Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 228
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Preconditions to the Big Bang discussion

  1. #1 Preconditions to the Big Bang discussion 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Iíve wanted to get a thread going here in Pseudoscience in order to get to know who speculates, who doesnít, and who is rubbed the wrong way by speculation. I do distinguish between wild/idle speculation and reasonable/responsible speculation where reasonable speculation has a departure point in known observations and scientific data and addresses questions that cannot yet be answered beyond that point by the scientific method. Then I suggest ideas by speculating about what could cause the observations and data that science cannot yet explain or that cannot be reconciled between popular consensus theories.

    One of my favorite areas of speculation, an area that I have explored extensively at SciForums in their Pseudoscience forum (I know some of you also post there; I post as Quantum_Wave), concerns preconditions to the big bang. Over there, as here unless I am mistaken, there are a small number of professionals who are offended when an amateur or layman gets too serious about speculation.

    Please intervene early because if left to just make speculations upon speculations, I will soon go too far and by then you will be objecting to derived speculations but you wonít even realize that each speculation is a step further into the unknown and the little steps that lead to a given speculation down the way are simply my choices among a potentially infinite number of possible causes for an event at each step along the way. I call it a personal view of cosmology and no one has ever agreed with anything I say beyond one or two steps, lol.

    For example, I speculate that there were preconditions to the Big Bang based on the idea of backtracking form the motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups that we now observe, back in time as far as we can go. I canít go all the way back to an initial singularity, Iím sorry. I know some will say that the universe doesn't care what I think or who says it has to be intuitive, and if you say that I'll be glad to discuss it if you will.

    My mind makes me stop backtracking before the tiny hot dense universe that we backtrack to reaches a zero volume point of space. I know that you may object by saying that Big Bang theory doesnít say that there was ever a zero volume point of space that inflated in the first instant after t=0; it says that at t=10^-47 seconds or some such infinitesimal point in time the infant universe was a tiny hot dense volume that inflates in the first instant, and never actually says it was zero volume point of space to begin with.

    But I take it to imply that the initial singularity was point x=0, y=0, z=0, and t=0, and that every point in space has an x, y, z, t coordinate in the spacetime continuum. As inflation takes place and new space is added to the continuum, each new point is an event in spacetime that can be designated by its x, y, z, t coordinate.

    That is how I characterize the beginning in the Standard Cosmology, Big Bang Theory, which I characterize as consisting of the Theory of General Relativity, Inflation Theory, and the Cosmological Principle of homogeneity and isotropy (with slight anisotropy ).

    Is everyone OK with that as a starting point for describing what I think could be an alternative to Big Bang Theory that is based on some preconditions that produce a small hot dense soup from which our expanding universe emerged and within which matter formed from the soup that originated from preconditions.

    If so, Iíll offer some ideas about what the preconditions might have been and see how far I can go before someone gets rubbed the wrong way, if I havenít already gone too far for some, lol. Iíll start by speculating that if there were preconditions that could produce our big bang, why couldnít there be other big bang arenas like ours out in the greater universe?

    Now is the time to object to that reasoning because I move forward and start speculating about the preconditions as if there were other big bang arenas out there unless you intervene. If you are seriously opposed to that possibility please say so now so we can discuss your reasoning. Also, if you agree that there were preconditions feel free to describe your view.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Lol, only four thread views on a new thread that has been out there all day. I feel free to say anything I like about preconditions without any fear of being challenged by anyone, let alone some professional who knows what they are talking about and whom I rub the wrong way. This is going to be like a blog where I just expound on my own speculations without checks or balances, comfortable that no one gives a ratís patootie. Well thank you for the space.

    My first speculation, that there were preconditions to the Big Bang was followed by my second speculation that since there is substantial evidence of one big bang why not speculation that there were others. Now Iíll move along and speculate that, given those speculations, there is a greater universe out there that consists of a potentially infinite landscape of big bang arenas, banging, expanding, intersecting and overlapping, forming big crunches from the galactic material caught up in the convergences, and to keep it all going in perpetual motion, big crunches under the influence of gravity reach a maximum limit of energy density, collapse into themselves and bounce into expansion; new big bangs. I call it arena action.

    No objections? Now is the time to tell me why this canít be true or to say that the standard model is better and why, or to offer some of your own speculation for consideration. If you donít say stop pretty soon Iíll be stating postulates and deriving speculations about infinity, wave energy, and quantum action; really. You donít want to let this get out of hand .

    But I will make a prediction. You will let it get out of hand and then later you will get upset and start objecting if you have any respect for the consensus cosmology at all. You will want everyone to know that you are not going to put up with a deluded laymen making fun of general relativity and Big Bang Theory. It is too sacred; such heresy.

    Just kidding, I really donít think anyone cares what is said out here in zoodoscience. Am I right?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Well, I see that there is no resistance. So instead of marching straight to the Capitol and capturing Spacetime, I’ll go back and lay some ground work.

    Since we observe the known big bang universe to exist, and since we all apparently believe that there were preconditions to the big bang, we will use the term “arena” to describe the volume of our known universe that is causally connected to the big bang and to differentiate it from the preexisting greater universe.

    Our arena is defined as the extended Hubble volume of space meaning that it includes all that we can observe in space that can be associated with our big bang event that occurred about 14 billion years ago when it was a tiny hot dense volume of space, supposedly a zero volume point of space that is referred to as the initial singularity in General Relativity. Anything beyond our arena that is not associated with our big bang is considered to be part of the landscape of the greater universe beyond our arena, i.e. our arena exists and is expanding within the landscape of the greater universe.

    And while we are defining things let’s talk about the expansion that we observe. I don’t mean technical talk so much as verbal description of what we observe. In our arena we observe that the galaxies and galaxy groups are separating, moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. It is thought to be about 14 billion years old. It started with an implied bang, but as I said, Big Bang Theory begins with inflation, not the bang itself. So expansion is characterized by the motion of galaxies and galaxy groups which display relative expansion momentum.

    Big Bang Theory calls it something else; it is called the creation of space between galaxies and galaxy groups that make it look like they have separation momentum but it says they don’t, it is new space intervening across the entire universe. I have to wonder why they call talk about preconditions foolish.

    There are associated theories that make up the Big Bang picture and they are all very precise because General Relativity is supported mathematically form the initial singularity and through the inflationary period and the hyperbolic spacetime continuum where the curvature of spacetime is caused by the presence of matter. There is the standard particle model or theory about particles and matter with mathematical descriptions of forces and predictions of missing particles, and there are efforts like the Large Hadron Collider to find and quantify the missing particles and to fill in the unknowns. They are look for a particle that causes gravity; good luck.

    And let’s go on to define the various aspects of the conversion of a big crunch into a big bang and the various phases that follow. That clearly invokes some new physics. If you let me go unchecked, I will be explaining how those big crunches form and burst into expansion across the arena landscape. I’ll go into a speculative time line of a single arena from formation, collapse and bounce, covering dark energy, expansion, dark matter, matter formation, galaxies and galaxy groups that move away from each other at an accelerating rate and the relationship between expansion momentum and gravity and how they work and how each takes and loses control of an arena during the arena time line. All speculation of course...

    If there were preconditions and if there is a greater universe, an arena landscape as I call it, then substantial portions of that math that supports BBT becomes superseded theory. You can’t let that happen now can you? I’m asking.

    But please, this all started with the simple concept of backtracking our visible universe to some imaginary point in time ~ 14 billion years ago when the big bang event occurred. Stop me now. Say why the singularity of General Relativity makes more sense than my preconditions and the arena landscape.

    Oh don’t worry about that little flap about neutrinos traveling faster than light; that will soon go away like the smaller flap about dark flow from a few years ago which is pretty much over for the time being, right?

    The thread has been viewed maybe ten times and perhaps by five people who clicked on and clicked off a couple of times. No impression was left. No need to speak out against any of this speculation. My guess is that when you do, you will say, “who’s to determine if the speculation is reasonable or responsible or just some fairy dust sprinkled by green fantasy monsters who reside inside the moon?” If you don’t point out where in the step by step speculations the green monsters come into the picture I will have to ask you to pin down the first speculation that you find unreasonable.

    Is it in the failure to backtrack to a zero volume infinitely dense point of space?
    Is it in the speculation that the tiny hot dense big crunch actually had a finite volume when the bang occurred?
    Is it in the speculation that there was something to start with instead of something from nothing?
    Is it in the scientific method that rejects the supernatural “God did it” and fantasy creatures and calls for evidence that cannot be produced beyond the event horizon?
    Is it that the scientific method cannot stop the backtracking of the expansion until it reaches the zero volume infinitely hot dense single point in space where it reaches its logical limit and is left with that as the singularity?
    Is it that reason and logic don’t apply to science once there can be no observations and evidence?

    Tell me where these speculations first go wrong and defend the Standard Cosmology against such ignorance.
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 11th, 2011 at 08:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    The problem with back tracking the universe is that you soon come to a point where the average density is sufficient to form a black hole.

    A little common-sense then says that you are on the wrong track because the universe has become a black hole so no inflation, expansion or anything else because black holes don't do that.

    An infinitely dense point is going to stay that way forever, unless you believe god exists and can magic it into inflating and expanding.

    The big bang universe does not exist because the big bang is an idea and not a good one at that. It has failed on quite a number of points and while some can be fixed by adding ideas like inflation, others cannot. it is broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Oh good, we have a believer.

    What is it exactly that I have wrong about Big Bang Theory? Or are you just an empty shirt with early objections to my speculations but not willing to say which of the speculations I have wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Oh good, we have a believer.

    What is it exactly that I have wrong about Big Bang Theory? Or are you just an empty shirt with early objections to my speculations but not willing to say which of the speculations I have wrong?
    You have already admitted to being an amateur and a layman. This tells me you do not have the same understanding of the subject as the professionals who have spent a lifetime studying the issue (as I am not either).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Oh good, we have a believer.

    What is it exactly that I have wrong about Big Bang Theory? Or are you just an empty shirt with early objections to my speculations but not willing to say which of the speculations I have wrong?
    You have already admitted to being an amateur and a layman. This tells me you do not have the same understanding of the subject as the professionals who have spent a lifetime studying the issue (as I am not either).
    Good answer but it confirms my expectations. I knew from experience that the objections would be about me and not about the content of the thread.

    Why do you believe if you don't understand it, and I do not concede that I don't understand BBT, even though I am a layman. Do you mean that if I don't present math to support my speculations and to falsify BBT that I can't qualify to have objections which I have been spelling out? The math of general relativity works perfectly, Lorentz invariance is a beautiful mathematical construction. Believers in BBT believe that it is reality within experimental constraints. They wave off any objects to it being reality with the same type of arguments that you have started out with in this thread, that there is something wrong with me if I don't believe. But where do I have it wrong, what do I say to make you believe that as a laymen I don't know what the math says, why can't you say what speculations cannot be true because of evidence you know about that falsifies my speculations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Oh good, we have a believer.

    What is it exactly that I have wrong about Big Bang Theory? Or are you just an empty shirt with early objections to my speculations but not willing to say which of the speculations I have wrong?
    Actually, the first indication that you don't have the slightest understanding is that you are trying to describe events before the Big Bang, yet calling it BBT, which are not part of the theory, and by definition, undefined and pure speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Why do you believe if you don't understand it, and I do not concede that I don't understand BBT, even though I am a layman.
    It is the same idea as going to a medical doctor for medical advice instead of your carpenter. Your carpenter may think he is giving good medical advice. Maybe he is, but he's really not qualified.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Oh good, we have a believer.

    What is it exactly that I have wrong about Big Bang Theory? Or are you just an empty shirt with early objections to my speculations but not willing to say which of the speculations I have wrong?
    Actually, the first indication that you don't have the slightest understanding is that you are trying to describe events before the Big Bang, yet calling it BBT, which are not part of the theory, and by definition, undefined and pure speculation.
    Not true. Give me an exact quote where you say I did that.
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 11th, 2011 at 04:57 PM. Reason: spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Why do you believe if you don't understand it, and I do not concede that I don't understand BBT, even though I am a layman.
    It is the same idea as going to a medical doctor for medical advice instead of your carpenter. Your carpenter may think he is giving good medical advice. Maybe he is, but he's really not qualified.
    More about qualifications and nothing about content. Where am I wrong about BBT. What keeps you from addressing the content?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Oh good, we have a believer.

    What is it exactly that I have wrong about Big Bang Theory? Or are you just an empty shirt with early objections to my speculations but not willing to say which of the speculations I have wrong?
    Actually, the first indication that you don't have the slightest understanding is that you are trying to describe events before the Big Bang, yet calling it BBT, which are not part of the theory, and by definition, undefined and pure speculation.
    No true. Give me an exact quote where you say I did that.
    "For example, I speculate that there were preconditions to the Big Bang based on the idea of backtracking form the motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups that we now observe, back in time as far as we can go. I can’t go all the way back to an initial singularity, I’m sorry. I know some will say that the universe doesn't care what I think or who says it has to be intuitive, and if you say that I'll be glad to discuss it if you will. "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Why do you believe if you don't understand it, and I do not concede that I don't understand BBT, even though I am a layman.
    It is the same idea as going to a medical doctor for medical advice instead of your carpenter. Your carpenter may think he is giving good medical advice. Maybe he is, but he's really not qualified.
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack. However, since it is the pseudo subforum, I suppose it can be allowed.

    Is there a full moon out? It appears there has been a plethora of postings in the pseudoscience subforum lately.
    Oh good, we have a believer.

    What is it exactly that I have wrong about Big Bang Theory? Or are you just an empty shirt with early objections to my speculations but not willing to say which of the speculations I have wrong?
    Actually, the first indication that you don't have the slightest understanding is that you are trying to describe events before the Big Bang, yet calling it BBT, which are not part of the theory, and by definition, undefined and pure speculation.
    No true. Give me an exact quote where you say I did that.
    "For example, I speculate that there were preconditions to the Big Bang based on the idea of backtracking form the motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups that we now observe, back in time as far as we can go. I can’t go all the way back to an initial singularity, I’m sorry. I know some will say that the universe doesn't care what I think or who says it has to be intuitive, and if you say that I'll be glad to discuss it if you will. "
    I hope you are not saying that in accordance with Big Bang Theory there can be no preconditions and so when I speculate about preconditions I have to be wrong, lol. Otherwise, what you quoted me saying is that I speculate that there were preconditions and that alone, if true, would falsify BBT. You cannot use what the theory claims, to say that alternative claims cannot be true. Please confirm for me that you understand that.

    Now, back to your statement:
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Actually, the first indication that you don't have the slightest understanding is that you are trying to describe events before the Big Bang, yet calling it BBT, which are not part of the theory, and by definition, undefined and pure speculation.
    You seem to be saying that from what I have said I don't have the slightest understanding ...

    That is about me not what I say.

    And then you say that I am describing events before the BB and calling it BB ...

    No, I'm not. The quote you use does not say anything of the sort. I referred to the initial singularity and that is part of BBT or don't you know that. Nothing I said claims that anything before the initial singularity is before the Big Bang. So you are wrong.

    But why not address the content instead of trying to wrangle some misstatement out of the thousand or more words I posted, and being unsuccessful at that. Here, use this as a benchmark ... do you agree that BBT features an initial singularity, yes or no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Do you mean that if I don't present math to support my speculations and to falsify BBT that I can't qualify to have objections which I have been spelling out?
    This is pretty much it. If you cannot give the right details, you have no critique.

    But where did you go wrong in the first posts?

    "For example, I speculate that there were preconditions to the Big Bang based on the idea of backtracking form the motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups that we now observe, back in time as far as we can go. I canít go all the way back to an initial singularity, Iím sorry."

    What is this thing that you call "the Big Bang"?

    There really is no such thing. If you are only saying that we can extrapolate the universe backwards to a state where there are no galaxies, then you are correct. This is an important part of the standard cosmological model.

    "But I take it to imply that the initial singularity was point x=0, y=0, z=0, and t=0, and that every point in space has an x, y, z, t coordinate in the spacetime continuum. As inflation takes place and new space is added to the continuum, each new point is an event in spacetime that can be designated by its x, y, z, t coordinate."

    If there was a singularity, it was at every point.

    That's a good start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think a precondition to a discussion which challenges the big bang theory should be an understanding of the big bang theory, which the participants of this thread thus far lack.
    How about you explain where I am wrong instead of just making an empty statement which even a little child with no comprehension could do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Actually, the first indication that you don't have the slightest understanding is that you are trying to describe events before the Big Bang, yet calling it BBT, which are not part of the theory, and by definition, undefined and pure speculation.
    For the BB to be remotely credible, it must have a credible origin, which it does not. That then shows that what follows is castles built on clouds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Why do you believe if you don't understand it, and I do not concede that I don't understand BBT, even though I am a layman.
    It is the same idea as going to a medical doctor for medical advice instead of your carpenter. Your carpenter may think he is giving good medical advice. Maybe he is, but he's really not qualified.
    If you think your doctor is giving good advice, think again. On my own forum I have a thread on medical incompetence and though started only four months ago, it already has 64 examples like this one:


    The back pain victims who suffer needlessly for years | Mail Online


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Posts
    114
    I love the caption at the bottom of your posts …“If you say any aspect of science is infallibly true so should never be questioned, then you can never be a scientist.” … Very Appropriate, especially on this forum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Why do you believe if you don't understand it, and I do not concede that I don't understand BBT, even though I am a layman.
    It is the same idea as going to a medical doctor for medical advice instead of your carpenter. Your carpenter may think he is giving good medical advice. Maybe he is, but he's really not qualified.
    If you think your doctor is giving good advice, think again. On my own forum I have a thread on medical incompetence and though started only four months ago, it already has 64 examples like this one:


    The back pain victims who suffer needlessly for years | Mail Online


    .
    If you go to the Mail for information on science or medicine, then you truly are a fool.

    And are you seriously arguing that we should abandon everything experts say on the basis of individual reports of mistakes and incompetence? Should we never enter a building again because at least one building inspector has made a mistake?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Do you mean that if I don't present math to support my speculations and to falsify BBT that I can't qualify to have objections which I have been spelling out?
    This is pretty much it. If you cannot give the right details, you have no critique.

    But where did you go wrong in the first posts?

    "For example, I speculate that there were preconditions to the Big Bang based on the idea of backtracking form the motion of the galaxies and galaxy groups that we now observe, back in time as far as we can go. I can’t go all the way back to an initial singularity, I’m sorry."

    What is this thing that you call "the Big Bang"?

    There really is no such thing. If you are only saying that we can extrapolate the universe backwards to a state where there are no galaxies, then you are correct. This is an important part of the standard cosmological model.

    "But I take it to imply that the initial singularity was point x=0, y=0, z=0, and t=0, and that every point in space has an x, y, z, t coordinate in the spacetime continuum. As inflation takes place and new space is added to the continuum, each new point is an event in spacetime that can be designated by its x, y, z, t coordinate."

    If there was a singularity, it was at every point.

    That's a good start.
    BBT describes the universe better than any other theory and general relativity is the best we have to predict the effect of the curvature of spacetime on matter in motion (gravity), but will you go on record to say that aside from experimental constraints BBT is reality? That would put you in with the believers as I describe them. They deny the tentativeness of scientific theory, an important tenet of the scientific method. To them there could be no preconditions and anyone, layman or professional, who talks about preconditions is talking nonsense. Is that your view?

    If you are in that group the challenge is out to say what caused the singularity. If you are confused by me referring to the beginning as a singularity then tell me what words you would use to describe the beginning. You agree that in BBT there was a “beginning” don’t you? I know there is no explanation for it so I won’t ask you to explain that one but feel free.

    If you do agree to let me, a layman and assuming you are a science professional, refer to the beginning in BBT as a singularity, then you are probably anxious to tell me why there could not be other such singularities.

    And if you cannot say why there couldn’t be others, tell me why they couldn’t intersect as they expand, i.e. what is it about the space that our universe occupies that would keep other expanding BB universes from intersecting with ours? Some still take the observation of “dark flow” to indicate the presence of another “universe” out there, what I would call another arena as defined earlier.

    Once we establish you as a believer and learned on BBT I would appreciate getting your view on the changing climate of the discussion about beginnings and the growing group of professionals embracing preconditions. If you don’t keep up with those things I think I can give you some references that aren’t as easily waved off as you find me to be. The BBC Horizons series is a good starting place; don’t worry, I am not belittling you by suggesting you aren’t aware, but making the point that believers are being challenged by professionals more now if you go by the popular media. Look at the neutrino flap, or the dark flow from a couple of years ago which is still an issue, and look at it with the common sense attitude that people who are learning critical thinking are being taught to apply.

    You can say the following is all wrong or all right, or you can pick what you want out of it to describe Big Bang Theory in numerous ways. If you have one link you like to say “has it all” you could provide it and I would use it, but it doesn’t change the discussion about preconditions.

    I assume your description is compatible with the concept that in BBT, from its tiniest state, there was a beginning of time and space referred to as a singularity. The universe is said to have inflated in the first 10^-47 seconds or so, Guth says 10^-37 as I recall from his book, “Inflationary Universe”. That is where I understand BBT to start.

    You are correct if what you are saying is that the universe is described as there being no center and that every point in the universe can considered be the center. But you also have to consider that there is more space now than there was at that tiniest state at 10^-47 or so seconds and that every point in space has spacetime coordinates. I’ve seen it stated that each point in the spacetime continuum is called an “event” and is designated by its x, y, z, t coordinates. As the universe inflates the new points all have a spacetime coordinate that can be backtracked to the time it came into existence, somewhere in the first second or anytime thereafter since the theory still calls for new space all the time. That is the basis of backtracking.

    Big Bang Theory as I said in my first post has several major components. Of course I could be wrong so correct me on which of the following is not BBT, that is how I learn:

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

    Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

    THE PRESENT book is intended, 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 1 of theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form, and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. 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. I make no pretence of having with-held from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject. On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory in a “step-motherly” fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who was unable to see the forest for trees. May the book bring someone a few happy hours of suggestive thought!
    A. EINSTEIN

    December, 1916



    Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981): Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems
    The standard model of hot big-bang cosmology requires initial conditions which are problematic in two ways: (1) The early universe is assumed to be highly homogeneous, in spite of the fact that separated regions were causally disconnected (horizon problem); and (2) the initial value of the Hubble constant must be fine tuned to extraordinary accuracy to produce a universe as flat (i.e., near critical mass density) as the one we see today (flatness problem). These problems would disappear if, in its early history, the universe supercooled to temperatures 28 or more orders of magnitude below the critical temperature for some phase transition. A huge expansion factor would then result from a period of exponential growth, and the entropy of the universe would be multiplied by a huge factor when the latent heat is released. Such a scenario is completely natural in the context of grand unified models of elementary-particle interactions. In such models, the supercooling is also relevant to the problem of monopole suppression. Unfortunately, the scenario seems to lead to some unacceptable consequences, so modifications must be sought.

    Amazon.com: The Inflationary Universe (9780201328400): Alan Guth: Books



    Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Inflationary Universe


    Cosmological Principle

    Google

    Observations to date support the idea that the Universe is both isotropic and homogeneous. Both facts are linked to what is called the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle derives from the Copernican Principle but has no foundation in any particular physical model or theory, i.e. it cannot be `proved' in a mathematical sense. However, it has been supported by numerous observations of our Universe and has great weight from purely empirical grounds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    BBT describes the universe better than any other theory and general relativity is the best we have to predict the effect of the curvature of spacetime on matter in motion (gravity), but will you go on record to say that aside from experimental constraints BBT is reality?
    What is this thing that you call "BBT"? I know that there is a standard cosmological model that is very well supported by the available evidence. The idea that there was an initial singularity is not as well supported. If we are to talk of "preconditions" we should be clear about what these conditions precede.
    That would put you in with the believers as I describe them. They deny the tentativeness of scientific theory, an important tenet of the scientific method. To them there could be no preconditions and anyone, layman or professional, who talks about preconditions is talking nonsense. Is that your view?
    I would put myself in the camp that believes that some people simply do not know certain things and that this lack of knowledge does not improve their arguments.
    You agree that in BBT there was a “beginning” don’t you?
    That depends on what it is that you are calling "BBT".
    If you do agree to let me, a layman and assuming you are a science professional, refer to the beginning in BBT as a singularity, then you are probably anxious to tell me why there could not be other such singularities.
    I'm not exactly sure what it means to say that there are other singularities.
    And if you cannot say why there couldn’t be others, tell me why they couldn’t intersect as they expand, i.e. what is it about the space that our universe occupies that would keep other expanding BB universes from intersecting with ours? Some still take the observation of “dark flow” to indicate the presence of another “universe” out there, what I would call another arena as defined earlier.
    What stops them from intersecting is likely that they do not occupy the same spacetime. It is spacetime itself that the cosmological models govern; there is nothing that has a spatial location that lies outside of it.
    Once we establish you as a believer and learned on BBT I would appreciate getting your view on the changing climate of the discussion about beginnings and the growing group of professionals embracing preconditions. If you don’t keep up with those things I think I can give you some references that aren’t as easily waved off as you find me to be. The BBC Horizons series is a good starting place; don’t worry, I am not belittling you by suggesting you aren’t aware, but making the point that believers are being challenged by professionals more now if you go by the popular media. Look at the neutrino flap, or the dark flow from a couple of years ago which is still an issue, and look at it with the common sense attitude that people who are learning critical thinking are being taught to apply.
    Yes, indeed, let's look at it with the tools of critical thinking: on the one hand we have a couple of unique paper that might have many interpretations on the other hand we have hundreds if not thousands of papers that provide mutual support to each other.
    You can say the following is all wrong or all right, or you can pick what you want out of it to describe Big Bang Theory in numerous ways. If you have one link you like to say “has it all” you could provide it and I would use it, but it doesn’t change the discussion about preconditions.
    A good place to start is always: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
    You are correct if what you are saying is that the universe is described as there being no center and that every point in the universe can considered be the center. But you also have to consider that there is more space now than there was at that tiniest state at 10^-47 or so seconds and that every point in space has spacetime coordinates. I’ve seen it stated that each point in the spacetime continuum is called an “event” and is designated by its x, y, z, t coordinates. As the universe inflates the new points all have a spacetime coordinate that can be backtracked to the time it came into existence, somewhere in the first second or anytime thereafter since the theory still calls for new space all the time. That is the basis of backtracking.
    Even if it is correct to say that we have new space, it is incorrect to say that we have new coordinates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    If you go to the Mail for information on science or medicine, then you truly are a fool.

    And are you seriously arguing that we should abandon everything experts say on the basis of individual reports of mistakes and incompetence? Should we never enter a building again because at least one building inspector has made a mistake?
    Amazing how the far left all have an irrational hatred of the Daily Mail.

    Get over it.

    If a bank makes a mistake, you might lose money. If a doctor makes a mistake, you might die. Like this:

    Toddler Lucas Wellstead, 2, found dead after Weston Hospital discharge | Mail Online


    I remember reading about 20 years ago that some 85% of doctor's diagnosis are wrong because there is so much to learn and because of similar symptoms. I have only seen four seasons of "HOUSE" on TV about the bad mannered doctor but he mostly seems to rely on others making the wrong diagnosis.

    An old, old joke is "Why do they build hospitals next to graveyards?" with the answer being: "So they don't have to go too far to bury their mistakes."

    My mother was one of them. Aged 59 she went into hospital for gallstones and they killed her. An aunt died a few years later in similar circumstances. Try and prove them guilty. They all close ranks because: "There but for the grace of god go I."

    The Daily Mail has recently had a number of stories about the elderly being starved to death in hospital because food is dumped in front of them and then collected later with no interest in whether they eat it or not.

    And how about MRSA?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    PhysBang
    What is this thing that you call "BBT"? I know that there is a standard cosmological model that is very well supported by the available evidence. The idea that there was an initial singularity is not as well supported. If we are to talk of "preconditions" we should be clear about what these conditions precede.
    The standard model is based on speculations about some evidence but take away IDEAS like inflation and dark energy and it fails miserably. It has also failed a number of tests, which is why we are here discussing it in Pseudoscience.

    I would put myself in the camp that believes that some people simply do not know certain things and that this lack of knowledge does not improve their arguments.
    Or put another way, they disagree with you so therefore they must be wrong.

    That depends on what it is that you are calling "BBT".
    For the BB to work, it must have a credible starting point and it does not.

    I'm not exactly sure what it means to say that there are other singularities.
    Allowing that they even exist, why not more than one?

    What stops them from intersecting is likely that they do not occupy the same spacetime. It is spacetime itself that the cosmological models govern; there is nothing that has a spatial location that lies outside of it.
    Like a black hole? It too has it's own spacetime held forever inside it and as two black holes can come together to form one, I suspect two singularities could do the same.

    Yes, indeed, let's look at it with the tools of critical thinking: on the one hand we have a couple of unique paper that might have many interpretations on the other hand we have hundreds if not thousands of papers that provide mutual support to each other.
    What are we talking about here? Superstrings which has new papers published almost daily and has a shed load of maths to support them, but which most supporters have given up on as a scientific dead end?

    A good place to start is always: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
    And you too can learn to parrot the same old unthinking dogma. No brains needed. Steve Jobs said something about not letting others do your thinking for you and just parroting their dogma.

    Even if it is correct to say that we have new space, it is incorrect to say that we have new coordinates.
    If space is endlessly expanding, then every second we have a whole host of new coordinates which did not exist a second ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Ball View Post
    I love the caption at the bottom of your posts ÖďIf you say any aspect of science is infallibly true so should never be questioned, then you can never be a scientist.Ē Ö Very Appropriate, especially on this forum
    For some, science is the new creationism, where every text book is infallibly true, from the first word to the last.

    They not only do not question anything but screech like harpies at those who do. This is because it goes beyond what is accepted and horror of horrors, they might have to think for themselves.

    Halton Arp is almost certainly wrong on some things he believes in but these scientific fundamentalists drove him out of America so he was forced to settle somewhere else (Germany) where there was still some scientific freedom allowed.

    How easy to be right when all they do is parrot "accepted science". But there is no difference between such people who have learned it and those who just copy it out of the wikipedia or such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Brighton UK
    Posts
    114
    That made me giggle ... my sentiments are "they are more faithful than the faithful" ... However!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    BBT describes the universe better than any other theory and general relativity is the best we have to predict the effect of the curvature of spacetime on matter in motion (gravity), but will you go on record to say that aside from experimental constraints BBT is reality?
    What is this thing that you call "BBT"? I know that there is a standard cosmological model that is very well supported by the available evidence. The idea that there was an initial singularity is not as well supported. If we are to talk of "preconditions" we should be clear about what these conditions precede.
    It is understandable that you are unable to decide what the standard cosmology is or says. Start here and follow the links too Ö Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    That would put you in with the believers as I describe them. They deny the tentativeness of scientific theory, an important tenet of the scientific method. To them there could be no preconditions and anyone, layman or professional, who talks about preconditions is talking nonsense. Is that your view?
    I would put myself in the camp that believes that some people simply do not know certain things and that this lack of knowledge does not improve their arguments..
    That is why I gave you links, so you could get up to speed. Being ignorant is no excuse. Read the Wiki, lol.
    You agree that in BBT there was a ďbeginningĒ donít you?
    That depends on what it is that you are calling "BBT".
    Are you saying that what you believe depends on what I call something, anything? Now it just looks as if you want to wave off the question. OK, can we say you are undecided then?
    If you do agree to let me, a layman and assuming you are a science professional, refer to the beginning in BBT as a singularity, then you are probably anxious to tell me why there could not be other such singularities.
    I'm not exactly sure what it means to say that there are other singularities.
    Lol, I take it back. Your are not only undecided, you have no imagination or you are want to look aloof or something. Fine but why bother? My thread is going to be about preconditions so if you donít imagine there could be preconditions have you decided to try ot convince me? Did you see my earlier statement about the tentativeness of science? Tentativeness in Science
    And if you cannot say why there couldnít be others, tell me why they couldnít intersect as they expand, i.e. what is it about the space that our universe occupies that would keep other expanding BB universes from intersecting with ours? Some still take the observation of ďdark flowĒ to indicate the presence of another ďuniverseĒ out there, what I would call another arena as defined earlier.
    What stops them from intersecting is likely that they do not occupy the same spacetime. It is spacetime itself that the cosmological models govern; there is nothing that has a spatial location that lies outside of it.
    That is true according to the theory. Perhaps you didnít agree with me earlier when I said that just because the theory doesnít permit preconditions cannot be used as the evidence that there was and is no ďbefore or beyondĒ. Youíre not saying that are you?
    Once we establish you as a believer and learned on BBT I would appreciate getting your view on the changing climate of the discussion about beginnings and the growing group of professionals embracing preconditions. If you donít keep up with those things I think I can give you some references that arenít as easily waved off as you find me to be. The BBC Horizons series is a good starting place; donít worry, I am not belittling you by suggesting you arenít aware, but making the point that believers are being challenged by professionals more now if you go by the popular media. Look at the neutrino flap, or the dark flow from a couple of years ago which is still an issue, and look at it with the common sense attitude that people who are learning critical thinking are being taught to apply.
    Yes, indeed, let's look at it with the tools of critical thinking: on the one hand we have a couple of unique paper that might have many interpretations on the other hand we have hundreds if not thousands of papers that provide mutual support to each other.
    So you are a believer but not quite ready to say so?
    You can say the following is all wrong or all right, or you can pick what you want out of it to describe Big Bang Theory in numerous ways. If you have one link you like to say ďhas it allĒ you could provide it and I would use it, but it doesnít change the discussion about preconditions.
    A good place to start is always: Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
    I know that I have often referred people to sites that I am sure they have visited numerous times and even must have recommended to others often, but when you do it it seems like denial that someone would consider anything different from what Ned has to say.
    You are correct if what you are saying is that the universe is described as there being no center and that every point in the universe can considered be the center. But you also have to consider that there is more space now than there was at that tiniest state at 10^-47 or so seconds and that every point in space has spacetime coordinates. Iíve seen it stated that each point in the spacetime continuum is called an ďeventĒ and is designated by its x, y, z, t coordinates. As the universe inflates the new points all have a spacetime coordinate that can be backtracked to the time it came into existence, somewhere in the first second or anytime thereafter since the theory still calls for new space all the time. That is the basis of backtracking.
    Even if it is correct to say that we have new space, it is incorrect to say that we have new coordinates.
    Did I mention denial, lol? Letís settle this here; you donít allow yourself to discuss preconditions to the Big Bang because you donít know what the ďBig BangĒ means for sure and you think there couldnít be preconditions because BBT does not mention them. Fine, Iíll have to let you be who you are, but this thread is not about me and how ignorant you may believe me to be of what you would accept as BBT, it is about the growing movement within the scientific community toward discussions of preconditions. Are you keeping up to speed on what is going on or are you imagining that I am ignorant of what is going on. I offered to give you some links and suggested some. Did you look or are you decided. Strange that you wonít declare where you stand. Is that just you being open minded?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    And you too can learn to parrot the same old unthinking dogma. No brains needed. Steve Jobs said something about not letting others do your thinking for you and just parroting their dogma.
    Jobs did not do his work by simply imagining the laws of physics that governed electronics. He had to use them.
    If space is endlessly expanding, then every second we have a whole host of new coordinates which did not exist a second ago.
    That statement is a perfect example of something that is said in ignorance of the relevant science. Ignorance of the science is not a virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    And you too can learn to parrot the same old unthinking dogma. No brains needed. Steve Jobs said something about not letting others do your thinking for you and just parroting their dogma.
    Jobs did not do his work by simply imagining the laws of physics that governed electronics. He had to use them.
    If space is endlessly expanding, then every second we have a whole host of new coordinates which did not exist a second ago.
    That statement is a perfect example of something that is said in ignorance of the relevant science. Ignorance of the science is not a virtue.
    When you make the references to "no brains" and "ignorance", I have to tune you out because I know that these positions don't come from ignorance, they come form paying attention, reading, study, etc. So it is hand waving to use those dismissals. If you have something you consider sound science that supports the standard cosmology you should offer it. I asked for a link from people who object to a discussion of preconditions to show us where they are coming from. You give us Ned Wright, lol. That is what you believe? Yes or no?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    It is understandable that you are unable to decide what the standard cosmology is or says. Start here and follow the links too Ö Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I had not realized that wikipedia had such a daft article. "Big Bang" is a colloquial term that is not really appropriate for precise reference. Still, I need to know if you are talking about preconditions for the supposed singularity or for something else.
    That is why I gave you links, so you could get up to speed. Being ignorant is no excuse. Read the Wiki, lol.
    In this case, I overestimated the ability of wikipedia. That is not something I am inclined to do.
    Are you saying that what you believe depends on what I call something, anything? Now it just looks as if you want to wave off the question. OK, can we say you are undecided then?
    I do not believe that there is good evidence that there was a beginning point. Note that, currently, the wikipedia page says nothing about a beginning to the universe.
    If you do agree to let me, a layman and assuming you are a science professional, refer to the beginning in BBT as a singularity, then you are probably anxious to tell me why there could not be other such singularities.
    Lol, I take it back. Your are not only undecided, you have no imagination or you are want to look aloof or something. Fine but why bother? My thread is going to be about preconditions so if you donít imagine there could be preconditions have you decided to try ot convince me?
    A singularity is any place in an attempt to describe a physical system where the mathematics gives results that cannot be properly interpreted as a physical system. So it is technically incorrect to say that the beginning of the universe is a singularity because that is literally a failure of physical description. This is why I am asking you what you mean by "singularity".
    Did you see my earlier statement about the tentativeness of science? Tentativeness in Science
    No.
    That is true according to the theory. Perhaps you didnít agree with me earlier when I said that just because the theory doesnít permit preconditions cannot be used as the evidence that there was and is no ďbefore or beyondĒ. Youíre not saying that are you?
    No, I am saying that the theory governs all possible paths within our spacetime. There could be something before or beyond the universe as we know it, but it could not intersect our spacetime because it is not part of it and it does not bear a spatial relationship to any point in our spacetime.
    So you are a believer but not quite ready to say so?
    I am not ready to say that I believe in the "BBT" because I am not sure what you mean by that.
    [quote]I know that I have often referred people to sites that I am sure they have visited numerous times and even must have recommended to others often, but when you do it it seems like denial that someone would consider anything different from what Ned has to say.[quote]
    I'm only recommending one of the best sites to learn the basics of cosmology outside of a classroom. Anyone is welcome to consider different ideas, but to some extent if one doesn't understand the ideas there, there one doesn't understand cosmology.
    Did I mention denial, lol?
    You may indeed be in denial.
    Letís settle this here; you donít allow yourself to discuss preconditions to the Big Bang because you donít know what the ďBig BangĒ means for sure and you think there couldnít be preconditions because BBT does not mention them.
    There can very well be preconditions to the universe as we know it. The very early state of the universe in the standard cosmological model is very much speculative.

    This doesn't change the fact that I am still not sure what you mean when you say "Big Bang".
    Fine, Iíll have to let you be who you are, but this thread is not about me and how ignorant you may believe me to be of what you would accept as BBT, it is about the growing movement within the scientific community toward discussions of preconditions. Are you keeping up to speed on what is going on or are you imagining that I am ignorant of what is going on. I offered to give you some links and suggested some. Did you look or are you decided. Strange that you wonít declare where you stand. Is that just you being open minded?
    Your links are confusing. Inflation is something that is supposed to happen in the early universe, but it is not generally taken to be something that happened before the universe as we know it.

    I am certainly open to considering what might have brought the very early universe into being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    PhysBang, I read that carefully and it boils down to you wanting me to define the singularity and BBT so you can compare what I have read and understand with your experience in gaining an understanding.

    I'll just have to say that being a regular forum member and originator of my own threads for years I find that there are many like you who would not like to enter into the discussion of the topic (preconditions to the Big Bang from my perspective of understanding). I'll consider your interest in my learning or lack of it to be an example of that and assure you that if you address the topic mentioned in the OP and discussed in several posts after that before the off topic posts began I will be happy to respond. If you want to stay off-topic I will just say that I plan to go on with the discussion of speculation about preconditions. OK?
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 14th, 2011 at 12:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Let me go forward on the topic of preconditions to the Big Bang.

    PhysBang, who is an agreeable member so this is not disdain, does not acknowledge that I am referring to a generic version of the standard cosmology as “BBT” and instead suggests that anyone, me included, might be ignorant of the theory that they are speculating could have preconditions and that needs to be cleared up for him/her. My position is that though I encouraged BBT believers to join in and falsify the preconditions I mentioned earlier, I don’t need to clear the question of what the generic version of BBT encompasses. That amounts to a straw man argument and just because it is introduced, I don’t have to respond to off-topic posts.

    And in a post like this it is appropriate to go to the point where I started the discussion earlier. If there could be one big bang universe, why not multiple big bang universes.

    If there could be multiple big bang events what would keep them from expanding in to the same space. I introduced the "arena" concept of a multiverse and I don't mean a spacetime multiverse like the bubble universes of the Eternal Inflation model.

    And in response to a comment from PhysBang about maybe they would have their own spacetime, this discussion is coming from the position that if there were preconditions to the Big Bang characterized by multiple big bangs within a contiguous greater universe, then Lorentz invariance would not apply across shared spacetime because spacetime would be a superseded theory at that point; discuss and share your views.
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 13th, 2011 at 12:28 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    The problem with back tracking the universe is that you soon come to a point where the average density is sufficient to form a black hole.

    A little common-sense then says that you are on the wrong track because the universe has become a black hole so no inflation, expansion or anything else because black holes don't do that.
    The position you take seems to compare a big crunch to a black hole. Actually the backtracking is to a big crunch that I speculate forms when multiple expanding big bang arenas intersect and overlap. The galactic material contributed to the overlap space by the "parent" arenas is compressed to a big crunch that includes billions of whole galaxies and their black holes. This is certainly different from a "conventional" black hole; do you agree or not? The energy density that increases in the overlap space as matter is crunched under gravity is not the same as the energy density surrounding the black hole that forms from a nova or that resides at the center of common galaxies.

    An infinitely dense point is going to stay that way forever, unless you believe god exists and can magic it into inflating and expanding.
    I hope you saw that I don't think an infinitely dense point of space is even a possibility, lol.

    The big bang universe does not exist because the big bang is an idea and not a good one at that. It has failed on quite a number of points and while some can be fixed by adding ideas like inflation, others cannot. it is broke.
    Agreed in principle . But my view of preconditions are about accepting the expansion and accelerating expansion and I have speculations that explain those observations. One step at a time.

    What about your view on the idea that if there was an event "like" a big bang that set our arena into expansion, why couldn't there be multiple big bang type events across the landscape of the greater universe?
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 13th, 2011 at 12:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    There is a reason that the current cosmology, otherwise known as the Big-Bang theory, but formally known as the Lambda-CDM concordance model, has no preconditions.

    If there is such a thing as a "generic BBT" and it disagrees with the Lambda-CDM model, then it is not the current cosmology.

    Either we are discussing the current cosmology - the mainstream view of our Big-Bang universe, or not.

    Oh, and who are these "BBT believers" you keep mentioning? Science is not about belief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    There is a reason that the current cosmology, otherwise known as the Big-Bang theory, but formally known as the Lambda-CDM concordance model, has no preconditions.

    If there is such a thing as a "generic BBT" and it disagrees with the Lambda-CDM model, then it is not the current cosmology.

    Either we are discussing the current cosmology - the mainstream view of our Big-Bang universe, or not.
    You seem to be saying that to discussion of preconditions to the Big Bang depends on the model and you are saying that the current standard cosmology is the Lambda-CDM model. That is acceptable and of course the designation, Lambda-CDM is a model that does not acknowledge preconditions. So are you suggesting that my thread is nonsense because the current cosmology does not address or allow preconditions. Face it, if a cosmology says that there was a beginning of time, even if it is only a coordinate in spacetime then according to that cosmology any discussion of preconditions is nonsense. I'll take it that is your position and consider your post off topic unless you can address the topic of preconditions. OK?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Well my post was about Big Bang theory, which is mentioned in the OP, and is therefore on topic. If you want discuss something other than the Big-Bang theory then this whole thread is off-topic, isn't it?

    Either you want to discuss Big-Bang theory, which has no preconditions, or you want to discuss a model with preconditions, which is not Big-Bang theory. There is no such thing as your "generic" version of the theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    PhysBang, who is an agreeable member so this is not disdain, does not acknowledge that I am referring to a generic version of the standard cosmology as ďBBTĒ and instead suggests that anyone, me included, might be ignorant of the theory that they are speculating could have preconditions and that needs to be cleared up for him/her.
    Look here is your problem: it is not clear whether by BBT you mean a) the standard cosmological model, b) the history of the universe that we can describe with this theory, or c) the singularity that one can produce if one extrapolates the model backwards in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well my post was about Big Bang theory, which is mentioned in the OP, and is therefore on topic. If you want discuss something other than the Big-Bang theory then this whole thread is off-topic, isn't it?

    Either you want to discuss Big-Bang theory, which has no preconditions, or you want to discuss a model with preconditions, which is not Big-Bang theory. There is no such thing as your "generic" version of the theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang
    Look here is your problem: it is not clear whether by BBT you mean a) the standard cosmological model, b) the history of the universe that we can describe with this theory, or c) the singularity that one can produce if one extrapolates the model backward in time.
    Here is how I look at it. According to the standard cosmology we are in an expanding universe. That is where I started when I discussed the backtracking.

    So whether the expanding universe we observe is a Big Bang Theory universe or just an expanding universe that can be backtracked to a period of time when it was hot and dense, my position is that we cannot determine the conditions back beyond some hot dense period.

    I suggest that BBT is a theory to describe the cosmology of the universe from the point that we can logically backtrack to. I suggest it is the standard cosmology, the consensus of the scientific community ... if that doesn't identify for you what I mean by BBT then you aren't trying. Nowhere in that theory does it address the actual t=0. Agreed? It starts at t=10^-47 or so, agreed; say no if you don't agree. If the theory does not address anything before that point in time, that doesn't mean that the theory has to be accepted at the expense of not being willing to discuss alternatives. This is one of those discussions about alternatives. Why obstruct it?

    There are people like you who are content to support the mainstream.

    This thread is not for you, not because I don't want you to participate in the discussion of preconditions which is clearly stated as the topic in spite of what you claim, but because I don't expect you to mentally employ your imagination in a topic you think is nonsense.

    There are a few who don't believe the standard cosmology nails it and who consider possible preconditions. This is thread is for speculation about preconditions and if you didn't get that you didn't read it. Go back to the beginning and read the words I wrote and not the words you would like to imagine that I wrote in order to make this about BBT instead of about preconditions to the expansion that we observe in the universe today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Nowhere in that theory does it address the actual t=0. Agreed? It starts at t=10^-47 or so, agreed; say no if you don't agree.
    Finally you seem to be being clear on the issue.
    If the theory does not address anything before that point in time, that doesn't mean that the theory has to be accepted at the expense of not being willing to discuss alternatives. This is one of those discussions about alternatives. Why obstruct it?
    You do not seem to be discussing alternatives, you seem to be discussing possible pre-histories. Presumably you want these pre-histories to be consistent with what we have observed.
    There are people like you who are content to support the mainstream.
    Perhaps I have actually investigated the relevant science and come to my own conclusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Perhaps. Have you stated them? If they are not about preconditions they are off topic, lol.

    It seems like some of you look on me as someone who just wandered into The Science Forum and found the Pseudoscience forum and decided to start a thread so that all the mainstream believers could wallow around out here with the zoodoscience animals and set them straight on matters that they are ignorant of and expect them to be appreciative and join the mainstream; or just go away and stop the nonsense about preconditions to what you might consider “reality” and not just a theory that has not been falsified. Maybe you think it can’t be falsified but that is a matter of the strength of science and the scientific method that I respect. Do you?

    That’s not exactly what I understand that the forum owners want. I received an email invitation like I’m sure was sent to all members when the new owners took over. I am here because I want the forum to survive and succeed. To me that includes encouraging, not discouraging discussions about alternatives to the mainstream.

    Now it seems that there are a number of you who want to sift through the thousands of words I have posted while trying to get a thread going with some interested parties, and by sifting and twisting, make me out as ignorant and unable to express the topic. I am far from ignorant and you can go ahead and say “I could have fooled you”, but that would just be perpetuation of the rudeness displayed by continuing to post off topic and insinuate things about me instead of about the topic of preconditions.

    In the OP I described the intention clearly. At the end of the OP, knowing the topic of preconditions (or excuse me, the topic of the cause of the observed expansion of the universe) rubs strong mainstream advocates the wrong way, and so I asked you to get your objections posted so we could discuss them and then get along with the topic of preconditions. Do you want to obstruct that type of discussion and if so is that the expressed intent of the owners? If so I can just stop posting, which I sense would please some of you who have been repeatedly posting off topic and trying to engage me in a pissing contest on your off topic obstruction.

    If not, then can you imagine along with me and speculate? Or not. If not, please don't obstruct it for the rest of us. You discourage participation and those who are more thin skinned than me will not participate. Is that your objective?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    To me that includes encouraging, not discouraging discussions about alternatives to the mainstream.
    It doesn't look to me like you have an alternative to the mainstream. Mainstream cosmologists stop at 10 to the minus (whatever) because they do not have a viable mathematical model to go beyond that point. You don't either, but you won't let that stop you. In that way you are like the science fiction writers who don't like that the Enterprise can't go faster than the speed of light. So they dream up things like a warp drive, which is complete bullshit, but it makes for good science fiction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    To me that includes encouraging, not discouraging discussions about alternatives to the mainstream.
    It doesn't look to me like you have an alternative to the mainstream. Mainstream cosmologists stop at 10 to the minus (whatever) because they do not have a viable mathematical model to go beyond that point. You don't either, but you won't let that stop you. In that way you are like the science fiction writers who don't like that the Enterprise can't go faster than the speed of light. So they dream up things like a warp drive, which is complete bullshit, but it makes for good science fiction.
    And what is your problem with that, lol?

    But it is insincere to say that I don't have alternative ideas. You cannot quantify speculations and so it is insincere to ask for math to support them. You know that and your objection is again about discussing preconditions at all instead of discussing specific speculations about preconditions. You are a mod and so I expect you know the intent of the Pseudoscience forum. I'll conclude I'm not welcome to discuss speculations, I'll conclude that the mods want quantification of speculative ideas before they are allowed, and I'll conclude that the forum is not a place for someone who wants to offer speculation to like mined members. I think I get it, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    10/10/2011 tSF Threads : 24,703, Posts : 284,877, Members : 20,425,

    10/13/2011 tSF Threads : 24,754, Posts : 285,382, Members : 20,467, three days = 505 posts

    Almost 10% are on my thread. You should encourage me not send me away, lol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Don't worry. When I put on my moderator hat, I'll let you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Don't worry. When I put on my moderator hat, I'll let you know.
    I appreciate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Here is how I look at it. According to the standard cosmology we are in an expanding universe. That is where I started when I discussed the backtracking (in the OP).

    So whether the expanding universe we observe is a Big Bang Theory universe or just an expanding universe that can be backtracked to a period of time when it was hot and dense, my position is that we cannot determine the conditions back beyond some hot dense period.

    I suggest that BBT is a theory to describe the cosmology of the universe from the point that we can logically backtrack to. I suggest it is the standard cosmology, the consensus of the scientific community ... if that doesn't identify for you what I mean by BBT then you aren't trying. Nowhere in that theory does it address the actual t=0. Agreed? It starts at t=10^-47 or so, agreed; say no if you don't agree. If the theory does not address anything before that point in time, that doesn't mean that the theory has to be accepted at the expense of not being willing to discuss alternatives. This is one of those discussions about alternatives. Why obstruct it?

    There are people like you who are content to support the mainstream.

    This thread is not for you, not because I don't want you to participate in the discussion of preconditions which is clearly stated as the topic in spite of what you claim, but because I don't expect you to mentally employ your imagination in a topic you think is nonsense.

    There are a few who don't believe the standard cosmology nails it and who consider possible preconditions. This is thread is for speculation about preconditions and if you didn't get that you didn't read it. Go back to the beginning and read the words I wrote and not the words you would like to imagine that I wrote in order to make this about BBT instead of about preconditions to the expansion that we observe in the universe today.
    Since I just advertised this thread in the ChatterBox, I thought I better post a post here so say to new comers you don't have to read all the intervening posts. Read the OP to get the gist of it and then here is the first speculative question and I would like your views on it:

    If we are in an expanding universe where the rate of expansion is observed to be accelerating, why couldn't there be other similar expanding arenas out there that originated the same way as ours. It goes to the question of what caused the expansion that we observe?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    ....
    My mind makes me stop backtracking before the tiny hot dense universe that we backtrack to reaches a zero volume point of space. I know that you may object by saying that Big Bang theory doesnít say that there was ever a zero volume point of space that inflated in the first instant after t=0; it says that at t=10^-47 seconds or some such infinitesimal point in time the infant universe was a tiny hot dense volume that inflates in the first instant, and never actually says it was zero volume point of space to begin with.

    But I take it to imply that the initial singularity was point x=0, y=0, z=0, and t=0, and that every point in space has an x, y, z, t coordinate in the spacetime continuum. As inflation takes place and new space is added to the continuum, each new point is an event in spacetime that can be designated by its x, y, z, t coordinate.
    Zero point volume in what space?
    x,y,z,t relative to what?

    You are assuming that space existed before the bigbang and that the universe has a position in that space.
    So is that space part of another universe? How did that one start?

    To me BBT only makes any sense if space is being created inside the universe, and there is no need for space outside it.

    Not that I am a big fan of BBT, but the only cosmologies that seem to work, need the basic assumption that space is expanding relative to us.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Zero point volume in what space?
    x,y,z,t relative to what?

    You are assuming that space existed before the bigbang and that the universe has a position in that space.
    So is that space part of another universe? How did that one start?
    My statements were based on the fact that I’m not a fan of BBT. I said later in the thread though that BBT is the best we can do using the scientific method and it gives us the best answers we have to describe the motion of objects. That motion, in theory, is due to the effect that mater has on the fabric of spacetime, i.e. the presence of matter warps or curves spacetime and that creates the effect commonly referred to as gravity. BBT is our best description of that effect.

    That said, BBT says nothing about the beginning, about where spacetime comes from or how it starts inflating. When I portrayed the BBT position on the initial conditions I did not say it says there was a zero volume infinitely dense point in space. I said that it starts with a tiny volume of space at the instant of inflation and inflation is the explanation for space. That is in my layman’s terms and for the benefit of the three or four people who want to pretend this thread is about what BBT is or isn’t, that is not what this thread is about.

    This thread is for that small group of interested layman who want to consider aspects of the cosmology of our universe that are not addressed by BBT, the first of which I bring up being the cause of expansion of our observable universe.
    To me BBT only makes any sense if space is being created inside the universe, and there is no need for space outside it.

    Not that I am a big fan of BBT, but the only cosmologies that seem to work, need the basic assumption that space is expanding relative to us.
    If you understand me you know that I am discussing speculative ideas. I’m not trying to do science or give advice to professionals, I’m speculating about preconditions to the expansion of our observable universe.

    My first speculation is that if there is one observable “big bang”, then why could there not be others?

    Your post makes a reasonable statement that BBT only makes sense if space is being created. I am going to make an assumption about why you say that and I hope you will confirm or deny. I think you say that because you assume or believe that there was a beginning, that the size of the universe at the beginning isn’t explained but whether it started from nothing or form some preexisting space and energy, it is clearly expanding and you are saying that the observed expansion supports the idea that space is being added if in fact space did not already exist. Is that correct?
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 14th, 2011 at 11:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Jobs did not do his work by simply imagining the laws of physics that governed electronics. He had to use them.
    Several years ago someone on a science forum said similar, that to build computers they had to use known laws, etc. I gave some links to the reality where they actually fit things together that they want in the computer and see what works.


    That statement is a perfect example of something that is said in ignorance of the relevant science. Ignorance of the science is not a virtue.
    A 10 year old child could say Einstein is wrong in all his theories and that he didn't know anything. That does not make it true, as evidence to support such a statement is needed.

    Your evidence that I am wrong about space infinitely stretching is....?

    (How was school today?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Well my post was about Big Bang theory, which is mentioned in the OP, and is therefore on topic. If you want discuss something other than the Big-Bang theory then this whole thread is off-topic, isn't it?

    Either you want to discuss Big-Bang theory, which has no preconditions, or you want to discuss a model with preconditions, which is not Big-Bang theory. There is no such thing as your "generic" version of the theory.
    The BBT starts with an impossibility so you need to explain how the singularity or whatever you want to call it came about.

    You cannot ignore it since the BBT is based on it.

    If it cannot have happened, then the BBT is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    In that way you are like the science fiction writers who don't like that the Enterprise can't go faster than the speed of light. So they dream up things like a warp drive, which is complete bullshit, but it makes for good science fiction.
    Or the BB-ers whose maths and observations fail almost before they started, so they dream up things like inflation "which is complete bullshit, but it makes for good science fiction."

    Which is why we are discussing it in the pseudoscience section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    10/10/2011 tSF Threads : 24,703, Posts : 284,877, Members : 20,425,

    10/13/2011 tSF Threads : 24,754, Posts : 285,382, Members : 20,467, three days = 505 posts

    Almost 10% are on my thread. You should encourage me not send me away, lol.
    This is the pseudoscience forum so you are not making claims that what you say is hard science so I do not see why anyone should moan about what you post here.

    People can take it or leave it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    10/10/2011 tSF Threads : 24,703, Posts : 284,877, Members : 20,425,

    10/13/2011 tSF Threads : 24,754, Posts : 285,382, Members : 20,467, three days = 505 posts

    Almost 10% are on my thread. You should encourage me not send me away, lol.
    This is the pseudoscience forum so you are not making claims that what you say is hard science so I do not see why anyone should moan about what you post here.

    People can take it or leave it.
    Thanks, and I see you are keeping active in response to comments about what you post here. But I noticed you didn't respond to me and figured you missed my response to your post or ... well why not respond to me since you are responding to everyone else, lol?

    Preconditions to the Big Bang discussion Post #33.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    The BBT starts with an impossibility so you need to explain how the singularity or whatever you want to call it came about.
    Can you give us an example of the kind of cosmological theory that might start with a "possibility", rather than an "impossibility"?

    Either it all had a beginning, or it has always been around in some form or other. How can everything have a beginning? How can everything always have existed in some form or other?

    Something being around forever is just as "impossible" as something having a beginning.

    How is "it had a beginning" any more impossible than "it never had a beginning"?

    In both cases, the very same question remains - so, where did it all come from?

    Or, is there another alternative?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    The BBT starts with an impossibility so you need to explain how the singularity or whatever you want to call it came about.
    Can you give us an example of the kind of cosmological theory that might start with a "possibility", rather than an "impossibility"?

    Either it all had a beginning, or it has always been around in some form or other. How can everything have a beginning? How can everything always have existed in some form or other?

    Something being around forever is just as "impossible" as something having a beginning.

    How is "it had a beginning" any more impossible than "it never had a beginning"?

    In both cases, the very same question remains - so, where did it all come from?

    Or, is there another alternative?
    I have a speculation about that. Let's see if Cyberia can answer it.

    But would someone please say something about the first speculation because the process of speculating has a beginning and that is, on this thread, to answer with your opinion on, "If there is one expanding universe, ours in particular, what reason is there to say there could not be other similar arenas?"
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 14th, 2011 at 09:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    62
    Well, what if the universe is more of a repeating pattern that becomes bigger and bigger but exists and repeats itself smaller and smaller. I know there is no scientific base for anything like that but its a romantic thought don't you agree. That maybe, our universe is just an atom in some bigger universe ass and that the tiny things that make our atoms are also universes on their own.
    "the cake is not a lie, you just won't get any" - girl on the next floor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Argon View Post
    Well, what if the universe is more of a repeating pattern that becomes bigger and bigger but exists and repeats itself smaller and smaller. I know there is no scientific base for anything like that but its a romantic thought don't you agree. That maybe, our universe is just an atom in some bigger universe ass and that the tiny things that make our atoms are also universes on their own.
    Contemplation is a great adventure, lol.

    I'll tell you a few connections I have considered to what you say, but first, answer my question. If there is one observable expanding universe that fills what we call the Hubble volume of space, all that we can see in this arena, why couldn't there be other similar arenas out there? Would you agree that it is reasonable to ask that? Would you agree that it is reasonable to speculate that there are others?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    But would someone please say something about the first speculation because the process of speculating has a beginning and that is, on this thread, to answer with you opinion on, "If there is one expanding universe, ours in particular, what reason is there to say there could not be other similar arenas?"
    There is no reason to say there could not be other, similar arenas.

    It is reasonable to speculate on the existence of other "bubble" universes, although they remain a purely hypothetical scenario, of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    But would someone please say something about the first speculation because the process of speculating has a beginning and that is, on this thread, to answer with you opinion on, "If there is one expanding universe, ours in particular, what reason is there to say there could not be other similar arenas?"
    There is no reason to say there could not be other, similar arenas.

    It is reasonable to speculate on the existence of other "bubble" universes, although they remain a purely hypothetical scenario, of course.
    Thank you, I needed that, lol.

    Check this out. Laura Mersini-Houghton is my favorite theoretical physicist and cosmologist. I have carefully reviewed this paper and if you are interested I have researched all of the footnotes she references and have a file on them. Enjoy if you haven't already. [1106.3542] Is Eternal Inflation Eternal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Your evidence that I am wrong about space infinitely stretching is....?
    In every textbook on general relativity or on cosmology since the 1970s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Argon View Post
    Well, what if the universe is more of a repeating pattern that becomes bigger and bigger but exists and repeats itself smaller and smaller. I know there is no scientific base for anything like that but its a romantic thought don't you agree. That maybe, our universe is just an atom in some bigger universe ass and that the tiny things that make our atoms are also universes on their own.
    Contemplation is a great adventure, lol.

    I'll tell you a few connections I have considered to what you say, but first, answer my question. If there is one observable expanding universe that fills what we call the Hubble volume of space, all that we can see in this arena, why couldn't there be other similar arenas out there? Would you agree that it is reasonable to ask that? Would you agree that it is reasonable to speculate that there are others?
    BTW Argon, I saw your post in the ChatBox:



    ChatBox archive
    Argon
    "Oh, I saw a documentary about that some weeks ago. It was a very interesting theory but quite a bit of it went over my head. They theorized that their might be more then one universe and that ours was created by 2 of those accedentaly craching into eachother creating a new universe."

    Thank you for that note because that is close to the idea that I use to start my speculations.

    If there were multiple expanding arenas like our own, and if they expand until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting with another arena or arenas, then the galactic material from each of the arenas would be captured by gravity and would form a big crunch at the center of gravity in the overlap space. In fact that is the gist of the next step in my speculations.

    I would appreciate any comments on that second speculation. Anyone think it is reasonable to speculate about the formation of a big crunch at the center of gravity of an overlap between two or more expanding arenas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    Im responding firstly to OP, paragragh defining x,y,z,t=0...
    I would agree,any many others,that this is a good starting point...now the defining expanded area, technicalally is still the same co-ordinate...so, in steps special and general relativity...therefore,an origin point is needed...as we are in a non co-ordinated system re 'bb'origin...(speculation-thats another reason i think maybe einstein had discovered)
    essentially solving the maths problems
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    ]Thanks, and I see you are keeping active in response to comments about what you post here. But I noticed you didn't respond to me and figured you missed my response to your post or ... well why not respond to me since you are responding to everyone else, lol?

    Preconditions to the Big Bang discussion Post #33.

    I do miss out posts as I don't spend much time here. It's a quick look round and answer some. A five and a half hour power cut did not help yesterday.

    About a year ago professor someone or other had a theory that gravity vanished at 10^92 tons per cubic meter so there could be a rebound for the universe but I pointed out to him that he'd missed the obvious as in when gravity vanished and a rebound started, density would fall below that figure, gravity would come back, and the universe would start collapsing again. So the universe forever stuck collapsing and rebounding.

    The BB idea completely ignores gravity, that as soon as matter appears, the density is trillions of times that necessary to form a black hole, so the universe collapses. End.

    I would be more willing to accept some idea of matter and energy forming over a very wide area so while some black holes did form, and even some stars did form, much of it was spread around so the general density was low enough that a universe could form. And maybe galaxies around those first black holes. Maybe endless small bangs instead of a big bang?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Im responding firstly to OP, paragragh defining x,y,z,t=0...
    I would agree,any many others,that this is a good starting point...now the defining expanded area, technicalally is still the same co-ordinate...so, in steps special and general relativity...therefore,an origin point is needed...as we are in a non co-ordinated system re 'bb'origin...(speculation-thats another reason i think maybe einstein had discovered)
    essentially solving the maths problems
    That is a word salad post worthy of Pseudoscience
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Your evidence that I am wrong about space infinitely stretching is....?
    In every textbook on general relativity or on cosmology since the 1970s.
    So what?

    Inflation is the same but it is an IDEA. There is no evidence for it. It just solves a problem that cannot otherwise be explained in observations or maths and without which the BB would be exposed as a failure.

    Space stretching from quantum size to present size is an IDEA. There is no evidence for it. It is used to explain why photons redshift over time but quickly becomes ridiculous when you look at it closer and ask exactly what space is, how there can be endlessly more of it, or it endlessly stretching without changing in any way. And how space stretching an atom's width over 186,282 miles can affect a photon. Ridiculous.

    You are so gullible.

    As are so many other parrots.

    Want a cracker?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    i thought this was a non flaming section????
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Im responding firstly to OP, paragragh defining x,y,z,t=0...
    I would agree,any many others,that this is a good starting point...now the defining expanded area, technicalally is still the same co-ordinate...so, in steps special and general relativity...therefore,an origin point is needed...as we are in a non co-ordinated system re 'bb'origin...(speculation-thats another reason i think maybe einstein had discovered)
    essentially solving the maths problems
    That is a word salad post worthy of Pseudoscience
    how dare you insult my intelligence..keep your arrogance away....word salad....do you realise what that means?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    [Can you give us an example of the kind of cosmological theory that might start with a "possibility", rather than an "impossibility"?
    Maybe a universe from nothing could be a possibility since we can get something from nothing But all we have are ideas, and they should be recognised as ideas and if necessary ditched if something better comes along. At present most of the eggs are in the BB basket and if at a later date it is proved wrong, then for so many, cosmology will have to start from zero again.

    Either it all had a beginning, or it has always been around in black holes some form or other. How can everything have a beginning? How can everything always have existed in some form or other?
    For an eternal universe, we would need some method of making new fundamental particles. I have an idea involving black holes but it is purely an idea. If we got a universe from nothing, then time would have always existed. It does not matter if one particle appeared and disappeared every million years. That is time.

    Something being around forever is just as "impossible" as something having a beginning.

    How is "it had a beginning" any more impossible than "it never had a beginning"?

    In both cases, the very same question remains - so, where did it all come from?

    Or, is there another alternative?
    The BB coming from a multiverse just pushes the unexplained beginning back a step.

    Nothing occupies no space and no time but it has infinite potential in that it could be +trillion and -trillion. All that matters is that both sides balance out. And the universe does when all the pluses and minuses are added up.

    I cannot think of any other credible origin since any other explanation does not say where all matter, energy, space, gravity, etc originally came from (to form a BB singularity or whatever).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    how dare you insult my intelligence..keep your arrogance away....word salad....do you realise what that means?
    MeteorWayne likes making statements he does not then back up with explanations. I think he may be a bot.
    brane wave likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    ChatBox archive
    Argon
    "Oh, I saw a documentary about that some weeks ago. It was a very interesting theory but quite a bit of it went over my head. They theorized that their might be more then one universe and that ours was created by 2 of those accedentaly craching into eachother creating a new universe."

    Thank you for that note because that is close to the idea that I use to start my speculations.

    If there were multiple expanding arenas like our own, and if they expand until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting with another arena or arenas, then the galactic material from each of the arenas would be captured by gravity and would form a big crunch at the center of gravity in the overlap space. In fact that is the gist of the next step in my speculations.

    I would appreciate any comments on that second speculation. Anyone think it is reasonable to speculate about the formation of a big crunch at the center of gravity of an overlap between two or more expanding arenas?
    One explanation for the BB was two branes (whatever they are) bashing together in Dimension X to form the BB singularity but now most have distanced themselves from such an idea.

    Universes are not solid things. If two came together they would move through each other (like two clouds) so we might see unexplained things like the "Dark Flow" where things are moving towards a certain area instead of away as in expansion.

    Other than walls of hundreds of millions of galaxies there are no real centers of mass in our universe to "crash together" and even these are tiny things in comparison to the size of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    some people cant think outside the box
    i will not take action though...i believe to give someone a chance
    Admittedly,i can be vague in my descriptions....but fundamentaly they are unflawed....i will take up any challenge on my case....but i hate vicious attacks..word salad is a phyciatric definition of behaviour of a schizophrenia sufferer...
    anyway,i will surpress my anger towards that serious judgement,as it might seem like that fits the description too
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Im responding firstly to OP, paragragh defining x,y,z,t=0...
    I would agree,any many others,that this is a good starting point...now the defining expanded area, technicalally is still the same co-ordinate...so, in steps special and general relativity...therefore,an origin point is needed...as we are in a non co-ordinated system re 'bb'origin...(speculation-thats another reason i think maybe einstein had discovered)
    essentially solving the maths problems
    That is a word salad post worthy of Pseudoscience
    how dare you insult my intelligence..keep your arrogance away....word salad....do you realise what that means?
    Yes, that's why I used the term. Did you try and reread what you wrote? Could you make sense out of it? Could anyone else?

    Why not just write more clearly? With proper punctuation, and sentences and capitalization and other fancy stuff?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Im responding firstly to OP, paragragh defining x,y,z,t=0...
    I would agree,any many others,that this is a good starting point...now the defining expanded area, technicalally is still the same co-ordinate...so, in steps special and general relativity...therefore,an origin point is needed...as we are in a non co-ordinated system re 'bb'origin...(speculation-thats another reason i think maybe einstein had discovered)
    essentially solving the maths problems
    That is a word salad post worthy of Pseudoscience
    how dare you insult my intelligence..keep your arrogance away....word salad....do you realise what that means?
    Yes, that's why I used the term. Did you try and reread what you wrote? Could you make sense out of it? Could anyone else?

    Why not just write more clearly? With proper punctuation, and sentences and capitalization and other fancy stuff?
    maybe english is not my native language ...
    obviously what i said was over your head...implicitly though if you carry on with your insinuations,then i will take it further
    can you not model 0 state?....maybe not everyone can relate ???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    in fact meteorwayne,im am taking this further......you may be good in certain areas of science...and i expect a full apology on your use of the term word salad;and secondly your unexplained attack on the fundamental idea i was trying to explain...and thirdly...perhaps most importantly,why are you flaming me in a non flaming sub-forum...
    either way...you cant win.....an apology will end your obvious dilemna
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Well gosh, I was busy on the Forum page chatting in the ChatBox and look what I missed. Some very good discussion.

    Just a note to the contributors. Please do not respond to the flamers. They just want to obstruct what could be an interesting thread for layman who want to discuss ideas. I know it is hard because of egos but put your ego aside on this thread.
    brane wave likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    let us go by what is observed...bb theory shows through red shift the universe is expanding....therefore in the arrow of time there was a point when everything converges....ok...thats manstrain consencus...now...how to imagine how all known convergences go to infinate value?
    its basically steady state idea that could be seen as wrong,in a developing universe..
    there are solutions to certain big problems in physics,but due to no experimental proof,they are sidelined...quantum mechanics is no stranger in this theory...it lead to the transistor,which we all know about...quantum theory ,increasingly so,predicts answers far beyond accepable theories that are proven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    The BB idea completely ignores gravity, that as soon as matter appears, the density is trillions of times that necessary to form a black hole, so the universe collapses. End.
    Not that old chestnut again!

    How many more times - this argument only makes sense if there is space with a lesser density for the universe to a black hole in relation to. The Schwarzschild solution only applies outside the event horizon, and (in Newtonian terms) corresponds to the gravitational field around a point particle. When talking of the density of the universe as a whole, all the space is always on the inside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    So what?
    So you made a basic mistake about the basic geometry of cosmology. That you refuse to even consider that you might be wrong is your own cross to bear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    some people cant think outside the box
    i will not take action though...i believe to give someone a chance
    Admittedly,i can be vague in my descriptions....but fundamentaly they are unflawed....i will take up any challenge on my case....but i hate vicious attacks..word salad is a phyciatric definition of behaviour of a schizophrenia sufferer...
    anyway,i will surpress my anger towards that serious judgement,as it might seem like that fits the description too
    To me, word salad just mean meaningless strings of words. That is exactly what you have posted. How can you say your descriptions are fundamentally unflawed if they have no intelligible meaning? What exactly were you trying to say (in English)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    firstly,this is a non flame section...so we'll deal with that first
    secondly,the term word salad is flung around without thought as to its true meaning...a big insult
    thirdly,if i am unclear,i will respond to requests to clarify
    i can accept i was not clear..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Back at post #61 I was glad to have made some small progress by getting past my first question in the step by step speculations about preconditions. I don't think it was clear to you that my view of preconditions must start from a stepping off point in real scientific observations. The observation I am stepping off from is the observed accelerating expansion taking place throughout the volume of space that is within our Hubble view.

    The first speculation was simple and I wanted someone to say it was reasonable. That was the speculation about the idea that if there is one expanding arena we call the observable universe, then why couldn't there be other similar arenas out there and two people thought it was not unreasonable to speculate about that and so I went forward to the next speculative step.

    The next step includes a postulate about the universe. The postulate is that space has always existed and is infinite. So at this point we have the first speculation that there could be other similar arenas out there and the first postulate establishes that in my own personal view, space is infinite and contiguous.

    The second speculation invokes the first postulate and the first speculation: Does anyone think it is reasonable to speculate about the formation of a big crunch at the center of gravity of an overlap between two or more expanding arenas with the previous speculation as a given ? You can see that if the second speculation is not unreasonable, then a big crunch would be the speculative precondition to our expanding arena.

    Like this:


    From that point, if I can get some agreement that the idea of a big crunch forming in the overlap space due to gravity overtaking the expansion momentum of the galaxies is not unreasonable given the first speculation, we can step forward from there. Post to this thread if you think we are on reasonable speculation before reading the rest of this post, lol.

    Brane Wave and I chatted in the ChatBox and got a little ahead of the step by step speculations. We discussed whether or not there was a natural limit to energy density, as in a big crunch. He suggested that a crunch would allow infinite energy density. That would mean that a crunch could not collapse and bounce into expansion but instead, would be the center of gravity into which the entire universe would fall resulting in one final universal big crunch, end of story. I'm putting in some of my own interpretation .

    I speculated that if there was a natural limit to how high energy density could get, then the galactic matter and energy remnants that get caught up in an overlap of multiple expanding arenas could build up energy density only to the natural limit. At that threshold, the captured matter and energy in the crunch would collapse under that natural energy density and the collapse would be so powerful that as the maximum natural density limit is reached, the collapsing crunch would bounce into expansion.

    Please say if you agree with it being reasonable as opposed unrealistic and why or why not. Then carry on with your own ideas but try to do so in a step by step way from the same stepping off point, i.e. the observed accelerating expansion. That way we can compare cosmologies from their observational origin.
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 17th, 2011 at 05:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Dear BW, in the vernacular of the scientific community, word salad is any wordy explanation of speculative ideas that cannot be supported with evidence. Most of my posts are word salad to the professionals. I am also deluded, and a pea brain, and when the flamers say that I agree, and when my layman friends say that I laugh and say, "can I call you a pea brain too"?

    Don't respond to the flamers if you can resist, lol. BTW, can I call you a pea brain?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    I can live with being a pea brain
    hopefully the flamers will observe the forum rules,and not flame in this sub forum.
    Bearing in mind too,that pre bb scenarios are ridiculed by some.It is a widely studied field by many eminent professionals...
    I will work on phrasing my comments more precisely,so avoiding ambiguety
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    I can live with being a pea brain
    hopefully the flamers will observe the forum rules,and not flame in this sub forum.
    Bearing in mind too,that pre bb scenarios are ridiculed by some.It is a widely studied field by many eminent professionals...
    I will work on phrasing my comments more precisely,so avoiding ambiguety
    But admit it will be word salad, lol. Just kidding, but I do not wish, try, hope, or consider what the mainstream folks will say because we know what they will say. You and my fellow laymen are important to me and what you say about the step by step speculations means something because you are not subject to the peer review of fellow mainstreamers who must not venture away from the scientific method, i.e. use speculation.

    I look forward to an opinion as to if my second speculation about a big crunch forming from the galactic remnants of intersecting and overlapping arenas is reasonable given the first reasonable speculation that there could be other big bang type arenas out there.

    We can discuss many other cosmological topics about preconditions along with the step by step speculations but I hope you can see that every speculation I add is connected to the jumping off point in observational science, i.e. the expansion that we observe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    The problem with the overlapping universes is that there is no way for the areas to overlap, since it is the distances themselves that are expanding. The galaxies are not moving, they are simply sitting still while the distances around them get bigger.

    In order to have two regions collide, the parts of the region must be in motion. So in order to have two regions colliding, there needs to be some theory of what imparts motion to the different parts and in what space the two regions reside.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    The problem with the overlapping universes is that there is no way for the areas to overlap, since it is the distances themselves that are expanding. The galaxies are not moving, they are simply sitting still while the distances around them get bigger.
    That is your opinion?

    What is wrong with the idea that matter forms within an expanding arena and as matter forms it has separation momentum imparted to it from the expansion energy of the initial expansion? By the time galaxies form in an expanding environment which is characterized by competing forces of expansion and gravity, the galaxies are moving away from each other due to the conserved momentum. By then, due to the inverse square law, gravity would be weakening relative to the expansion momentum and the separation rate would accelerate, matching recent observations.

    You seem to be reciting standard theory and this is not about what is or is not standard theory, it is about preconditions from the starting point of the observation of expansion.

    In order to have two regions collide, the parts of the region must be in motion. So in order to have two regions colliding, there needs to be some theory of what imparts motion to the different parts and in what space the two regions reside.
    You didn't mention my first postulate (third paragraph in post #82). I assume you didn't actually read my posts but responded from you preconceived ideas, right?
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 17th, 2011 at 04:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    SpeedFreek Not that old chestnut again!

    A black hole holds itself together like the BB singularity does, ON THE INSIDE. All "space, time, matter, energy and gravity" are on THE INSIDE.

    Or possibly you think that a black hole is held together by forces on the outside?

    If you crush the universe down to a point source, it stays like that forever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    Well said...we shall move on...I admit nothing lol..
    Ok, so the big crunch scenario...this is well considered .known also as the bounceback theory,as Parum Singh demonstrated..
    Other theories regarding multiverses,and branes are being worked on exstensively...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    So what?
    So you made a basic mistake about the basic geometry of cosmology. That you refuse to even consider that you might be wrong is your own cross to bear.

    Are you the pope, that you can make statements without evidence and expect everyone to believe you?

    As we are talking cosmology which in many cases is little more than ideas, if you can show me a better idea than I have, I'll accept it.

    However just saying I am wrong does not work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Cyberia seems to have some forum history and some views on cosmology. But Cyberia, why don't you show how you have used observation as a starting point and mention the steps of speculation that bring you to your conclusions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dark Speculator. I don't believe in the BB but let me play Devil's advocate for a minute.

    If you have two universes expanding into each other, both propelled by DE (making up about 3/4 of each), then when the DE of one universe comes up against the DE of another universe, both forces will start to cancel out till there is no effect due to DE. The expanding space too will start to cancel out as both opposing forces of expansion meet. Deformation of the galaxies would take place as galaxies start moving in other directions as in two balloons pressing against each other.

    Galaxies are not actually moving apart according to the BB. It is the distances between them that are growing ever larger. So watching this collision, we would see the redshifts of these galaxies in our universe decline as we would see the blue shifts of galaxies in the other universe decline too. In theory the galaxies of both universes at this point would end up with just their natural motions through intergalactic space.

    If the forces of DE and expansion were sufficient it is possible that the galaxies would "bounce off of each other".

    Just an idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    sorry,my post 89,was response to post 85...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator View Post
    Cyberia seems to have some forum history and some views on cosmology. But Cyberia, why don't you show how you have used observation as a starting point and mention the steps of speculation that bring you to your conclusions?
    I have forums history. You can say what you want about cosmology, even make absurd suggestions but start showing it is wrong and the dogmatists get upset and eventually you are kicked off of a forum.

    It has been a very long journey and my views have changed over the years. I originally did not believe in the BB then I came to accept it but as I learned more about it I found flaws in it and eventually found it untenable t some point. Since then, new knowledge has come up with even more flaws in it as it has failed various tests.

    It should be remembered that it is a collection of ideas, based on speculation on a few known effects which themselves may not be as believed.

    Essentially we are sitting looking at a still photo of the universe and trying to work out how the universe began from tiny nuances in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    sorry,my post 89,was response to post 85...
    I try to give some reference to which post I am answering as it is easy for a new one to pop up and a disgruntled poster thinks your comments are aimed at him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Junior brane wave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    sorry,my post 89,was response to post 85...
    I try to give some reference to which post I am answering as it is easy for a new one to pop up and a disgruntled poster thinks your comments are aimed at him.
    sometimes i take a while to type...popping into the kitchen to make tea...etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by brane wave View Post
    sorry,my post 89,was response to post 85...
    I try to give some reference to which post I am answering as it is easy for a new one to pop up and a disgruntled poster thinks your comments are aimed at him.
    sometimes i take a while to type...popping into the kitchen to make tea...etc...
    No tea drinking allowed while posting here, lol. I want you to have a clear mind.

    I owe a few people responses and a few owe me if they are participating, :shrug:, so when I finish my espresso and Cuban sandwich I'll get on it .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    128
    In post #82, I had claimed to have made progress based on some acceptance of the idea that it is not unreasonable to speculate that there could be more than one big bang, i.e. a multiverse of big bangs using the observed expansion of our visible universe as the point of departure. I call that speculation #1.

    Then speculation #2 has to do with the speculated multiverse from #1, but to anticipate the objections about current theory and creation of space, I introduced postulate #1.

    Postulates (axioms) in my speculative process are things that we can't readily prove but that are not easily refuted as in things that seem self-evident or that seem to have to be true, i.e. necessary truths (necessary speculations in this thread). I use axioms in my personal view of cosmology to narrow down the scope of issues. I don’t want to argue theory; I just want to build speculations from the point of departure, the observed expansion.

    I am the first to admit that if someone wants to they can find plenty wrong with the terms I use throughout my threads but I got over worrying about that long ago. I'm not writing this for professionals, I'm writing this to get input from layman or anyone who wants to contribute on the topic. What I am going for is a set of step by step speculations derived from the initial observation of expansion and from my own postulates. The derived speculations must be reasonable, have no internal inconsistencies, and must not be inconsistent with known science and data. This thread is to lay out those speculations about the cause of the observed expansion.

    Given the first speculation, I am now at a point of needing a first postulate to avoid the preconceived notions that space was created or came from nothing. That postulate says the space is infinite and has always existed. That is meant to mean that there is a greater universe of infinite contiguous space where everything exists and everything happens. There is no other space, just the one contiguous infinite space of our greater universe. New space is not being created.

    The observed expansion is characterized as the galaxies and galaxy groups all moving away from each other. The reasoning is given in my last response go PhysBang here: Post #87

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Speculator
    What is wrong with the idea that matter forms within an expanding arena and as matter forms it has separation momentum imparted to it from the expansion energy of the initial expansion? By the time galaxies form in an expanding environment which is characterized by competing forces of expansion and gravity, the galaxies are moving away from each other due to the conserved momentum. By then, due to the inverse square law, gravity would be weakening relative to the expansion momentum and the separation rate would accelerate, matching recent observations. You seem to be reciting standard theory and this is not about what is or is not standard theory, it is about preconditions from the starting point of the observation of expansion.
    This is where I would appreciate some positive response to the first postulate and the second speculation. You don’t have to say you agree; only that they are reasonable and not inconsistent with the starting point of observed expansion. Feel free to suggest other speculations and postulates but please weigh in on mine as we go.

    Do I hear a yes, a no? If we move forward from there I will begin to address the formation of the crunch and the speculation about how it leads to the bang. It is great word salad .
    Last edited by Dark Speculator; October 17th, 2011 at 05:37 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    A black hole holds itself together like the BB singularity does, ON THE INSIDE.
    Actually no, according to the theory, it doesn't. The two singularities are of completely different types, i.e. they have a completely different form in GR. Unlike a black hole, there is no gravity gradient attached to the Big-Bang singularity, hence the BB singularity does not "hold itself together" at all.

    And talk of the universe remaining as a singularity forever is just plain stupid, as there is no time or space to be defined at a singularity.

    You keep talking as if the BB were a singularity in relation to some coordinate system, but that is not how it works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia View Post
    However just saying I am wrong does not work.
    True.

    You wrote, "If space is endlessly expanding, then every second we have a whole host of new coordinates which did not exist a second ago."

    Now, as I said, you will discover that this is not true in every cosmology textbook after 1970, if not those after 1930.

    In the expanding universe model, all coordinates are given in terms of a scale factor that changes over cosmological time. So the same coordinates exist all the time, but the distance between them, indicated by the scale factor, changes. Given the nature of the real numbers, there is no need to ever create new coordinates, since there is always an infinite number of points between any two numbers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is the bang bang just a theory?
    By Xan in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 1st, 2011, 11:59 AM
  2. Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang
    By ajaybali in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2010, 08:48 AM
  3. Origins of the Universe,,,,,,,,,,Bang or no Bang
    By Harry Costas in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: December 6th, 2008, 10:56 AM
  4. bang banbg bang
    By theQuestIsNotOver in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 02:31 AM
  5. Entomolgy discussion
    By Deepak Joshi in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 31st, 2006, 07:26 AM
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
  •