The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

what do you believe

The Big Bang
Constant Universe
Creationism
Other

Author Topic: is the big bang correct?  (Read 124428 times)

Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #200 on: 24/07/2009 05:58:58 »
Oliver,
you have made a number of detailed statements in your last few posts. Some of these I have reservations about - your meteorite data, for example, is outdated and wrong. I am currently studying everything you have written to determine what is important in your argument, before responding.
Rgds
O.

om

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #201 on: 25/07/2009 04:15:21 »
Oliver,

. . . . - your meteorite data, for example, is outdated and wrong. I am currently studying . . . before responding.
Rgds
O.

Take your time, Ophiolite, but don't waste your time.

Very few, if any, of my conclusions rest solely on data from my laboratory:

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

Usually I use the best data available.  For example,

1. This table of extinct elements that were alive when supernova debris formed meteorites is based on data from the best research laboratories worldwide - Australia, France, India, and the United States [University of Arkansas, University of California-Berkeley, Cal Tech, and the University of California-San Diego]:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1960Data.htm

2. This graph shows Ne isotopes that I measured in the Fayetteville meteorite while in the laboratory of Professor John H. Reynolds at UC-Berkeley:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1964Data.htm

3. This is a graph of data from my laboratory at the University of Missouri showing that isotopes of Kr and Xe in the solar wind have been mass fractionated.

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1972Data1.htm

4. This graph is based on He and Xe in the Allende meteorite as measured in Professor Edward Anders' laboratory at the University of Chicago:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm

5. This graph of mass fractionated isotopes in the solar wind is based on measurements in Professor Geiss' laboratory at the University of Bern (Switzerland), in Professor Reynolds' laboratory at the University of California-Berkeley, and in Professor A. O. Nier's laboratory the University of Minnesota:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm

6. This graph of oxygen isotopes in various classes of meteorites and planets is based on data from Robert Clayton's laboratory at the University of Chicago.

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1976Data.htm

7. This graph of molybdenum isotopes - showing that massive iron meteorites came directly from a supernova - is from measurements made at the University of Tokyo.

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1991Data.htm

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
« Last Edit: 28/07/2009 03:11:57 by om »

Naufal the B. S.

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #202 on: 25/07/2009 07:42:47 »
what do you believe, man!?

I think the creationism. If you're not atheist

TSE

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #203 on: 25/07/2009 23:54:21 »
First time poster here,.....

I have a pretty unique idea for explaining the origin of the universe and the Big Bang and have considered spending some time to write a movie script revolving around a cool sci-fi movie that allows the audience to unveil the mysteries of the Universe and solve the question of where it came from and why etc. 

My questions are:

1)  What would you people say is your interest level in seeing a movie like this, as well as what would you say is the interest level for the general public?

2)  What kind of ideas can you come up with that would make for a good sci-fi explanation of what the true answer is surrounding the mystery of the Big Bang and/or the creation of the Universe?


The idea I have come up with has nothing to do with the Big Crunch or any of the common theories, the objective is I'm trying to come up with something that nobody would think of to create some intrigue and entertainment value, not necessarily using the best scientific explanations, after all it is a movie!

And of course if somebody can come up with a better or neater idea than mine, I will make contact with that person and offer them a movie credit or possibly a writing consulting position if/when I get this script put together!
« Last Edit: 25/07/2009 23:58:37 by TSE »

pshmell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #204 on: 26/07/2009 17:08:04 »
Anyone read about the Big Bounce theory?

It includes partially the Big Bang theory, but it is a cyclic model for the Universe, with no definite starting point, and no definite ending point.

Imagine it this way: the Universe is this push and pull, ebb and flow: entropy vs. gravity. While entropy is always increasing, gravity is as well. And in the form of black holes, the Universe will eventually coalesce into one. But JUST before it gets to that singularity, that zero-volume, infinite density singularity (it never ACTUALLY reaches that limit, jpetrucelli, just like entropy never reaches its limit), the quantum gravitational forces become repulsive rather than attractive, and entropy takes back over in a marvelous explosion we know as a Big Bang. And things expand at magnificent speeds with ever increasing entropy, until gravity gets a stronger grip on the matter in the Universe, and crunches it all into a black hole again.  And so it goes, expand, contract, expand, contract, etc.

Criticisms of the theory include objections on the grounds that this model would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
But just because the force of gravity is stronger than the force of entropy in a black hole, that doesn't mean that entropy isn't increasing.
The stronger Gravity tightens its grip, the more Entropy wants to break free, like a gas in a container that is decreasing in volume. Like a bomb. And just when Gravity thinks it's got the Universe where it wants it, Entropy breaks free; the bomb explodes.

Intriguingly reminiscent of Taoist philosophy:
"In order to contract a thing, one should surely expand it first.
In order to weaken, one will surely strengthen first.
In order to overthrow, one will surely exalt first.
In order to take, one will surely give first.
This is called subtle wisdom."

om

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #205 on: 28/07/2009 00:53:06 »
MORE ON THE BIG BANG
(WHILE WAITING FOR THE RESPONSE FROM A GEOLOGIST)


Prayer for Serenity in Science:

"Grant me the serenity to accept WHAT IS.
Courage to challenge my own beliefs toward WHAT IS.
Wisdom to know that attitudes may distort perception of WHAT IS,
But attitudes cannot change WHAT IS."

- - - adapted from Reinhold Niebuhr

WHAT IS: [Established by fifty (50) years of measurements and contemplation along the road less traveled!]

01. Neutron-neutron interactions are repulsive, NOT attractive.

02. Neutron stars are highly energized, NOT "dead" nuclear embers.

03. Neutron repulsion prevents the collapse of neutron stars into Black Holes.

04. Neutron repulsion primarily powers the Sun and the cosmos.

05. After neutron-emission, neutron-decay produces Hydrogen (H).

06. The Sun discards 50,000 billion metric ton of solar-wind H annually.

07. Hydrogen (H) covers stellar surfaces, but stars are NOT balls of H.

08. Compact nuclear objects dissociate to fill interstellar space with H.

09. Interstellar H is a waste product of, not fuel for, the cosmic engine.

10. Massive neutron stars at galactic centers produce H and cosmic explosions.

CONCLUSIONS:

Today we have evidence that the Sun, other stars, and galactic centers are powered by nuclear dissociation that releases Hydrogen to interstellar space as a waste product. 

Therefore if there really was a "Big Bang" then it produced neutrons and compressed them into massive neutron stars -- the most compact, energetic form of nuclear matter -- rather than Hydrogen, the most dispersed form of nuclear matter. 

The concept of a "Big Bang" became more plausible to me after reading the recent paper by Coyne and D. C. Cheng ["A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics:  An alternative mechanism for black holes to appear at accelerator experiments," http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1667v1 ].  According to that scenario, neutrons themselves may be considered as particle-sized black holes that were made in the "Big Bang."

On the other hand if the universe is infinite, then it probably oscillates between:

a.) The expansion that is observed currently as interstellar space is filled with Hydrogen from neutron decay, and

b.) A subsequent contraction after the neutron stars have evaporated and gravitational forces become dominant.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com


 

« Last Edit: 29/07/2009 21:02:02 by om »

Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #206 on: 07/08/2009 15:34:23 »
Oliver,
I regret that I will have to pend further discussion for the forseeable future. My thinking in relation to another poster in a separate sub-forum is out of synch with forum moderation. The honourable thing for me to do is to absent myself for a time. I apologise for the impact this will have on what could have been an interesting discussion.
Regards
Ophiolite

om

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #207 on: 10/08/2009 14:18:00 »
CONFIRMATION OF WHAT WAS 10,000,000,000 YEARS AGO

The 20 July 2009 issue of Ap J provides new information on ultra-compact, hyperactive galaxies in the universe about 10^10 years ago [M. Kreik, P. G. van Dokkum, I. Labbe, M. Frank, G. Illingworth, D. Marchesini and R. F. Quadri, Astrophysical  Journal 700 (20 July 2009) 221-231].

http://hubblesite.org/pubinfo/pdf/2009/24/pdf2.pdf

See also the news story and discussion of the implications of these findings on the PhysOrg site:

http://www.physorg.com/news168698290.html

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com


krytie75

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #208 on: 10/08/2009 21:11:42 »
I believe that every single planet grows and ultimately decays when it becomes too greater a mass to remain stable and that the immense pressures caused by every single atomic particle pushing against opposing particles generated at the core of the Earth will eventually cause our own planet to heat up and become a sun and inevitably decompose sending the atoms once again to migrate across an infinite Universe.

That is quite bizarre.

om

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #209 on: 13/08/2009 10:42:44 »
A DOZEN SCIENCE STUDENTS

I want to draw special attention to twelve of the hundreds of devoted family members and talented teachers, students, friends, and colleagues that made possible My Journey to the Core of the Sun: A Summary of Fifty Joyful Years of Continuous Discovery [Autobiography, in preparation].

1. Golden Hwaung coauthored the landmark 1983 paper showing the Sun, the Earth, and ordinary meteorites are all made mostly of the same elements: Iron (Fe), Oxygen (O), Nickel (Ni), Silicon (Si) and Sulfur (S) ["Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222].  A picture of Golden Hwaung about 20 years later in his Electrical Engineering laboratory at Louisiana State University is posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

2. Ken Windler, Adam Nolte, Lucie Johannes, Dan Ragland and Joshua Zirbel were undergraduate students at the University of Missouri-Rolla in 1998 who analyzed isotope data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter's atmosphere to confirm the 1983 paper published 15 years earlier ["Isotopic ratios in Jupiter confirm intra-solar diffusion", Meteoritics and Planetary Science 33,  A97 (1998) abstract 5011].  A 1998 picture of the five students - UMR's Jupiter Team - is posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

3. Marcel Pleessl was a high school student in Germany who came to the University of Missouri-Rolla and used neutron capture cross sections to confirm the 1983 paper showing that the interior of the Sun consists mostly of Fe, O, Ni, Si and S [Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) 159-163].  Marcel is now a university student.  A picture of Marcel when he was still a high school student working on the research described in this JRANC article is posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

4. Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke, and Bing Zhang were five graduate students at the University of Missouri-Rolla who helped discover evidence of repulsive interactions between neutrons in rest masses of 3,000 nuclei posted in Message ID: 265523 (23/07/2009).  Photographs of some of these graduate students are posted in the Photo Gallery on my web page. 

The ever-evolving nature of science, continuously changing across the lives of successive generations, is illustrated by contributions of these twelve high school, undergraduate and graduate students in the latter part of my research career and the guidance that I received from two well established scientists at its start, almost fifty (50) years ago on that fateful day in 1960 when Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda called me to his office to share surprising evidence that the solar system formed almost immediately after violent nuclear reactions in a supernova produced our elements:

A. Kuroda's paper on the decay products of extinct plutonium-244 in air [“Nuclear fission in the early history of the Earth”, Nature 187 (1960) 36-38], and

B. John H. Reynolds' landmark papers on the decay product of extinct iodine-129 [“Determination of the age of the elements”, Physical Review Letters 4 (1960) 8-10] and a "strange" mixture of the nine stable xenon isotopes in meteorites [“Isotopic composition of primordial xenon”, Physical Review Letters 4 (1960) 351-354].

I had the good fortune to have both of these talented scientists as research mentors.  My research career is, in fact, an extension of studies that Kuroda and Reynolds started when I was a child, and they each worked on defense projects—on opposing sides of the Second World War.

Looking forward to a seventy-third (73rd) birthday in a couple of months, my life and my research career confirm the vision of life that Shakespeare expressed through Jaques in the play, As You Like It:

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages."
 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
« Last Edit: 15/08/2009 11:46:53 by om »

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #210 on: 14/08/2009 14:07:50 »
Is this anything more than an advert?
Does it belong on this thread?

Andrew K Fletcher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2321
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
    • Operation OASIS
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #211 on: 14/08/2009 20:01:16 »
Is this anything more than an advert?
Does it belong on this thread?

Yup appears to be an advert to me too. OM you need to justify that last post

om

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #212 on: 14/08/2009 22:03:49 »
CONCLUSION TO DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST

Oliver,

I regret that I will have to pend further discussion for the forseeable future. My thinking in relation to another poster in a separate sub-forum is out of synch with forum moderation. The honourable thing for me to do is to absent myself for a time. I apologise for the impact this will have on what could have been an interesting discussion.

Regards
Ophiolite

Thanks, Ophiolite.

I am sorry if my last posting appeared to be an advertisement.  Before closing, I wanted to let Naked Science Forum Readers know of the important contributions made by high school, graduate and undergraduate students, as well as other colleagues.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

BenV

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #213 on: 16/08/2009 12:28:13 »
Please stop spamming your website in your posts - if people are really interested in what you have to say, they will look at your profile.

Mr. Scientist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #214 on: 15/09/2009 21:43:06 »
what do you believe?

No. Due to the mounting of errors, it seems wrong. Read this please, by me:

The Big Bang; The beginning of time and problems

The First Incongruity

Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy
 as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?

In the principle of least action, it seems that a ground state universe would have begun much like the laws that govern a ground state atom. An atom in a
ground state will arrange it's electrons to a specific frequency which allows it to yield as little energy as possible. But to do this, it would need to
make sure to give up certain properties of location with respect with one another (1).

If our universe did begin in a ground state then the laws of physics cannot permit it to have any unique radius or time, or even a beginning. A ground state
 universe could not have begun therego as a singular region (2) in spacetime with a sturcture similar to a black hole. Instead of a singular region in the
center of this black hole, there would be a wormhole at its center.

If it didn't it would have to have chosen an excited state, where there will be a point eventually where the universe will quantum leap into a new state,
and a catastrophic reduction of energy will unfold. This means that the energy contained in this universe could in the future vanish totally from this
spacetime realm, and quite possibly ''seep'' through womrholes into another universe which is in a ground state.

The second Incongruity

There was not enough time to start the universe!

The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed
initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size
 of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for
photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to
be homogeneous (3).

The Third Incongruity

The universe had to expand faster than light!

So, because we have a model of the big bang which did not fit the discription of what we are observing in the vast universe, we had to allow even more
changes. To give the universe more time, we have to begin it from a much smaller size, but to also balance (a reasonably smooth background radiation),
we also had to invite the idea of the particle called the Inflaton, and an entirely new and almost proposterous concept called The Inflationary Phase of
the universe where spacetime expanded faster than the speed of light. Fine tuning opportunists took hold of this an asked exactly why inflation began when
it did. But more importantly, if inflation is just a mathematical trick which it seems to be then a beginning of time is very troublesome for any modern day
 concept of big bang.

The Fourth Incongruity

Something Came from Nothing?

And yet, this is the best to come. With the New Physics overuling the classical, we could no longer think of the universe beginning as simply as saying
''it just came into existence.'' With the wave function governing every possibility in the universe, we now have to deal with an absurd model where the
universe had at its disposal, an infinite amount of choices it could have chose from... infinitely a many amount of universe which could never have
sustained life, and an infinite amount of universes which could, and even an infinite amount of possibilities where the universe simply wouldn't have shown
 up at all.

The problem here is simple - and let us assume first that the infinite amount of universes are actually finite. Why this universe out of so many?

The Fifth Incongruity

Parallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense

To answer this problem, many scientists have adopted the parallel universe model of physics to reconcile why this universe came into existence. It seems
that from this particular model, each and every universe that was a possibility did come into existence. But the consequences are almost just as bizarre,
because not only do we have equally many universes (an infinite amount to be exact), we also have an infinite amount of universe overlapping each other in
a myriad of superpositioning where everytime something comes into contact with anything else, or even a mere observation would send all these superpositioned
univeres flying apart, and then to emerge again with new born universes. It's like having a coin. Flip a coin, and not only do the universes fly apart, but
in this universe you are left with either a heads or a tails, but at the same time, an entire universe has been created ''somewhere out there,'' where you
are standing with the opposite result. If you think that is strange, imagine you stopped to flip a coin a hundred times... you would create exactly
1,267,650,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 universes! That is by scientific notation, a little over 10^30 to be exact, you would create a massive number
 of universe [possibilities] that have now been turned into the real manifestation just as much as ours!

This easy creation of universes disturbs many physicists, and most of all, one of the largest proponents whom it disturbed came in the skin called Fred Hoyle
, a famous astrophysicist who took his contempt for the beginning of the universe to the grave.

(1) - See Wolf's ''Parallel Universes, 1985'' pg 192
(2) - A singularity says that some point of spacetime possesses a negative region where every peice of matter and every bit of energy and even the spacetime itself is blown into unimaginal proportions.
(3) - Actually, we often read that the background temperatures aka (the radiation in all parts of the universe) is homogeneous and smooth. We are often not told however that it is not completely smooth. We have to allow about a degree of a 10,000th part of error in each ''direction'' of the universe.

Tintin_Triton

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
  • Intellect without knowledge... is futile
    • View Profile
    • The Essays - Thoughts of mind
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #215 on: 28/09/2009 07:15:27 »
Yes I do believe that the Big Bang theory is correct, at least it is the best to bet on. No one can prove that the Big bang is correct or not. But yes we can say that mathematically it is absolutely correct.

Come to think of it- the microwave background radiation, and then the proof that the universe is expanding. These two are observations and we cannot disprove them. They conclude that the Universe must have been very close together at one moment in time. So that is and will be called as the big bang.
Before that- ah! I don't think we need to delve there. That part was before time itself, so i guess we can't say that anything was before that point of time.

So those are reasons I am forced to believe in the Big bang theory.


Vern

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #216 on: 28/09/2009 13:25:28 »
Quote from: Tintin_Triton
Come to think of it- the microwave background radiation, and then the proof that the universe is expanding. These two are observations and we cannot disprove them.
The observations are correct, however the conclusions we reach based upon them are merely assumptions. We assume that the CMBR is the cooled down remnants of the Big Bang. It might simply be the temperature reached by cosmic debris as it is warmed by starlight. We assume that the universe is expanding because we assume that the red shift is a Doppler effect. There are other assumptions we could make that would explain the observations without the need to violate natures laws.

The Big Bang Theory requires a violation of the natural laws, at least in its early stages.

werc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #217 on: 28/11/2009 14:25:37 »
maybe the Big bang model miss this particular force:
http://www.albertavevaragione.com/index.php?id=15&lang=en

PhysBang

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #218 on: 28/11/2009 16:34:13 »
The observations are correct, however the conclusions we reach based upon them are merely assumptions. We assume that the CMBR is the cooled down remnants of the Big Bang.
It is more correct to say that the standard cosmological model takes the CMB to be the photons that last interacted with the matter of the universe at a very dense state. This is the same matter that is all around us.
Quote
It might simply be the temperature reached by cosmic debris as it is warmed by starlight.
This is something that it cannot be. Even the best available theory that accounts for the background radiation as light with reradiated light, quasi-steady state cosmology, has as part of its explanation massive contraction of space in the past. And even this cannot account for all our observations. There are simply too many particular features of the background radiation for it to be reradiated light. For one thing, there would have to bee too much dust in intergalactic space for us to see more than a few galaxies.
Quote
We assume that the universe is expanding because we assume that the red shift is a Doppler effect.
The standard cosmological model does not assume that the redshift is due to a doppler effect. The redshift is due to another source.
Quote
There are other assumptions we could make that would explain the observations without the need to violate natures laws.
Hunh?
Quote
The Big Bang Theory requires a violation of the natural laws, at least in its early stages.
Hunh?

PhysBang

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #219 on: 28/11/2009 16:42:09 »
The First Incongruity

Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy
 as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?
This is a strange problem. I am not sure that we can any means by which to distinuigh different beginnings of the universe from any other. Regardless, the standard model of cosmology doesn't actually include the beginning of the universe, much like evolutionary theory does not include the first life on Earth.
Quote
The second Incongruity

There was not enough time to start the universe!

The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed
initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size
 of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for
photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to
be homogeneous (3).
I have no idea where you are getting these figures. The standard cosmological model does run back to a time where the distances that we currently see out to were constricted to a small region, but it is unknown so far whether or not the entire universe is finite or infinite in spacial extent. The time between that small region and today works out fine.
Quote
The Third Incongruity

The universe had to expand faster than light!
This is not an incongruity, and it is something that the universe is still doing. Regions far away from us are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. This is something entirely kosher according to general relativity and does not require inflation, which is an entirely separate physical theory.
Quote
The Fourth Incongruity

Something Came from Nothing?
If nothing existed at one time, then who knows what the rules of something coming in to being are? Regardless, the standard cosmological model doesn't speak of this.
Quote
The Fifth Incongruity

Parallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense
Again, not required by standard model.

Mr. Scientist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #220 on: 28/11/2009 17:22:27 »
The First Incongruity

Is the Universe in Ground State or an Excited State?

A ground state object is when it arranges it's inhabitents to a specific harmony in which ''tunes'' the use of these components to use as very little energy
 as possible. When concerning some birth of the universe, did the universe choose to be in a ground state?
This is a strange problem. I am not sure that we can any means by which to distinuigh different beginnings of the universe from any other. Regardless, the standard model of cosmology doesn't actually include the beginning of the universe, much like evolutionary theory does not include the first life on Earth.
Quote
The second Incongruity

There was not enough time to start the universe!

The second problem, after visiting whether this universe began in a ground state of an excited state arises from how much time the universe was allowed
initially to begin with. In fact, according to the models we originally worked with, the universe began with a finite and yet small radius - about the size
 of a human blood cell. But as we are reminded by Doctor Wolf, as small as this was, it still was not small enough to allow time present to account for
photons to reach all the spacetime we observe today. It's not enough time therego to allow a balanced condition in the background micr0wave temperatures to
be homogeneous (3).
I have no idea where you are getting these figures. The standard cosmological model does run back to a time where the distances that we currently see out to were constricted to a small region, but it is unknown so far whether or not the entire universe is finite or infinite in spacial extent. The time between that small region and today works out fine.
Quote
The Third Incongruity

The universe had to expand faster than light!
This is not an incongruity, and it is something that the universe is still doing. Regions far away from us are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. This is something entirely kosher according to general relativity and does not require inflation, which is an entirely separate physical theory.
Quote
The Fourth Incongruity

Something Came from Nothing?
If nothing existed at one time, then who knows what the rules of something coming in to being are? Regardless, the standard cosmological model doesn't speak of this.
Quote
The Fifth Incongruity

Parallel Universes and its Conceptual Nonesense
Again, not required by standard model.
Physbang... i think you have picked up many things incorrectly and may require reading through that work again... because for instance, most of the questions are intentionally rhetorical and you are answering them with some kind of personal disgreement? Also, you questioned th figures...The figures existed before we invited inflation, hence, you need to re-read it i think.

PhysBang

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #221 on: 28/11/2009 23:50:08 »
No, I think I got it. You raised a number of what you think are problems that really aren't problems for any scientific theory that currently exists.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2009 23:56:27 by PhysBang »

a-x-med

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #222 on: 23/12/2009 03:11:21 »
http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

Just check it up, there is not only big bang

Webo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #223 on: 26/12/2009 00:54:51 »
All good points my friends! My opinion is as follows: As we are aware at a time long ago everyone believe with 100% certainty the world was flat and the sun orbited the planet. Then Sir Issac and may other showed that theory was wrong and the earth was found to be round and the earth orbited the sun. Time went by and Elbert really understand the universe with much better and proven theories. In order for Sir Issac to better understand and explain the universe he had to study analyze and actually develop a new form of math to explain how things work. As we sit here today we have a few as Hawkings and Penrose who have take us a further into a better understanding however again when you have hundreds or thousands of models that work obviously none are more likely the correct however we should and will continue working until the next truly gifted genius is born and can understand that the math we use is in correct and a new mathematical form or type of math needs to be developed to take us to the next level of understanding and closer to the truth and not just a solution. Much like I believe M theory may take us closer to the truth and not just a solution, every time the solution does not work we change the universe not the math..if 6 dimensions do not work make it 10 and if that does not make it 11 or 50 etc...my opinion is we are not that far along from believing the world is flat and the sun orbits earth, to come close the truth and not just a mathematical solution...if any of that make sense.... Happy Holidays to all!               

Vern

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #224 on: 26/12/2009 13:19:18 »
Around about the turn of the twentieth century some gifted mathematicians had it all nailed down pretty well. However, we rejected the implications of their proofs. Since their proofs were based upon cause and effect, we decided that cause and effect does not matter. We have never found even one single piece of evidence that rejects their proof.

We never found fault with the poofs. We rejected without evidence their indications.

The proofs are the Lorentz Transforms. The premise nailed down was: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Stated more simply: Everything in the universe consists of electromagnetic fields and nothing else exists.
« Last Edit: 18/01/2010 12:59:39 by Vern »

 

SMF 2.0 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length