which sections to skip, or at least not to worry about, if you can't "accompany Einstein through the forest of tricky ideas contained in this slim volume." Okay, this book isn't easy--again, in the master's elegant words, it "lays no small claims on the patience and on the power of abstraction of the reader"--but it is well worth the try.

42. Or you could read the 3rd edition, online!

Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

43. Yeah, that'll work. But I'm sort of an old-timer -- I like a book in my hands. I know, I'm old-fashioned.

If I recall correctly, there were a few diagrams in the book. Are these still there in the online version?

44. No I mean borrow the real book from my local library haha

45. Originally Posted by Brandon
No I mean borrow the real book from my local library haha
My hat is off to you. I didn't think anyone went to the library anymore -- especially younger folks.

46. I take my kids. They love it and its free haha..

47. You might also want to consider The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose, which gives also gives a basic overview of Einsteins equations, and the equations behind most of the major theoretical models of physics (e.g. SUSY, strings, quantum gravity, and his own pet theory Twistors). Just a word of notice, it is quite dense, and I think the idea that you can cram all of modern mathematics in ~800 pages is quite laughable. But nonetheless, I think it is a good summary of all the theories now being flung around that aim to replace or supplement the Standard Model.

On the bright side, each of its chapters has mathematics problems that you can try out for your self. You can even check your results with the solutions given on this webpage: Road to Reality solutions

48. Originally Posted by Brandon
I also ask is there any record of this idea that gravity came from a different dimention (somehow)?
I think you might be referring to Brane Cosmology, which is one conjecture for why gravity appears to be so weak in our universe. The idea is that our universe is but one of many branes, and while the three other forces (electromagnetism, strong and weak force) are confined to this brane, gravity leaks outward.

49. Originally Posted by PumaMan
Yeah, that'll work. But I'm sort of an old-timer -- I like a book in my hands. I know, I'm old-fashioned.

If I recall correctly, there were a few diagrams in the book. Are these still there in the online version?
Yes, the diagrams are all there.

Chapter 9. The Relativity of Simultaneity. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

50. Cool. Thanks. I'm working on a pet theory too, I keep havin revolutions in the idea that just amaze me... like I really think I'm a genious to compreheend my idea with no notes or classes or teachers. I know ihave a very powerful minds eye for theoretical physics.. I will post it when I have the time later. I do so good at amazing myself it doesn't make sense for me to fail.

51. Originally Posted by Brandon
I see. But isn't there an idea floating around that gravity was a lot stronger in the early universe?
Yes, the Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Brandon
As space/time expands gravity grows weaker causing the big rip?
The idea is that gravity gets weaker, but the "big rip" is something else. I can empathize with G varying over time, but not the big rip. It sounds like science fiction to me.

Originally Posted by Brandon
Like the easy example of a bolwing ball on a blanket, when you stretch the blanket the ball rises an is perceived as having less mass?
Yep, something like that.

Originally Posted by Brandon
Even though only the fabric is being stretched.. gravity could well of held the pea stable, and this dark energy made it unstable. But how could gravity split first? Simply because gravity is a perception just like space time. We percieve gravity as the force of matter attracting matter. But its really just a wrinkle in the fabric, not really a force at all.
It's not even a wrinkle in the fabric. The bowling ball analogy isn't ideal because it relies on gravity to pull the bowling ball down. A better analogy would be a difference in the fabric. Like the blanket has a weave that gets tighter and tighter as you approach the middle. So when you shake a bit of the blanket a ripple doesn't quite run straight, it veers a bit where the weave starts getting tighter. That kind of thing.

Originally Posted by Brandon
Is time a force? Is space a force? Not that I know of so how can we expect it to combine with qp perfectly to create a mathmatical pea? Even in the model it expands with space/time. Faster than light, could gravity actually travel faster than c in the bb?
I don't think so. The universe is expanding faster than light, but if I snapped my fingers and made the Sun disappear it would be 8 minutes before the Earth's stopped orbiting.

Originally Posted by Brandon
And the stretching of space weakened it down to c?
The speed of light has always been c, and I think "the speed of gravity" has always been c. But I don't think c now is what it was, just as it isn't constant in a non-inertial reference frame.

Originally Posted by Brandon
Where c is the minimum speed of gravity because matter cannot warp space faster than space itself?
That sounds about right. If you shake the blanket a ripple runs through it at some speed. That's like a photon. Forgetting what I said earlier about weave, if you put a bowling ball on it you make a big dent that spreads out at some speed. That's like a gravitational wave. The speeds are the same, and depend on your blanket.

Originally Posted by Brandon
............do any physicsts hypothesise that gravity is directly percieved with space-time and gravity was more effective during the bb?
I don't know if they hypothesize exactly that, but see arXiv for a few papers that refer to the Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis.

Edit: Einstein wrote Relativity: The Special and General Theory in 1916. Whilst it says 1920, that was when it was translated into English. He gave his Leyden Address in 1920, which is well worth reading. He said stuff like this:

According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν)....

That's Einstein saying a gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space, which is a bit like the weave getting tighter in the middle of your blanket. Note that the gravitational field doesn't equate to an area where the weave is tight, it equates to an area where the tightness of the weave isn't uniform.

52. Thank you much farsight. I appreciate your answers completely understood them too. I do know einstein believed in a steady state idea of the universe, but big bang ruled him out. I may have a way to combine the 2. I really need more work on it, it is great. but I need more thinking time. I feel completely addicted to solving the universe. This morning when I visualised it, it gave me a head ache haha its good, but maybe someone else thought of it first. I will post it soon. But my main question now is, if the universe is expanding, doesn't matter have to expand with it? Since matter is 99% space?

53. Oh my god.. its perfect.. its on my computer, just waiting for my internet to start working. You guys will love it, even if it has been thought of before you can appreciate how much I have learned in 2 weeks.. it could very well be einstiens holy grail haha.. I can't wait to post it

54. Originally Posted by Brandon
But my main question now is, if the universe is expanding, doesn't matter have to expand with it? Since matter is 99% space?
No, because matter is gravitationally bound. Only the space between it expands.

55. Originally Posted by Brandon
I appreciate your answers completely understood them too. I do know einstein believed in a steady state idea of the universe, but big bang ruled him out. I may have a way to combine the 2.
Just for a bit of history, he never really believed in the Steady State theory as most people know it. Rather, he at one time believed in the notion of a static universe, which didn't have any sort of "beginning" or "end", or that it expanded with time. In fact, General Relativity did predict that the universe itself should be either expanding or contracting, but Einstein introduced the cosmological constant to prevent this behavior. It wasn't until Edwin Hubble discovered that most galaxies are red shifted (i.e. moving away from us) that Einstein decided to abandon the cosmological constant all together and learn to appreciate the notion of an expanding universe.

I don't think you can "combine" the two (i.e. Steady State and BB), since they rely on fundamentally different premises. That the Big Bang theory is correct has already been demonstrated with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Everything else are just details.

Originally Posted by Farsight
It's not even a wrinkle in the fabric. The bowling ball analogy isn't ideal because it relies on gravity to pull the bowling ball down. A better analogy would be a difference in the fabric. Like the blanket has a weave that gets tighter and tighter as you approach the middle. So when you shake a bit of the blanket a ripple doesn't quite run straight, it veers a bit where the weave starts getting tighter. That kind of thing.
I think the bowling ball analogy is appropriate. At the very least it is much less confusing for those who are beginners to relativity theory or laypeople. Not only is gravity stronger the nearer one is to a large body, but it is also curved.

56. Good... could you say the forces of qm stops matter from expanding?

57. What did his cosmological constant consist of?

58. Originally Posted by Brandon
Good... could you say the forces of qm stops matter from expanding?
Yes, the other forces do stop matter from expanding. The Strong Force binds nuclei together, while the electromagnetic force binds atoms and molecules. However, gravity is by far the most important force over large distances, since its range is effectively infinite.

What did his cosmological constant consist of?
It was just a number used to fudge his equations. It was utilized for the sole purpose of making relativity conform to his notions of a static universe. However, recent observations of the cosmos indicates that there may indeed be a non-zero constant after all.

59. [QUOTE=Farsight;283880]
Originally Posted by Brandon
Edit: Einstein wrote Relativity: The Special and General Theory in 1916. Whilst it says 1920, that was when it was translated into English. He gave his Leyden Address in 1920, which is well worth reading. He said stuff like this: According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν).... That's Einstein saying a gravitational field is a region of inhomogeneous space, which is a bit like the weave getting tighter in the middle of your blanket. Note that the gravitational field doesn't equate to an area where the weave is tight, it equates to an area where the tightness of the weave isn't uniform.
It is important to note that nothing in this interpretation of Einstein has anything to do with any of Einstein's theory or of any serious work in general relativity since 1916. It is nothing more than a work of fiction.

60. This paper I wrote today is going to blow your mind.. einstien was right, but hawking and time paradox make it fit perfect. I'm going to try and post it from my phone. Got to do some data transfering

61. Hi Brandon, it is good to see such enthusiasm, but I feel it would be better channelled into learning accepted physics, rather than coming up with your own theory after a few days (a lot of people go through this stage).

Not to put too much of a dampener on things, but see how many points your idea earns here - Crackpot index

If it ends up at less than zero, you might be on to something..

62. That's not gonna turn out well...

63. Originally Posted by Brandon
Thank you much farsight. I appreciate your answers completely understood them too. I do know einstein believed in a steady state idea of the universe, but big bang ruled him out.
A pleasure Brandon. Yep, Einstein's "greatest blunder" was not predicting the expanding universe. It's as if he had a bit of a blind spot when it came to cosmology.

Originally Posted by Brandon
I may have a way to combine the 2. I really need more work on it, it is great. but I need more thinking time. I feel completely addicted to solving the universe. This morning when I visualised it, it gave me a head ache haha its good, but maybe someone else thought of it first. I will post it soon.
Don't get too carried away with it. Like I said, it's mostly conjecture when it comes to how the big bang happened. It stops being science, and starts being science fiction, real fast. When somebody tries to tell you why the big bang happened, watch them like a hawk like you'd watch a street conjuror. Watch for the distraction and the sleight of hand.

Originally Posted by Brandon
But my main question now is, if the universe is expanding, doesn't matter have to expand with it? Since matter is 99% space?
No. Matter is a "bound" form of energy. Remember your blanket with the weave? Think of a particle like a proton as a little knot in one of the threads. Like Xellos said, matter is gravitationally bound too. The space between the galaxies expands, but the galaxies don't. It's like a galaxy is a big fat knot in your blanket. Now stretch your blanket from all sides.

Originally Posted by Brandon
Oh my god.. its perfect.. its on my computer, just waiting for my internet to start working. You guys will love it, even if it has been thought of before you can appreciate how much I have learned in 2 weeks.. it could very well be einstiens holy grail haha.. I can't wait to post it
Uh oh, Brandon, like I said, don't get too carried away with it.

Originally Posted by Xelloss
I think the bowling ball analogy is appropriate. At the very least it is much less confusing for those who are beginners to relativity theory or laypeople. Not only is gravity stronger the nearer one is to a large body, but it is also curved.
I've used it myself, but I think it does cause some issues. Let's talk about it on another thread sometime.

64. How do I contact the science community to get this paper published? Its really not that crazy of an idea its been hiding in plain sight. I I'm sure no one has thought of it before I need to publish it so I get the credit for it haha

65. There's no such thing as THE scientific community. If you want to seriously publish a paper, look up various conferences and journals in the area you want to publish in (theoretical physics, most likely, or maybe cosmology) and read up on their submission process. Keep in mind that many conferences and journals reject many papers, even very good ones.

Of course there are places like arxiv, which will take anything, but that's more of an archive (hence the name) than an actual publication.

66. Originally Posted by Brandon
How do I contact the science community to get this paper published? Its really not that crazy of an idea its been hiding in plain sight. I I'm sure no one has thought of it before I need to publish it so I get the credit for it haha
I'd strongly suggest you post it here for us to rip to shreds before you submit it somewhere in like arxiv, where you might embarass yourself, and ruin your reputation for the rest of your life.

Did you take the crackpot test that was suggested earlier? How did you do? Just based on your posts here, you are +30, which ain't good...

67. How do I take the crackpot test? And this idea has nothing to do with the posts above..

68. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
I'd strongly suggest you post it here for us to rip to shreds before you submit it somewhere in like arxiv, where you might embarass yourself, and ruin your reputation for the rest of your life.

Did you take the crackpot test that was suggested earlier? How did you do? Just based on your posts here, you are +30, which ain't good...
What exactly is your problem? Why don't you leave the kid alone. You are one of the most mean-spirited posters on this forum. What are trying to do, ruin his desire to learn? If his paper is without merit, he'll find that out soon enough -- people just like you will get to "rip it to shreds". Not read it and offer constructive criticism -- just "rip to shreds". Nice.

69. I don't want him to do something that he will regret for the rest of his life, that's all. I'm just being kind, actually. My rip it to shreds comment is based strictly on what he's said so far. In 4 days, he's solved the mysteries of the Universe that physicists and cosmologists have been working on for scores of years.

Doesn't that seem unlikely?

Even Einstein didn't do that.

And if you think I'm mean spirited, you should have been here when the good Dr was...

70. Enstein told me what to write.. as soon as my home internet gets fixed I will post it. And we will see how many sheds its ripped into.

71. Wow...well that's +15 before you start, and saying "Enstein (sic) told you what to write has to be at least a bonus +75...

I wouldn't mention that in any paper you write if I were you, or the men in the white coats will be paying you a visit.

72. No shit its a joke... but it gets everyones attention haha

73. Science isn't a joke.

74. I'm saying albert told me was a joke. Not science....... I really do have a great idea that can spread like wild fire. That's not a joke

75. You'd be better off putting your idea up here, Brandon. The more public you make it, the less likely it is that somebody else will "make a simultaneous discovery", if you catch my drift.

76. Yes thats what I was worruning about.. Im posting it now

77. If your internet hasn't been working all this time so that you couldn't post your ideas, how have you been participating in this discussion ???

78. Originally Posted by Brandon
September 7th, 2011, 02:12 PM
My big question. Have scientists located an area in space where the big bang has occured by measuring the direction at which galaxies are moving? Or was it beyond the visible universe?
Brandon, please take a look at your time-line from your first post in which you thought that the big bang was an explosion of some sort somewhere in the universe and your last quoted post in which you feel prepared to present your "paper" in a scientific journal.

September 17th, 2011, 12:38 PM
Cool. Thanks. I'm working on a pet theory too, I keep havin revolutions in the idea that just amaze me... like I really think I'm a genious to compreheend my idea with no notes or classes or teachers. I know ihave a very powerful minds eye for theoretical physics.. I will post it when I have the time later. I do so good at amazing myself it doesn't make sense for me to fail.
September 18th, 2011, 02:12 AM
Oh my god.. its perfect.. its on my computer, just waiting for my internet to start working. You guys will love it, even if it has been thought of before you can appreciate how much I have learned in 2 weeks.. it could very well be einstiens holy grail haha.. I can't wait to post it

September 18th, 2011, 08:48 PM
How do I contact the science community to get this paper published? Its really not that crazy of an idea its been hiding in plain sight. I I'm sure no one has thought of it before I need to publish it so I get the credit for it haha
If you haven't read any papers that have been published in scientific journals, I strongly suggest that you do so. You need to compare the attention to detail, the referenced sources of data, and the mathematical logic in these papers to your own work. You don't have to use big, complex words in your paper, but you do have to understand big and complex concepts.

No one here is going to steal your idea. There's nothing wrong with thinking that you're very smart. Thinking that you're so smart that you don't have to understand what other very smart people have already figured out is a big mistake, though.

Chris

79. Originally Posted by MigL
If your internet hasn't been working all this time so that you couldn't post your ideas, how have you been participating in this discussion ???
He's been using his cell phone until his home internet connection is fixed.

80. Originally Posted by PumaMan
Originally Posted by MigL
If your internet hasn't been working all this time so that you couldn't post your ideas, how have you been participating in this discussion ???
He's been using his cell phone until his home internet connection is fixed.
I'll have to ask my grand-daughter how to do new-fangled stuff like that

Chris

81. Can't believe I missed this one, but just for clarification:

Originally Posted by Farsight
No. Matter is a "bound" form of energy. Remember your blanket with the weave? Think of a particle like a proton as a little knot in one of the threads.
Matter is not a bound form of energy. I think you are confusing matter with mass, which is equivalent to energy (rather than a form of it). It is far more accurate to think of its mass as a form of potential energy, much like gravitational energy is.

82. Originally Posted by Brandon
How do I contact the science community to get this paper published? Its really not that crazy of an idea its been hiding in plain sight. I I'm sure no one has thought of it before I need to publish it so I get the credit for it haha
You can submit it to any journal you want. However, it first has to pass peer review before it can be published. And you shouldn't be afraid to share your ideas; sharing ideas (and refining them) is the whole point of the scientific and research community.

In any case, I strongly recommend you thoroughly study the accepted theories before venturing off on your own. You can start with going through the material in MIT OpenCourseWare. I'm not sure how much actual physics you know, but I recommend (based on your posts) that you start with Physics I and II.

Just remember, your theory absolutely must have math in it, or it won't be taken seriously.

83. The suggestion to read some actual journal articles is an excellent one. See how it's done. Also, every journal has a page abot how to write and submit an article. If you don't follow the guidelines for that journal, your submission will be thrown out with the morning's coffee cups.

I'd suggest reading 30 or 40 articles (maybe on the subject you are writing about) first to get the hang of it.

84. Originally Posted by Xelloss
Matter is not a bound form of energy. I think you are confusing matter with mass, which is equivalent to energy (rather than a form of it). It is far more accurate to think of its mass as a form of potential energy, much like gravitational energy is.
I'm not confusing matter with mass, Xellos. I used the quotes around "bound" to signal that this was a simplistic way of putting it across. It relates to pair production, where you convert a massless photon, which isn't matter in the usual sense of the word, into an electron and a positron, which are. They exhibit rest mass, which is normally shortened to just mass. The photon is never at rest, and you can't make a photon go faster or slower, so mass doesn't apply. You can however see an electron at rest, and make it go faster or slower. So mass does apply. You can of course then perform electron-positron annihilation wherein the typical result is two 511keV photons.

Yes, I suppose mass is like gravitational potential energy. I was talking about this the other day as it happens:

Consider a 1kg cannonball in free space. It falls to Earth with considerable kinetic energy and a final velocity of circa 11km/s. Now reverse this. When you lift the cannonball you do work on it, giving it gravitational potential energy. When you give it 11km/s worth, it ends up in free space where the Earth's gravity is negligible. Conservation of energy tells you that the energy you expended is now in the cannonball. It hasn't gone into the Earth's gravitational field, because that's reduced a little because the departing cannonball has removed energy from the system. So the energy-content of the cannonball has increased, hence its active gravitational mass has increased, and so has its inertial mass. See Mass deficit in the wiki article on binding energy.

Ah, I imagine your objection to "bound" relates to Classically a bound system is at a lower energy level than its unbound constituents, and its mass must be less than the total mass of its unbound constituents. Fair enough. It can be tricky to pick the right words sometimes.

85. Brandon - while your enthusiasm for Science is to be admired, I must agree with others in that it is essential to first grasp current theories before creating your own. If you do not comprehend current theories (this includes the mathematics), you will not be able to discredit them, nor prove your own.

This is in no way an attempt to dishearten or demotivate you, I am simply expressing my opinion, much the same as you are. I believe if you were to apply yourself to some form of study / education, you would benefit significantly.

I do enjoy reading your posts, as they provoke educational debates with the forum members; however, you must understand that the 'Scientific Community' would be inundated by 'revolutionary ideas', and that it is essential to have the necessary data to back up your claims. A thought provoking, interesting and quite enjoyable read, is quite different to an idea that commands any authority.

I hope to see a published paper with your name at some point in the future. Until then, all the best, and keep at it.

Regards,

David.

86. Wow..

1st. I feel embaressed for not reading any comments until now. (since my last post)
2nd. I want to thank everyone for the advice, even though I failed to follow it. (wish I wouldn't of posted the idea and gotten more information, it just sounded so good in my head)
3rd. I think I scored about a 350 on the crackpot test hahaha... I feel like an idiot but I will learn from my mistakes.
4th I want to thank everyone again, and im sorry for not listening.... I was just in the zone at the time.... But not anymore thank god. I kept getting headaches from thinking so hard haha

87. Originally Posted by Brandon
Wow..

1st. I feel embaressed for not reading any comments until now. (since my last post)
2nd. I want to thank everyone for the advice, even though I failed to follow it. (wish I wouldn't of posted the idea and gotten more information, it just sounded so good in my head)
3rd. I think I scored about a 350 on the crackpot test hahaha... I feel like an idiot but I will learn from my mistakes.
4th I want to thank everyone again, and im sorry for not listening.... I was just in the zone at the time.... But not anymore thank god. I kept getting headaches from thinking so hard haha
I do envy your passion. Keep it up.

88. Originally Posted by KALSTER
2) The big bang occurred everywhere.
1) : Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1) the picture there shows a precise point where the BB took place. A diffused explosion would produce chaos, fireworks!

2) This idea has been developped to avoid the problems regarding the explosion of BB; as a matter of fact it creates bigger problems while does not solve the main problem : the energy necessary for the explosion

a) if universe has been expanding from time=0 , if you rewind the tape you must get to a point

b) conservation of mass-energy commands that "at t0 (BB) " there was the same amount of mass- existing now in the universe. If you do not concentrate all mass in one place and disperse it everywhere you cannot have the detonation and all the necessary parameters for the evolution (timeline) of BB: gravity, pressure, temperature 10ł˛ K°, nucleosynthesis.... etcetera.
c) if explosion happened only in 2 different places CMB would not be the same for every one, every where
d) particles would immediately collide
e), f)....

Do we really need this idea?, it destroys the whole architecture of the "hypothesis de l'atome primitif" by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/georges lemaitre
(btw: right, BB is not a theory, cannot be a scientific theory because it is not-falsifiable, it lacks all the pre-requisites required by the Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, as it is a one-off event)

89. 1) That's a precise point in time.

2) This idea was all part of the original theory, but you are misinterpreting that theory.

Read this, from a popular science article published in 1932, explaining Lemaitre's theory:

Blast of Giant Atom Created Our Universe
The nebulae are not running away from us. Their recession is due to expansion of space. This may, perhaps, seem to be quibbling over terms, since it amounts to the same thing in the end. Nevertheless, the distinction is worth keeping. According to the relativity theory, there is a difference between the running away of the nebulae and expansion of the medium in which they are imbedded.
It is the expansion of the medium in which they are embedded, known as the Hubble flow, which causes distances to increase, but any observer will track the expansion backwards towards themselves at t=0. There is no distinct origin point within the universe, as the whole thing expands within itself. It was never an explosion of matter into pre-existing space - that is just a popular misconception which was not helped by Fred Hoyle when he coined the phrase "Big Bang" to describe a theory he didn't agree with.

90. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
1) That's a precise point in time.

2) This idea was all part of the original theory, but you are misinterpreting that theory.
.
1) a point in time is a precise place in time,without space and mass 'time' is meaningless.
'Time' is meaningless anyway, because nobody ever defined the term. (Time is a sockpuppet for change: read serious science like Aristotle, Kant and Leibniz). You say you measure 'time' and in reality you count oscillations, measure velocity or space, and space is a property of a body. As a matter of fact you can meausre time with almost anything, provided it is regular, constant. So, don't play tricks with time, please!

2) the original hypothesis, (you cannot call it theory because it is only a conjecture, a collection of guesses ) if you reach that wiki article, (which doesn't work because I can't write the i with the circumflex) you'll see that Lemaitre personally refers to the myth of the cosmic (expanding) egg.

But why don't you rebut my concrete scientific arguments instead of talking of (spooks) undefined terms [medium] and [flux] impossible risible properties [the thing expands within itself]. Could you talk science instead of magic ?

91. Originally Posted by ray
1) a point in time is a precise place in time,without space and mass 'time' is meaningless. 'Time' is meaningless anyway , because nobody ever defined the term. (Time is a sockpuppet for change: read serious science like Aristotle, Kant and Leibniz).
Really? You are going to ignore everything after Leibniz? If you go one year later you get to Newton and you find excellent definitions for time that are physically useful. You can then read excellent definitions by James Clerk Maxwell that paved the way for relativity theory. Do not mistake your ignorance of the literature for the non-existence of the literature. If you would like to compare the arguments of Leibniz or others to the later work (which was done with the knowledge of the earlier work) then do that.
2) the original hypothesis, (you cannot call it theory because it is only a conjecture, a collection of guesses ) if you reach that wiki article, (which doesn't work because I can't write the i with the circumflex) you'll see that Lemaitre personally refers to the myth of the cosmic (expanding) egg.
Don't confuse the personal language of a particular individual with the actual content of the science. Since the late 1920s, the theory that would become known as the big bang theory involved the (approximate) uniform expansion of space with no center. This was developed independently by Lemaitre and by Alexander Friedmann.
But why don't you rebut my concrete scientific arguments instead of talking of (spooks) undefined terms [medium] and [flux] impossible risible properties [the thing expands within itself]. Could you talk science instead of magic ?
So far, you haven't posted any science in this thread.

92. Originally Posted by PhysBang
1) you find excellent definitions for time that are physically useful. Do not mistake your ignorance of the literature for the non-existence of the literature.
2) Don't confuse the personal language of a particular individual with the actual content of the science. This was developed independently by Lemaitre and by Alexander Friedmann.
3)But why don't you rebut my concrete scientific arguments instead of talking of

4)(spooks) undefined terms [medium] and [flux] impossible risible properties [the thing expands within itself]. Could you talk science instead of magic ?
1) I am always willing to learn: I''ll call your bluff, tell me a couple of those definitions, and we'll see who is the ignorant.
b) tell me what is time and how do you measure time, according to Newton
2) that particular individual happens to be Lemaitre, he called it "hypothesis" because he knew science, he mentioned the "cosmic egg" myth. BB cannot be a scientific theory, do you understand science?
3) if you can talk science, rebut my arguments first, one by one.
I hope I will not get any more gratuitous, coarse, obtuse criticism by people who ignore my post. If you prove me wrong I'll be glad to acknowledge it.
4) I am always willing to learn by scientists like you, show me you don't repeat parrot-wise delirious statements, explain to me what is this "Hubble flux" that, as we are talking, pervades the universe and make planets move apart at the speed of light: who discovered it, how you detect it, what it is made of, where does it get its powers etc...?

I listed some arguments against the diffused expansion, please tell me who made this proposal, what are the arguments in favour and what is wrong with my arguments.

93. Originally Posted by ray
2) This idea has been developped to avoid the problems regarding the explosion of BB; as a matter of fact it creates bigger problems while does not solve the main problem : the energy necessary for the explosion

a) if universe has been expanding from time=0 , if you rewind the tape you must get to a point
Yes, everything in the observable universe (using the formal terminology) converges towards the observer, as time tends towards t=0. The same would be true wherever the observer was, in the universe.

Originally Posted by ray
b) conservation of mass-energy commands that "at t0 (BB) " there was the same amount of mass- existing now in the universe. If you do not concentrate all mass in one place and disperse it everywhere you cannot have the detonation and all the necessary parameters for the evolution (timeline) of BB: gravity, pressure, temperature 10ł˛ K°, nucleosynthesis.... etcetera.
As time began, "everywhere" was compressed into a very small volume. The volume that represents "everywhere" is now a helluva lot larger.

Originally Posted by ray
c) if explosion happened only in 2 different places CMB would not be the same for every one, every where
But the explosion didn't happen in only 2 places, it happened everywhere.

Originally Posted by ray
d) particles would immediately collide
In those conditions, you don't have particles as such, you have a quark-gluon plasma.

94. Originally Posted by ray
4) I am always willing to learn by scientists like you, show me you don't repeat parrot-wise delirious statements, explain to me what is this "Hubble flux" that, as we are talking, pervades the universe and make planets move apart at the speed of light: who discovered it, how you detect it, what it is made of, where does it get its powers etc...?
Perhaps you could do some research yourself, but first you need to learn to read. The search term would be "hubble flow". I never even mentioned the word flux.

95. [QUOTE=SpeedFreek;285024]Blast of Giant Atom Created Our Universe
Their recession is due to expansion of space. It is the expansion of the medium.
All right, scientists, what is that medium? are you going back to aether and phlogiston? do you realize the meaning of your utterances when you repeat delirious statements?
Space cannot expand, it is not a medium, is not a gas, it is not a substance, right, can you understand that?
space is a quantity and is formally defined byVIM3 as: a property of a substance, a body. that is mainstream science, you should know better

A property is a quality, an attribute, like intelligence, beauty etc., you can measure it.FULL STOP. It has no qualities, no property, and above all cannot expand.
You do not measure space, you compare two concrete bodies (a fridge and a meter) and obtain its length, there is nothing else you can say or do.
Space cannot expand the same as beauty cannot expand and...intelligence.

I do not care who invented this new magic, I have a few spare neurons

96. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
2) you could do some research yourself, but first you need to learn to read.
1) The search term would be "hubble flow". I never even mentioned the word flux.
1) sorry, pal , I was quoting by memory, flow, not flux , makes any difference?. That ischeap sarcasm: a scientist should refrain, (but it seems that is the only thing you are able to do): you keep wasting your precious neuron-energy, without addressing my post, my arguments.
2) Of course, sir, but I did not ask do be enlightened by you, I made some remarks, if I said something wrong, (surely not stupid, because mine are logical-scientific arguments), you , with your wisdom, just write ONE POST and disprove them, with good manners, saying : this is possible because... , you are wrong here because....This is a scientific forum, not a pub
I do not need to do research, because I know physics and I recognize non-sense (with a hyphen) when I see it. Any school boy can disprove Hubble('s) flow ( I hope I got it right this time!)

Pardon me , but I will reply only to serious posts that discuss my arguments.

97. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
Originally Posted by ray
.
1) As time began, "everywhere" was compressed into a very small volume. The volume that represents "everywhere" is now a helluva lot larger.

Originally Posted by ray
c) if explosion happened only in 2 different places CMB would not be the same for every one, every where
2) But the explosion didn't happen in only 2 places, it happened everywhere.

Originally Posted by ray
d) particles would immediately collide
3)In those conditions, you don't have particles as such, you have a quark-gluon plasma.
this is the first serious attempt of a scientific discussion: now
1) if that is the case, than it is just a quibble, a joke, you are returning to the original hypotesis, in the beginning there was just an egg containg 1054-60kg of mass. I do not know if your colleagues agree with you
2) If 1) is true this is superseded, but you missed the meaning of my example : if only in 2 place it's bad, in many places it's worse, catastrophic
3)q-g-plasma is particles, elementary particles

98. May I suggest you gen up on the current consensus cosmology. Here is a good place to start: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

1) Is addressed here :Cosmology FAQ: How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?

Your objections are based on a misunderstanding on your part, about what the theory actually says. When you can be bothered to actually learn about the theory you are arguing against, we can have some productive discourse.

I am getting fed up with continually having to deal with the objections of people who haven't actually understood the theory they are arguing against. We get it all the time here - "Current theory is wrong because {insert misconception about current theory}". It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have such an arrogant attitude to go with it.

Oh, and the "medium" in question is the FLRW metric, an exact solution to the field equations of General Relativity in a homogeneous universe.

99. Originally Posted by ray
1) I am always willing to learn: I''ll call your bluff, tell me a couple of those definitions, and we'll see who is the ignorant. b) tell me what is time and how do you measure time, according to Newton
Well, here's a rough go. The standard definition of time, post-Newton, is that it is part of the structure of kinematics and dynamics, one that cannot necessarily be extracted on its own. Maxwell, in On Matter and Motion [I may be misremembering the title right now], explicitly uses time before ever discussing a definition of time. For him, and many believe that he is representative of the best thinking at the time, when we describe equal constant motions, we describe them as covering an equal distance of space in an equal duration of time. We similarly use time in dynamics to describe equal forces. Maxwell notes that there is no proof that we should use time in this way, but that such a description is part of the best theories of physics and that there is nothing on the table to replace them that produces the same results as the physics of his day.

With special relativity, Einstein introduced something that does better. He takes the same framework but makes it relative to specific frames of reference. That is, the time as described in one system of coordinates translates only in a special way to time as measured in a different system of coordinates.

With general relativity, Einstein introduced a way to adopt essentially any system of coordinates and any way of determining time. However, with this freedom come certain restrictions on how we have to describe any physical event or system. For the most part, Maxwell's use of time continues to be the most straightforward and useful. Only slight modifications are needed for most relativistic contexts.
2) that particular individual happens to be Lemaitre, he called it "hypothesis" because he knew science, he mentioned the "cosmic egg" myth. BB cannot be a scientific theory, do you understand science?
The standard cosmological model, that some call the Big Bang theory, is more than a mere hypothesis because it stands as not merely the best explanation that we have for the observations that we have, but we can use detailed measurements of relevant observations that produce information about the relevant features of the theory.

Newton was able to establish his universal theory of gravitation because he was able to demonstrate many ways in which measurements of celestial phenomena gave measurements of the same features of an attractive force as terrestrial measurements did. Similarly, the standard cosmological model gives us the means to measure different features of the universe to get measurements of the parameters of universal kinematics and dynamics. These measurements give us pretty much the same results.

explain to me what is this "Hubble flux" that, as we are talking, pervades the universe and make planets move apart at the speed of light: who discovered it, how you detect it, what it is made of, where does it get its powers etc...?
By "Hubble flux", I suppose that you mean the general kinematics of the universe, the expansion of the mean distance between galaxy clusters.

This possibility was first predicted by a number of cosmological models developed not long after the invention of GR in 1916. I believe that the relationship between redshift and this expansion was first realized by Hermann Weyl, but I can't remember this part of the history well. Einstein and de Sitter explored a number of models with expansion and contraction, but the first models that we recognize as the standard model began independently with Friedmann and with Lemaitre.

Edwin Hubble made the first measurements of redshift vs. distance that began the collection of evidence for cosmological expansion. (For a number of reasons, there were systematic errors in his determinations that persisted for about twenty years. Eventually these were discovered and corrected.)
I listed some arguments against the diffused expansion, please tell me who made this proposal, what are the arguments in favour and what is wrong with my arguments.
I'm not sure what else you specifically want to here. I usually recommend that people start here: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Nor am I sure what your arguments are. I will address the somewhat sparse comments you made, though.
A diffused explosion would produce chaos, fireworks!
Would it? Regardless, the standard cosmological model has no explosion.
This idea has been developped to avoid the problems regarding the explosion of BB; as a matter of fact it creates bigger problems while does not solve the main problem : the energy necessary for the explosion
I don't know what idea you are talking about. Still, no explosion.
if universe has been expanding from time=0 , if you rewind the tape you must get to a point
This is true. However, there are two things that make this point moot. The first thing is that we do not know if there are physical principles of high energy and high density physics that change the way the universe behaved in the distant past. It might be that the dynamics of the universe now are different. The second thing is that, because the expansion was not an explosion, the expansion happens everywhere and at every point of space, the expansion happened from a single point. This can be true whether or not the universe is infinite in size.
conservation of mass-energy commands that "at t0 (BB) " there was the same amount of mass- existing now in the universe.
This is why we cannot describe the universe using physics at the supposed instant of the beginning of the universe. But it doesn't bear on whether or not the standard cosmological model fits the dynamics of the universe at all other times.

100. Originally Posted by PhysBang
0 ,Well, here's a rough go.
1) The standard definition of time, post-Newton, is that it is part of the structure of kinematics and dynamics,one that cannot necessarily be extracted on its own.
2)Maxwell, in On Matter and Motion explicitly uses time before ever discussing a definition of time.
when we describe equal constant motions, we describe them as covering an equal distance of space in an equal duration of time. We similarly use time in dynamics to describe equal forces. Maxwell notes that there is no proof that we should use time in this way, but that such a description is part of the best theories of physics and that there is nothing on the table to replace them that produces the same results as the physics of his day.

3) Einstein introduced something that does better. He takes the same framework but makes it relative to specific frames of reference. That is, the time as described in one system of coordinates translates only in a special way to time as measured in a different system of coordinates.
.
4) Big Bang theory, is more than a mere hypothesis because it stands as not merely the best explanation that we have for the observations that we have, but we can use detailed measurements of relevant observations that produce information about the relevant features of the theory.
5) By "Hubble flux", I suppose that you mean the general kinematics of the universe, the expansion of the mean distance between galaxy clusters.
This possibility was first predicted by a number of cosmological models developed not long after the invention of GR in 1916. I believe that the relationship between redshift and this expansion was first realized by Hermann Weyl, but I can't remember this part of the history well. Einstein and de Sitter explored a number of models with expansion and contraction, but the first models that we recognize as the standard model began independently with Friedmann and with Lemaitre.
Hi Physbang, only one thing you got right:
0): It is really a very rough go, that's what happens when you try to play the scientist and do not limit yourself to give a link or cut and paste from a link without understanding what you are saying
1) you do not know what 'definition' means, that was obvious from your first post, now you confirmed it, you didn't even try to find out on the web.
"Time is a part of the structure of something" is not a definition , it is simply meaningless, the same as if someone asks you: " what is a fridge ?"and you reply "it is a... a part of my kitchen". Newton had no definition he just believed that time is absolute, and did not come after Leibniz: as a matter of fact he debated with him, as you can learn from the Leibnitz-Clarke correspondence.
2) no one can use a term before he has defined it, that is not scientific. And when you-maxwell define it: "Time used to describe equal forces" is meaningless and ludicrous, you do not know what you are talking about: "what forces?"
So you gave two bogus definitions that do not define anything, and you state that time describes (do you mean measures?) forces. (sic!)

I gave you the right definition of time because I told (reminded) you how you measure time, you ignored it, well
I'LL REPEAT IT:
You measure 'time'counting oscillations of a pendulum, counting Hertz's, frequency of a quartz crystal, measuring velocity, space, distance travelled by a body (the Sun...), but you can measure it with anything: gravity, weight, mass of water or sands, number of marbles. When you consider this you understand that you can call 'time' anything even 'Manitou or Santa Claus',
because any word is meaningless except "change" which is the right concept for these measurements, and these, like all measurements, are comparative, relational, and this is the definition by Leibniz (and Aristotle).
[Kant thinks that the ontological status of 'time' is "an intuition a priori', that is: just a characteristic of human mind].

3) if it is the same framework [of 1) and 2)] it is likewise meaningless

4) your mentality, logic is not scientific :" BB is a theory because it is the best explanation we have" is simply risible. Anyone can claim that : a creationist, a Hindu priest... etc.
It is obvious you did not even read wiki: scientific method

5) your description of Hubble flow is confused, incoherent.
what you pompously call Hubble law is not a law, do you say "Pythagoras law" ? Hubble's is simply a formula ( like Area (triangle) = b x h / 2):
redshift was discovered and one possible interpretation is that universe is expanding, one of the many possible.
Hubble showed which formula of geometry is fit to calculate, quantify this shift. That's it.
To conclude that universe IS REALLY expanding and that a forrmula of geometry (like Pythagoras formula) can move planets apart is simply delirious.
I will not comment your following arguments because you use a trick, a medieval fallacy called 'petitio principii' (see wiki: list of fallacies): you keep using your hypothesis to justify it.

I hope you can do your homework, and come back with something more sensible.
Or that there is someone in this forum sensible like G.A.K , who is able to discuss my arguments.

101. ray, I hope you enjoy your life of inventing physics.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement