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 176246 times)

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #25 on: 07/06/2008 09:43:26 »
Little commercial interest in cosmological matters? Your joking right? Why on earth would NASA and many other Countries invest so much money and time in space exploration if there is no commercial interest in it?
NASA may not be paying the minimum wage for it's staff either?

Dec 5, 2007

Nobel laureate donates prize money to cosmology center


By Kristin Bender / MediaNews

Nobel Prize winner George Smoot is paying it forward.

The astrophysicist, who last year won the Nobel Prize for his work confirming the big-bang theory of the origin of the universe, is donating $500,000 to the Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches physics.

He received $700,000 for the prize.

Smoot's idea is to create a long-lasting center where he and other scientists - especially young postdoctoral researchers - can tackle cosmic questions that may even win a future Nobel Prize, university officials said.

"It's an exciting time in cosmology, when we are making breakthroughs that are tremendous intellectual achievements,  who is also a researcher at and I really believe we have to prepare the next generation to follow in our shoes," said Smoot,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Smoot, 62, said the center has the potential to develop the next generation of observational cosmologists and theorists.

He said the center is "kind of his legacy," but one he can participate in.

"It will be fun coming in to work," said Smoot, who has been an astrophysicist at the Berkeley lab since 1974 and a UC-Berkeley physics professor since 1994.

In addition to Smoot's $500,000 endowment gift, the center has received $1.5 million from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and $5.5 million in private donations.

Smoot, the center's director and the university plan to raise an additional $4 million to $5 million to fund resident postdoctoral fellows and scholars at UC-Berkeley and the Berkeley lab, a visitors' program, educational outreach to K-12 science teachers and several annual collaborative international workshops on cosmology, university officials said.

Donated money has already allowed the center to hire two new postdoctoral fellows, who arrived this fall. In July, the center hosted its first workshop, "Physics In and Through Cosmology," at the Berkeley lab for high school teachers and students.

Smoot shared the 2006 physics Nobel Prize with John C. Mather, a NASA scientist who collaborated with Smoot on the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, which was launched in 1989 to study the radiation emitted by the early universe only 300,000 years after its birth 13.7 billion years ago, university officials said.

There are 44 Nobel Prize winners among UC-Berkeley's alumni and current and past faculty. (Keep it in the family?)

Smoot is the second UC-Berkeley Nobel Prize winner to donate his winnings. In 2000, economics Nobel Prize winner Daniel McFadden donated prize winnings to a local charity to help nonprofit arts and education programs. McFadden was awarded the prize for his work in microeconometrics, the study of how individuals and households make economic choices.

http://www.ebdailynews.com/article/2007-12-5-donate


By John Walshe


Monday May 05 2008

IF you think national politics are rough, try academic politics.

It used to be said that rows among academics were so bitter because the stakes were so low.

Not any more.

Now we have multimillion euro enterprises competing with each other for the top students, staff, research contracts and international ratings.

And the most ambitious of them all is UCD, whose president, Hugh Brady, has unashamedly used a clause in the 1997 Universities Act to depart from normal salary levels and pay above the odds for hard-to-get high flyers.
Money talks in competitive world of academia.
http://www.independent.ie/education/latest-news/money-talks-in-competitive-world-of-academia-1367033.html


« Last Edit: 07/06/2008 09:54:57 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #26 on: 07/06/2008 10:06:22 »
One would not think there is money in religious studies either but the wealth of the churches contradicts this also. The following brings a little insight into the money go round.

Cash from international Muslim entities is funding Islamic studies programs in universities throughout the UK. A recent study has revealed the vast extent of these donations, which dwarf grants provided to schools by the British government:

Prof. Anthony Glees, director of Brunel University's Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, claims that eight universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, have accepted more than 233.5 million from Saudi and Muslim sources since 1995, with much of the money going to Islamic study centers.

Glees' report, which is to be published by the Centre for Social Cohesion, part of rightwing think tank Civitas, says this is 200 times the amount the government is putting into Islamic studies and will allow one-sided views of Islam and the Middle East, and anti-democratic propaganda to prosper.

The Higher Education Funding Council for England is investigating whether foreign funds influence the curricula and research in Islamic studies programs. Some have suggested that this is already the case:

Dr. Denis MacEoin, Islam expert at Newcastle University, said academics were nervous about handling topics that might upset their sponsors.
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2008/04/islamist-money-buying-clout-in-british.html

 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #27 on: 07/06/2008 10:30:59 »
My argument has been that false hypothesis is often propagated and perpetuated for monetary gain and that students are brainwashed into accepting that the "false hypothesis" is actually a theory, which it most definitely is not! A theory is only a theory when it can be tested, the big bang hypothesis has not been proven, How can it have been proven? The very idea that us pathetic humans can establish the birth of the Universe is absolute nonsense! Yet people continue to make a great deal of money from spinning such tall stories and hide behind qualifications hoping that they can die of old age before being called into account. We do not know what lives at the bottom of our own ocean let alone speculating on how the universe came into being.

It would be far better to put our hands in the air and say we do not know whether the Universe has always been there or whether it was born in some unknown way.

The defender of the Big Bang hypothesis who won no less than a Nobel prize stated; I really believe we have to prepare the next generation to follow in our shoes," said Smoot, who is also a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Prepare the next generation to follow in our shoes? Why not prepare the next generation to question our science to see if we are correct? Why not educate the next generation to think for themselves?

The fact that so many Nobel prizes have been awarded to this institute casts serious doubts on the whole Nobel Prize system and Mr Nobel would be turning in his grave if he could see what was being done with his truly Nobel Gesture to science.

I too ask where are all the votes in this pole?
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #28 on: 07/06/2008 11:55:48 »
Quote
Little commercial interest in cosmological matters? Your joking right? Why on earth would NASA and many other Countries invest so much money and time in space exploration if there is no commercial interest in it?
Space exploration is not the same thing as Cosmology.
The investments in NASA are not made in order to find out what will happen in a billion years. They are made for commercial interests with much shorter  timescales. Cosmology is riding on the back of  the technological interest which is what Academics have always done. Can you imagine that the would-be developers of the Moon or of Military technology give a stuff about the Big Bang theory or the shape of the Universe?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #29 on: 08/06/2008 21:40:02 »
come on. I gave one example of an acedemic earning kudos and a huge wedge of money from simply supporting an existing theory. You chose to not reply to that point "conveniently" You lost your argument!

For those who would like to hear the big bang hypothesis in laypersons terms there are two videos on you tube that give you an idea of the problems with it.
feature=related
amp;feature=user

The universe does not have a finite age. The material in it however does have a finite age because there is a finite age to all planets! Stars are the final stages in the life of a planet. The decay of the aging planets is distributed evenly throughout the universe and this model is repeated to infinity as the migrating atoms from stars find planets and in doing so add to their mass causing them to grow. So the Big bang cannot rely on the fact that there is an even distribution of particles in the universe. Another argument is that the particles cone from the gas that caused the universe to exist. I say hogwash the gas that released the particles comes from stars as they decay!

Andrew K Fletcher
« Last Edit: 08/06/2008 21:58:36 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #30 on: 08/06/2008 22:01:08 »
Everyone is conservative (with a small c) because it takes (and should take) a very significant argument to overturn the status quo. If you do not take this view then we would all spend a huge amount of time examining the likelyhood of all sorts of loopy ideas about everything from the existence of ghosts to creationist views on the start of the universe. I am happy that we do take a view of expanding our knowledge in an evolutionary way as this is a way to make real progress. It is good that there are "revolutionary ideas", but they have to be really compelling before too many people waste time having to prove them wrong. This may be frustrating to those with the answers to life, the universe and everything, but it is probably for the best. If I said the universe was created 5 minutes ago with all our memories and everything just as we perceive it, I cannot be proved wrong. It does not mean that I want half our scientific thinkers giving this idea equal weight to more productive science.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #31 on: 08/06/2008 22:45:17 »
AKF
I'm not sure which argument I lost.
It strikes me that what you are really complaining about is Human Nature and the creeping in of commercialism. Why does that make you so particularly aerated about Science?
I pointed out that Cosmology is not a big earner. Of course there is self interest and blinkered vision and corruption in all walks of life. Hanging on to the bitter end of an argument is something that many scientifically ignorant people are equally guilty of just the same as in business, medicine and art. It is totally invalid to compare fanciful arguments (which are two a penny) with theories based on dedicated and thorough testing and observations (of which there are very few). Science does its best, despite many of the people and interests involved. Pseudo Science does very well, also, because people, in general do not know enough to distinguish it from the real thing. It also makes a lot of  money, unjustifiably.
Remember, the established theories of today were the unaccepted and much too revolutionary theories of yesterday. Do you think they got accepted because someone whinged that no one would take them seriously? I think that you will find they got accepted because of more than a little hard evidence and a convincing argument behind them.

You can believe or not believe in the Big Bang theory but there is some serious evidence in its favour. Is there any evidence for your 'accretion' theory, other than it 'feels right to you'? Have you done any calculations which lead to the conclusion that it is consistent with  observations? If you can't support it even with a simple 'back of a fag packet' calculation you should chuck it out.

Quote
The universe does not have a finite age.
Is a totally unprovable and undisprovable statement so it really has little place in Science because, by definition, there can be no evidence.
There are, however, some very good bits of evidence to suggest that the Universe around us, because it consists of Space and Time, can be regarded as having a beginning which was something in the region of 1/Hubble Constant seconds ago. That event would have been at time t=0 and negative values of t are not included in the Big Bang theory.
Why do you try to run before you can walk? Learn some real basics and then re- examine your ideas in the light of what you will then know.
Reading through some of your unsupported assertions, can you really blame people for not taking you too seriously?

 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #32 on: 08/06/2008 22:58:12 »
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html from the NASA website

I repeat there is no serious evidence to support the big bang hypothesis!

Give me one small paragraph that you are relying on. The paragraph that won you over will do.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2008 23:01:29 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #33 on: 09/06/2008 21:03:33 »
I have read most of that link. What am I supposed to do about it? It doesn't present evidence for or against the BB. As far as I can see it assumes it and gives an informed picture about it and the possible consequences.
Are you proposing to point out some great flaw in the link? You might find yourself a good link giving a well informed comparison between various alternative models. A .edu site is more likely to be reliable.

As for my reasons for accepting it as a probable explanation, they are based on a large body of opinion. The presence of the background microwave radiation is a pretty good 'clincher'. Of course, if you don't know as much Science as the legions of Cosmologists who subscribe to it, you may not realise how strong it is as a piece of evidence. You see, as I have often said, it is the actual numbers that count when choosing between alternative explanations and models. To approach Science in a merely Subjective way is to sell it short. I don't understand how you can reject such a well founded idea as the BB because you can cite instances where the Science Establishment has treated some people unfairly.
Where is your evidence (I think I have asked before) for your alternative model? Answer to be based on quantative arguments.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #34 on: 10/06/2008 11:06:38 »
The link was to show you that NASA does have an interest in cosmology and points out that they are uncertain as to what lies beyond the boundaries of our Universe horizon. Edu sites are not likely to be more reliable just because they are edu sites! NASA has invested a great deal of money and technology into space exploration and space monitoring. They are better placed to give an unbiased interpretation of events and observations.

Now the fact that supposedly relic radiation is left over from the big bang based on earlier predictions that it could be does nothing to conclude that there was an expansion of the universe. Background radiation can be accounted for with the decay of stars and indeed our own sun sending out particles. No need for any big bang whatsoever. We see ample evidence for this with solar flares and the arrival of more particles that correspond with the flares.

A continual evolving and decomposing process of planets can easily account for the release of background radiation. The half-life of radiation can easily accommodate huge distances travelled by the particles from way beyond the boundaries of our current observations and given the sheer number of stars in the universe there is no shortage of decomposing planets to account for the background radiation.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #35 on: 10/06/2008 14:40:25 »
Of course they have an 'interest' in it but not a Financial Interest. They are Government funded partly because they 'do' education. The Satellite Companies are not interested in the Big Bang and neither are the Military. They just need launch vehicles and technology to make their equipment work. That's where the big money comes from.
.edu sites are from people who are 'educated', 'educators' and researchers. Are you telling me you don't trust them? Who else would you trust? Some fringe site put up there by an ingnorant loony?

I cannot understand why you are so selective in what you want to believe. My belief is based on as objective basis as I can manage. Numbers count for nearly everything, in Science. You never seem to quote them, nor do you use calculations. Your arguments seem to be based on selected web pages. How much of conventional Science do you actually accept? Or do you pick and choose to suit your current enthusiasm?

Quote
Background radiation can be accounted for with the decay of stars and indeed our own sun sending out particles. No need for any big bang whatsoever.
Did it ever occur to you that you could learn some basics so you could really make up your mind in an informed way? You could also learn about how important calculations are. Do you know what the actual solar flux is? Does this account for the present planet masses? Show me some figures.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2008 14:42:52 by sophiecentaur »
 

Offline qazibasit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #36 on: 13/06/2008 12:34:31 »
These theories of origin of the universe are just fiction. One cant even imagine the so much complex process of origin just by saying things like a big ball banging and other childish stuff.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #37 on: 13/06/2008 12:48:29 »
Yes, the processes are very complex.
But Science tries to make sense of them and it does quite a good job in many directions. The Scientific approach can be seen to have worked very well because of the very successful technology we have developed. That only works because the Science behind it is correct 'enough'.
The same basic methods have been applied to Cosmology and Fundamental Particle Physics; subjects about which we can never have the total answer but we can rely on our partial answers to be somewhere near the 'truth'. If the models which are used seem 'childish' to you it may be because you have not enough knowledge to appreciate what they actually mean.
There is extremely strong evidence about the origins of the Universe which take us back 'almost' to the big bang by using our Science. Science doesn't really attempt to look at or before the event.
Ideas about multiple universes and extra dimensions are outside of mainstream Science and are much more open to question. They are not total nonsense and are consistent within themselves. The problem is in testing them. Equipment like the Large Hadron Collider may help in this testing process.
 

Offline qazibasit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #38 on: 13/06/2008 14:12:36 »
nothing its still going on.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #39 on: 13/06/2008 19:22:24 »
Was that a reply?
 

Offline qazibasit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #40 on: 14/06/2008 21:23:23 »
probably yes
 

Offline qazibasit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #41 on: 14/06/2008 21:32:06 »
oh now i got it u thought that it was the reply to ur post oh no no no its was not it.
Actually u said that in cosmology u need basics but what i have personally found in cosmology is that all the theories are just  philosophies and everybody explains his opinion making it a little complex to give it a touch of a theory. Most people think that a theory is something which the people cannot understand, and the people who understands their theory are according to them scholars coz its their thoery. what i personally think is that they are fools. i still dont think that Einstein is the genius until his theory is proved. i have also said this in one of my post that one should not read all the theories coz they harms us in a way that it distracts our mind from a point.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #42 on: 14/06/2008 23:26:20 »
I think you should try to read a bit more thoroughly. Not just second hand opinions which you get from the web.
There are a huge number of measurements and they have been used to determine (with strong confidence) many of the distances, masses, speeds and timescales involved in the established Cosmological models.
If you were to read about this you would not claim to dismiss it all in the way that you do. If you accept that the Earth is not flat then you are already agreeing with some of accepted Cosmology and I assume you would be prepared to go a lot further than that.
Theories tend to diverge as you go further away or further back in time as the subject necessarily involves extrapolation. But the observed measurements tie in better with the standard theories than the fanciful stuff you can read in these threads. Can you quote any credible contemporary source which rejects the idea of a big Bang?
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #43 on: 14/06/2008 23:54:28 »
qazibasit Well Said.

Sophiecentaur
 

RE your paragraph relating to background radiation. If our own sun sheds radiation as particles due to the fusion. It must surely follow that all of the other stars are doing something similar. Given that our pinpoint location in the Universe pales into insignificance and even more so if we consider the location of the instruments used to measure the distant red shift from residual radiation, it follows that we do not need a big bang event to account for the radiation moving away from us because our target area back here is minuscule so almost all of the background radiation in the universe will definitely not be heading towards us but will be heading away from the stars that generate it.

It is beyond ludicrous to suggest that it is the universe that is moving out when it is logical that the radiation must be doing the moving. Add to this the margin of error and the absence of anyone seeing the hypothesised dark matter raises more than an eyebrow here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

You would have us believe that the Big Bang Hypothesis is sewn up tight. It is nothing of the kind. The above link provides some insight into how shaky these so called solid foundations really are!

I will be outside all night now looking for wimps passing right through the Earth and will report back should I manage to see one. I think I have found the dense matter though, it is in the heads of the people that believe the big bang is a theory and not a mere hypothesis based on conjecture.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2008 00:00:13 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #44 on: 15/06/2008 12:25:38 »
AKF
But you, on the other hand, have done much personal research with many calculations using advanced Mathematics and you are so well informed as to be able to direct us all to your point of view?
Science works this way. The (complete) theory with most evidence pointing towards it at any time is what we call the 'current theory'. The BB is the current theory and that's what I have been saying. It may well be subject to modifications like all past theories but there is no indication that it will need to be thrown out because so many observations can be explained using it. You clearly have not understood what the CBR consists of or the significance of the observed spectrum. But that is not your style - a bit of knowledge would cloud the issue.

With respect (and, having read some of your own, personal views on several aspects of Science, a certain amount of indulgence, too) what makes you pick a 'non-BB' explanation?
Apart from pique at not being taken too seriously, yourself, why do you feel so inclined to take up with random alternative views about so many topics?
It amazes me that you can bring yourself to use any modern products of technology at all if you accept that their development has relied totally on accepted ideas about Science. They must surely not be working at all and are just figments of our imagination along with Newton's Laws, Quantum Mechanics and the laws of Thermodynamics.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #45 on: 15/06/2008 15:20:45 »
Sophie - DNFTT - life's too short.
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #46 on: 15/06/2008 15:32:01 »
Point taken, once I'd looked up what dnftt means.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #47 on: 17/06/2008 22:00:44 »
It means Do Not Feed The Trolls for those who can't be arsed to look it up. "Whatever"
 

lyner

  • Guest
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #48 on: 17/06/2008 23:14:10 »
It means Do Not Feed The Trolls for those who can't be arsed to look it up. "Whatever"
So you managed to learn something.
Now perhaps you can bring yourself to learn some actual Science.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
is the big bang correct?
« Reply #49 on: 18/06/2008 17:36:25 »
I have learned a lot about you for sure!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

is the big bang correct?
« Reply #49 on: 18/06/2008 17:36:25 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums