[Chemistry4me]

yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?     

Aye?

[aevela78]

i would love to hear your take on the subject......aye

[Chemistry4me]

On what subject? The Big Bang?

There are already 7 pages on the subject, what more can I say?

[aevela78]

you have got to be kidding me....from a molecularly finite point known as the singularity.....all of this matter, mass, intelligence, space and dark matter emerged....seems too weird for me....i believe that we as human beings are wasting our time trying to figure out the impetus of the universe, and need to spend more time on our own existence.  in any event....pursuant to science theory...are we not going to be destroyed when our sun...yes a star...runs out of "fuel".     

[om]

    
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?

No, absolutely not.  It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).

So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.

Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe.  They will lead you to three fundamental truths:

1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.

2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.

3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.

Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs  Z/A (charge density) vs A:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

Here are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf

3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163  (2005).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf


5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf

6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-

http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.

It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

[112inky]

Hey.. i think the big bang theory is more convincing than the other ones... 

[Fluid_thinker]

Hey maybe it isw just like the Matrix

We are all fictious software programmes in the construct

[Woodpile]

The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.

However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all

Solipsism is a wonderful thing.  It rebutts every argument but it is Cotton Candy philosphy- All Flavor, No Substance...

[Mr. Scientist]

what do you believe?

None of them. I am Copenhagenist at heart, so i simply do not believe the universe will allow us to simplify it's infinite complexities so easily. Thergo, i do not believe we will ever know, or should prefer one to another.

[sanjidcb]

What is Belive. lolzzzzzzzzzzzz See this ................
The Earth for example is believed by the majority of people to be gradually cooling down. So models are developed around this assumption to emphasise how slowly a planet might be cooling down, when in reality with a surface covered mostly with a very efficient coolant H2O, coupled with the water cycle to assist its effectiveness, the Earth over many billions of years should not be still spewing out molten lava onto it’s surface and have lakes of hot water a geezers gushing from the floor. Yet, this is exactly what we find with our both feet firmly on the ground. Now, if our model for the Earth is completely wrong and the Earth is gradually getting warmer due to it’s slowly but surely increasing mass, which is transmitted to the core as additional atomic friction, a whole different set of predictions might be in order as we guesstimate the temperatures of other planets.

[Vern]

I just discovered a little problem for the Big Bang theory. If expansion is the reality, spectra from distant stars should be shifted the same amount at both ends of the spectrum. It seems that it may not be.

Edit: Well, it seems that I'm wrong about that. It is normal that the red is shifted more than the blue.

[tangoblue]

no one know for sure how the universe was created dude.... oh man.

[dlorde]

Quite right tangoblue. Science models and describes the way the universe we observe behaves. It doesn't pretend to tell us what to believe or that the big bang really happened. It looks at the universe as we see it today, and it sees expansion, with good evidence that it was smaller and less mature in development in the past. This suggests the hypothesis that it may have been expanding from some start point. To see whether this is a reasonable hypothesis, we try to see whether our existing model of the universe would allow it, and whether, if you use the model to run forward from such a starting point, you could end up with the sort of universe we see now, without too many tweaks and adjustments. The answer to those two questions, with some caveats, is broadly 'yes'. We can't actually model the start point itself, but the rest works out fairly well, although there are a few holes - it's good enough to be considered a reasonable theory by most. The other point to consider is whether there is another theory that fits the observations as well or better and has as good or better explanatory and predictive power. So far, the consensus is 'no'. So it's possible the universe is steady-state, or perhaps it's turtles all the way down, but most agree that the big bang is the best fit so far for what we observe. Science is less about certainty than about reducing uncertainty.

[Vern]

The thing that I can't get past is that you must accept the notion that empty space can expand and stretch photons moving through it. That is really a weird notion. It would be even more weird except that Einstein used variable space-time. If we had stuck with the Lorentz version of relativity phenomena in which space and time were solid constants and it was the matter that distorted to produce the phenomena, there could be no notion of a Big Bang.

[Chirios]

The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.

Eh?

Imagine if you will, a star moving away from something stationary. Say a random rock with no external gravitational influences. A person is standing on the surface of the rock, with all the equipment needed to measure and observe red shift. Now, the star constantly produces light, which moves in straight lines. Gravity gets weaker the further away the light beam moves; since it is inversely proportional to the square of distance. The gravitational well of the star would therefore be insignificant. By the time the light hit the person standing on the surface of the rock any red shift due to gravitational forces would be so slight that it could be ignored. Or if the planet was within the "gravitational well" then it still wouldn't matter. The proportion of red shift would still be the same. 

Now, even if light is eventually found to be a constant “which I doubt

What makes you doubt that light is a constant? In any case, there is lots of evidence for special relativity - see muon decay experiment. NASA has also done experiments which show time dilation for obiting satellites.

but can be bent by the gravity from other huge planets, this can seriously affect the distance of objects even when measurements are taken over many years. A projectile has mass on Earth. Measured over 50 metres and travelling fast enough it could be viewed as a constant speed. Yet the end result is the object falls to Earth. One could then argue that is because gravity is affecting it’s velocity and this my friend is precisely the point. Gravity does indeed affect velocity here on Earth, so it must follow that gravity also affects the velocity of objects passing within the gravitational field of planets and stars as it travels many billions of miles.

Velocity is a vector and as such is determined by direction as well as magnitude. In this particular case, only the vertical component of velocity of the projectile is affected by gravity. The horizontal component stays the same until the projectile hits the ground and friction forces occur (assuming no air resistance)  A light beam travelling through space travels in straight lines; thus (according to classical mechanics) we could only expect its velocity to change if it was travelling directly to or directly away from the star.

Any bending would effect perhaps the position of the star in the night sky, but it would not affect the distance. The brightness of the star would still be the same, since the intensity of light would still be the same. Also, the variation is like ridiculously small, have you seen the maths for what you're talking about? We're talking about an apparent change in position of less than a single degree. 

Add to this reflection from particles orbiting around Large masses in distant galaxies and it soon becomes apparent that relying on light as a constant might not be all it is cut out to be. So take away the red-shift, which clearly cannot be relied upon and what have we got left as evidence for the assumption of a big bang for the arrival of the Universe?

Reflection from particles? I don't understand how this affects the constancy of velocity for light.

Evidence for the big bang includes of course all the evidence for the theories from which it draws its assumptions. There is the uniformity of the universe, doppler effect, the cosmological principle, cosmic microwave background radiation, pretty much every experiment ever done on light ever, and everything we know about particles including absorption and emission spectra.

It never ceases to amaze me that when someone proposes a preposterous academically originated hypothesis, how many more academics rush forth to defend it.

I look forward to your reply with interest.

Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.

[Fortran]

A wonderful subject this, and there's a little something that puzzles me about the big bang.

I understand that time is dilated as the mass increases, ie two clocks, one sent to a black hole for a week, another kept here on earth, after one earth week the earth clock has moved 1 week the BH clock has only moved a second or so.

Now here's the nub, we say that the big bang happened around 13BN years ago however it seems to me that as you look back in time the universe (we are told gets smaller) therefore the mass density of the universe increases and time must dilate. You must get to a point where the universe was all contained in such a tiny space that time had dilated so much that the actual age of the universe is close to (and may even be) infinite.

THis means that as the universe gets older time has sped up (could this falsley lead us to believe the rate of universal expansion is increasing???

Another thing CMBR - where is the proof that it is an echo of the big bang? it is merely background radiation seen from all parts of the sky - there are other possible explanations, one discovered by the voyager spacecraft.

Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.

Unless it's the hawking radiation theory where there is NO experimental evidence to back it up and we will have to wait 10 to the power of 70 years for the proof....

[Vern]

Now here's the nub, we say that the big bang happened around 13BN years ago however it seems to me that as you look back in time the universe (we are told gets smaller) therefore the mass density of the universe increases and time must dilate. You must get to a point where the universe was all contained in such a tiny space that time had dilated so much that the actual age of the universe is close to (and may even be) infinite.

It seems to me that the Big Bang theory gives more problems than it solves. It was necessarily a black hole when it began. It consisted of the whole of the universe. This should be enough mass for quite a large black hole. If light can't escape a black hole, all the energy must still be inside the primordial black hole. Therefore the universe must be a black hole. But then we must be inside the event horizon.

Now we have black holes inside black holes.

Edit: But never fear; we have the rapid expansion period in which we can suspend the laws of nature. So we can just ascribe whatever values to the natural laws needed to make the Big Bang as we imagine it.

[moonrider]

We can't really say that the Big Bang Theory is correct, since it was and still a theory. Which means it is not yet proven. Or there are just some missing evidences or missing links to the outcome that we say the Universe itself. But, I believe it though.

[Vern]

The big bang theory evades falsification by changing the laws of nature. I can't think of any other notion that requires a rule change except other creation theories. I suspect that nature's rules are more substantial than theories. 

[meta-sci]

I'm very sorry Sophie but I must disagree, on that of chance and probability. It is no 'chance' in that all alternative views in history are publically available. Most are off-shoots from that of the infrastructural belief containing some sort of momentary patriotism. Any pure change in direction has been due to regime change or assimilation. Providing one has a psychology, an economy, and a product, one can create the most amazing block-busters. Such has been shown in religion-, science+, politics, and hollywood. No revolution of thinking has undermind it infrastructural regime simply by firepower, although many coups have occured, these are usually the cause of politics and humanities and not the cause of revolutionary thinking. On the few occasions history has shown revolution of thought, it most certainly not has been due to that of proof alone. Each case involves a comprimise, as is the case with the inquisition-the church conceded to Copernicusism not because the calculations added up, it was because Issac Newton belonged to another regime that was in competition and certainly posed a threat, had Newton been Roman, he may well have been under house arrest instead of being 'on the house' and rested. Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved. Every story has a pay-off, except your own to yourself(in lonely reality). We can only be convince that we do not know and enjoy answering the questions at hand, to push the boundaries of those that came before, and remember to pay the dry-cleaning for those who's lapels we soiled on the way to further hieghts.

[Ophiolite]

Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved.

Your peculiar sentence structure makes comprehension difficult. If I understand you correctly then you are mistaken. Einstein was accepted by the science community and the world at large after the eclipse of 1919(?) confirmed his predictions. The nuclear possibility only emerged a couple of decades later.

[om]

IS BIG BANG POSSIBLE?

   
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?

No, absolutely not.  It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).

So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.

Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe.  They will lead you to three fundamental truths:

1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.

2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.

3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.

Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs  Z/A (charge density) vs A:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

Here are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:

1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf

2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf

3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf

4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163  (2005).

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf


5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf

6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-

http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.

It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09

In view of a new paper on gravity in elementary particles, I have somewhat softened my opposition to the concept of a Big Bang.  See: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=9197.0

"If the universe is finite, then neutrons themselves may be the particle-sized black holes that were made in a Big Bang and compressed into massive, highly energetic neutron stars.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1

If the universe is infinite, then it may oscillate between expansion as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant."

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

[om]

ACCEPTANCE IS THE ANSWER IN A LIFE OF SCIENCE

A lecture that my research mentor heard by Nobel Laureate Francis William Aston at the Imperial University of Tokyo on Saturday June 13, 1936 [See: Autobiography of the late Professor Paul K. Kuroda "My Early Days at the Imperial University of Tokyo"] exactly four months before my birth, directed my research career (1960-present) to the Sun's origin, composition and operation — as revealed by measurements with the mass spectrometer that Aston developed.

Another Nobel Laureate, Theodore W. Richards, explained the importance of such measurements in 1919: “If our inconceivably ancient Universe even had any beginning, the  conditions  determining  that beginning must even  now be engraved in the atomic weights.” 

Events since 1960 have convincingly demonstrated that . . .

Acceptance of observations, whether or not the causes were known, allowed my research to evolve from Earth's Origin => Earth's Evolution => Origin of the Solar System => Local Element Synthesis => Sun's Composition => Source of Energy in an Iron-Rich Sun => Interactions between Nucleons => Neutron Emission => Core of the Sun => Global Climate Change, and finally => Energy Source that Powers the Cosmos and Fills Interstellar Space with Hydrogen. 

Scientists who insisted on understanding causes before accepting observations still remain at the 1960 starting point; certain that the cosmos is powered by Hydrogen-fusion and that the Sun is a representative ball of Hydrogen from the imaginary interstellar cloud that formed the Solar System. 

They could not, for example, accept the empirical link of all primordial Helium with "strange" Xenon at the birth of the Solar System — a.) Observed in 1975 across the microscopic distances represented by diamond and iron sulfide inclusions of the Allende meteorite [See “Host phase of a strange xenon component in Allende”, Science 190 (1975) 1251-1262]; b.) Confirmed in diverse meteorites [See: "The enigma of helium and anomalous xenon," Icarus 41 (1980) 312-315]; and c.) Verified across the planetary distances represented by Jupiter and Earth when the Galileo probe sent back isotope data from Jupiter's Helium-rich atmosphere [See: "Isotope ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33, A97 (1998) abstract 5011].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
or http://www.omatumr.com

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

There are various BBT some state the origin from one singularity others state the origin from multi singularities through out the universe at the same time. It does not matter which one you choose. They both state that the universe started at about 13.7Gyrs.

A simple observation of deep field images North and Soouth show us a potential of over 100,000,000,000 Galaxies in various formations from spiral to elliptical, small clusters of galaxies to super clusters of galaxies and super massive condensed matter (some call black holes)having a mass over 18 G Sun mass and a life span of 10^69 yrs.
The complexity is far greater than we can imagine and yet we have people stating that all this can be formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and supporting this with ad hoc theories to make the model work.

As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.

[om]

WELCOME, HARRY!

G'day from the land of ozzzz

There are various BBT some state the origin from one singularity others state the origin from multi singularities through out the universe at the same time. It does not matter which one you choose. They both state that the universe started at about 13.7Gyrs.

A simple observation of deep field images North and Soouth show us a potential of over 100,000,000,000 Galaxies in various formations from spiral to elliptical, small clusters of galaxies to super clusters of galaxies and super massive condensed matter (some call black holes)having a mass over 18 G Sun mass and a life span of 10^69 yrs.
 
The complexity is far greater than we can imagine and yet we have people stating that all this can be formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and supporting this with ad hoc theories to make the model work.

As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.

I agree.

There is something very simplistic about the assumption that . . .

a.) An absolute vacuum, something that does not exist, is "normal" and requires no explanation,

b.) Matter and energy, that which fills the universe, is "abnormal" and requires an explanation,

c.) Basic conservation laws allow us to calculate that the "abnormal" has existed for 13.7 Gyrs, but

d.) Basic conservation laws are violated before a neutrino can travel from the Sun to Earth!

Modern cosmology is no more realistic than Alice in Wonderland, but it is entertaining.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
or http://www.omatumr.com