Post by: BilboGrabbins on 22/08/2021 10:02:35
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_production#:~:text=Entropy%20production%20(or%20generation)%20is,any%20irreversible%20thermodynamic%20cycle%2C%20including
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang
https://www.google.com/search?q=planck%27s+law&oq=plancks+la&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l4.3877j0j4&client=ms-android-americamovil-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#:~:text=Zero-point%20energy%20(ZPE),by%20the%20Heisenberg%20uncertainty%20principle.&text=All%20these%20fields%20have%20zero-point%20energy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_gas
So let's begin. I was not the originsl proposer of such a model, but I was the first to develop a semi-classical Friedmann equation so satisfy irreversible particle production that implemented the ground state fields for an early cosmology.
In this post, we will show how in principle that temperature can only approach zero, which is best understood when we model the fluctuations into an expanding model, and they can even generate cosmic seeds - before I have done this to accommodate the Sakharov gravitational correction, this time we will accommodate the Planck Law. To ''put in'' the laws of thermodynamics is relatively easy. So I did some calibrating of the modified equation to show Plancks law will hold.
Instead of a fluid expansion coefficient of
We make use of a temperature gauge for the Friedmann equation where
∴
The final equation I derived was
We integrate over the frequency to get an energy density
Where entropy can be defined as
Integration over the volume element of the primordial universe will give
We notice in our approach we have combined the gas laws
For the internal energy. The Planck law including a corrective zero point field per oscillator of the ground state for temperatures near T=0
And we invoked a particle expected number as
And has a unique solution for the density volume product in
As the ratio of zeta values
A simple equation of state that will satisfy a particle number
creation associated to the temperature and scale invariant
Is
Where
is the particle creation number and here, 
is the thermal wavelength, then when
It will follow the Bose statistics, or if modelled as
Then it will follow Maxwell statistics.
Summary; We rewrote the Friedmann equation, with a temperature gauge directing the fluid expansion while incorporating the entropy production for both reversible and irreversible dynamics to satisfy a Helmholtz irreversible thermodynamic phase transition. It's irreversible because our Friedmann equation has an extra time derivative as opposed to the ordinary Friedmann equation. We incorporated Plancks law and the zero point correction term, invoked the usual gas laws associated to it and then applied statistical thermal particle distances to talk about how the universe evolved from a cold state rapidly heating as it expands to produce the background temperatures we observe today.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 10:42:47
"The mainstream version of the Cold Big Bang model predicted an absence of acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation[1] and was eventually explicitly ruled out by WMAP observations.[2]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 22/08/2021 12:15:24
How does you model avoid this issue?
"The mainstream version of the Cold Big Bang model predicted an absence of acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation[1] and was eventually explicitly ruled out by WMAP observations.[2]"
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang
Believe it or not, but accoustic peaks will only happen if the heating phase was not homogeneous. In this model we avoid such interpretation by stating that all fluctuations began in exactly the same states, which is allowed from the Bose condensation where photons where created into the same energy states. This avoids any inconsistency in accoustic signalling of the primotdial seeds.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 22/08/2021 12:23:52
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 12:38:28
It says the problem with a cold BBT is that you don't get acoustic peaks.
You said how your model avoids having acoustic peaks.
The issue is that the universe does show acoustic peaks.
So I think you just confirmed that your model is unphysical.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 22/08/2021 14:59:08
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 22/08/2021 15:01:44
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 16:20:31
It's hard to explain. But not impossible.We aren't in any rush.
Perhaps you could start by explaining why the previous considerations of the problem didn't find a solution.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 22/08/2021 17:45:49
This violates the principles of thermodymamical laws, since only systems which approach near absolute zero retain a minimal entropy.
"In an attempt to understand the origin of atoms, Georges Lemaître proposed (by 1927) that before the expansion of the universe started all the matter in the universe, it formed a gigantic ball of nuclear liquid at very low temperature. This low temperature was required to provide an adequate cohesion within the Lemaître's primeval atom. In 1966, David Layzer proposed a variant on Lemaître's cosmology in which the initial state of the universe was near absolute zero. LamaItre argued that, rather than in an initial high entropy state, the primordial universe was"
The solution was not considered seriously because of a bias that that the universe began in a hot soup. This idea, as far as I can tell, was only adopted by a backward thinking, where ths origin of the background temperature was the absolute origin, when in fact, it's origin could have come from a super cool, liquid region.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 18:46:10
But it it started cold, what warmed it up?
Lemaitre's answer would probably have been " an act of God", but that won't work on a science site.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 22/08/2021 20:31:24
The big problem is that it's easy to see how the universe started hot, and cooled down.
But it it started cold, what warmed it up?
Lemaitre's answer would probably have been " an act of God", but that won't work on a science site.
A degenerate space phase.
Post by: Origin on 22/08/2021 23:05:22
A degenerate space phase.Could you expound on that statement?
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 23/08/2021 01:38:31
A degenerate space phase.Could you expound on that statement?
Not with great degree I'm afraid. It's the one aspect of this theory I haven't been able to complete, but from talking with other scientists, the ideas of instabilities of spacetime was actually a well-researched subject. Just googling "spacetime phase instabilities," or "spacetime instability," yields a rich field of papers on such subjects. Here's one I came across
https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02186
To understand the correct kind of degeneracy for this pre big bang model would explain how the Helmholtz liquid all-matter phase space transitioned into a radiation vapor dominated phase (aka. The radiation era).
Post by: Kryptid on 23/08/2021 05:43:01
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 23/08/2021 16:06:11
Is it sensible to treat the observable universe as being filled with an extremely diffuse gas, or is it too close to a vacuum for that to work? If so, you could use the gas laws to estimate the average temperature of the Universe at arbitrary points in the past. Or is that too much of a simplification?
It's possible.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 24/08/2021 14:31:13
It is this part
Specifically we identify as an origin to cosmic seeds.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-01-cosmic-seeds-black-holes.amp
As you will see from here, Sakharov argued how the background curvature contributes to the flucuations of the ground state field. It's just a fancy way of saying that the gravitional field "boosts" virtual seeds/particles inti real ones.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82910.0
If the Hubble constant can smear a virtual particle into its own length, it is a well established idea they played a fundamental role in the formation of galaxies in our universe.
Post by: evan_au on 24/08/2021 22:07:03
Quote from: BilboGrabbins
the mainstream view saying that the universe began in a hot primordial state with low entropy.We can see how the expansion of the universe turned a hot, dense mass into a cooler, diffuse universe, without violating thermodynamics or entropy.
This violates the principles of thermodymamical laws, since only systems which approach near absolute zero retain a minimal entropy.
The Hot Big Bang theory doesn't say that the universe was in the lowest possible entropy - it just says it had less entropy than it does now (and we expect this trend to continue into the future).
A black hole has pretty low entropy - but a black hole which has radiated away all of its mass via Hawking radiation (over enormous periods of time) has slightly lower entropy again. So we expect that (in the extremely long term view), the universe will be colder than it is now, and energy will be spread even more diffusely.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 24/08/2021 22:55:42
Quote from: BilboGrabbinsthe mainstream view saying that the universe began in a hot primordial state with low entropy.We can see how the expansion of the universe turned a hot, dense mass into a cooler, diffuse universe, without violating thermodynamics or entropy.
This violates the principles of thermodymamical laws, since only systems which approach near absolute zero retain a minimal entropy.
The Hot Big Bang theory doesn't say that the universe was in the lowest possible entropy - it just says it had less entropy than it does now (and we expect this trend to continue into the future).
A black hole has pretty low entropy - but a black hole has radiated away all of its mass via Hawking radiation (over enormous periods of time) has slightly lower entropy again. So we expect that (in the extremely long term view), the universe will be colder than it is now, and energy will be spread even more diffusely.
Yet entropy under quantum mechanics is reversible. It's not an intrinsic case of reversible dynamics quantum fields. In fact, quantum theory is a time-symmetric theory.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 27/08/2021 19:09:51
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_thermodynamic_equations
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 31/08/2021 03:31:19
Notice the last expression
would be the part which makes up the effective density parameters, which usually has the form of 
(iff) 
has units of an energy density. So the above equation isn't quite true it requires 
(iff) is a mass density. So we're missing a wee factor of speed of light squared in there... but who noticed? Since we're not dealing with a mass density in this case, we can just plug the inverse speed of light squared to the coefficient on the RHS.
Post by: puppypower on 31/08/2021 14:16:30
The entropy of the universe has to increase according to the second law. While an increase in entropy absorbs energy; heat. What this means is our universe is bleeding energy into entropy, that cannot be net retrieved, since net retrieval would violate the second law.
The energy that is being bled off is conserved by the universe, within entropy, but it is not net reusable to the universe due to the second law requiring it always increase. We can reverse entropy on a small scale; freeze a glass of water, but this action increases entropy elsewhere adding to the pool of lost energy. There is no perpetual motion in the universe, due to the universe's net loss of energy into entropy. The universe bleeds energy and ages with time. The universe cannot cycle, nor go on forever, due to the second law; energy constantly bleeds out into entropy. The universe ages, changes and disappears.
A Cold Big Bang would need to start very close to infinite entropy, where the pool of lost energy is huge. This state would be where nearly all the energy of the universe is tied up as entropy; information of states, and there is little available energy for work; extreme cold. This, in some ways, would be like the distant future; anticipation of what can be.
All we need is a phase change of the super cold fluid into a solid, causing the entropy to lower; locally. This phase change will be exothermic; heat of fusion. The transition I have in mind are the waves within the fluid, becoming particles. Waves can overlap, add, subtract and cancel, but particles have a very definitive space requirement due to the exclusion principle. This transition into particles expresses work/heat, expansion and space-time.
If we compare two space-time references side-by-side, using a third normalize reference, if one reference has time moving faster, that reference will age faster. The expansion by causing time to speed up and age faster, generates entropy at a faster rate.
The transition from wave/fluid, to particle/solid, is a local lowering of entropy, which does not violate the second law of the entire pool. The expansion of space-time; inefficiency, compensates for perpetual motion, since entropy increases much faster as time speeds up.
If you plug the speed of light into the special relativity equations for distance, time and mass, these variables all become discontinuous. We are no longer talking about mass or space-time. Rather mass does not exist and one can move in time apart from space, and move in space apart from time, since one is not limited to the constraints of space-time or mass. At the speed of light, entropy becomes infinite, since all states of complexity become possible since there are no physical limits placed by mass or space-time. This state of infinite entropy at the speed of light drives the second law within space-time.
Picture a matrix of information, similar to the human imagination, where anything is possible from fiction to nonfiction; infinite complexity and entropy. There are no real constraints, but we set limits, as to what is going to be allowable.
This is similar to the laws of science being added, but without these forcing these limits on us. If jump off the roof we hit the ground due to these laws. In this case, we willfully choose to set these limits on infinite possibilities, thereby structuring and lowering complexity. We avoid roofs by choice as though we may fall but cannot fall. Since there are no formal hard limits in place, beyond our choice to focus and imagine limits, we do violate the second law in any net way. It can reverse entropy locally, with entropy increasing back to the infinite background when we stop focusing and return to living in infinite options.
Innovation works this way. Where ideas can set things into motion expressing human energy and entropy all from a key; seed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 16:07:53
A Cold Big Bang would need to start very close to infinite entropyWhich is impossible.
Waves can overlap, add, subtract and cancel, but particles have a very definitive space requirement due to the exclusion principle.Mainly wrong.
If we compare two space-time references side-by-side, using a third normalize reference, if one reference has time moving faster, that reference will age faster.Do you have a bet with someone about how many times you can meaninglessly put the word "reference" into a post?
Rather mass does not exist and one can move in time apart from space,And that's where we launch into bad science fiction.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 01/09/2021 02:02:02
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 01/09/2021 04:12:26
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas
It says the particle number adjusts itself in a volume that it has a constant overall photon density. The picture in a pre big bang phase is ever-so-slighly more complicated in our given equation of the universe. There is no conservation of photons ib the pre big bang phase because we invited the notion of a particle nucleation event which was irrecersible. We can say the moment it began to heat up, from a liquid phase to a gas phase, was an isothermal phase transition, depending on how quickly the primordial state heated up. Regardless, it is to say that the overall density in the pre big bang phase remains the same just after leading into the Helmholtz gas phase.
For an ultra relativistic gas, the law is quite simple
And Iv'e shown previously how that factor of 3 enters the theory, not in the OP but in a later post where I corrected it for one inverse factor of speed of light squared. The wiki article says you combine the formulas, presumably for U and N to produce
How ot did this is not all too clear to me, but it's nice that the equation I derived
On the RHS, so happens to encode it. Then there's the issue of entropy, in the wiki article it has it written as
Might be just h, Iv'e adopted the reduced Planck constant, for arguments sake I'm not too bothered about these details, only the numerical coefficients. One thing we do have to be ultra careful with, is the fact wiki has for the dimensions of entropy S as k, the Boltzmann constant. In our model the entropy in fact is dimensionless, which is more true of entropy, so we really have
So a slight modification there. If we ignore the complexities in the square brackets of entropy production, the RHS of my equation in a simple form says, adopting also the zeta function interpretation of the ideal gas as
And/or
Now, trying to keep track of these coefficients can be pretty wild. There's loads of possibilities I could consider. For instance, the simple version of entropy is
The more complicated version is
We also take into consideration Einstein's
If you have any idea why this pops up in his equations, is a good start. It was plugged in like this because Newton incorrectly predicted the value of G off by a factor of
and is related to him not putting in the surface area correctly. The formulae for the area of a sphere is 
, then the 4π is obviously derived from the ratio of the circumference of the sphere. This is how it enters the Friedmann formula and is itself a solution from Einsteins equations, just as not just a convenient way to correct it, but it also serves a purpose of simplifying the equations. Some argue that 
is even more fundamental, but I'm not a true expert on this matter. If Newton had arrived at the right constant though, I'm sure of at least one thing, instead ofWe would have
So we might consider factors of 2/3, 8/3 and even 16/3 for the Friedmann equation depending on how you look at it.
Binding the possibilities together with entropy, we get some possible coefficients
For the other case if thd entropy definition we would have, including those extra factors of pi,
Then there's the issue of how you calibrate the exact number for the gas for the zeta functions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 08:45:49
Yeah I'm not sure why puppy was sayingMany of us are not sure why PuppyPower says that sort of thing.
He does it a lot.
I don't think he can help himself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 08:46:51
The picture in a pre big bang phase is...... guesswork and untestable.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 01/09/2021 11:12:29
The picture in a pre big bang phase is...... guesswork and untestable.
We can't see the big bang either so what's your point?
Besides, the cold big bang doesn't differ from the evolution of the hot big bang, it just says a bit more about realistic origins about low entropy in cold phases vs. low entropy in hot phases. Are you missing this bit perhaps?
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 01/09/2021 11:28:25
I would never entertain a pre big bang model unless it eventuslly gave the same results we expect that at some finite region in the universes past, that it was at one stage in a hot phase. But this hot phase, low entropy religion is just that. Its a steange place where the laws of thermodynamics do not seem to hold. So why a pre big bang phase? Well, it's simply to make sense of the physics. It's far better to presume the universe existed in a supercool all liquid phase, which was in a low entropy. It was a denegerate phase ball of liquid which became unstable (many reasons could be behind this, as we still don't know why thd universe expended in the first place), but the liquid cool phase heated up into a photon gas, which as a chemist(?) you'd recognize as a Helmholtz phase transition from liquid to gas. Saying silly things like, "Well we can't see it," really is silly because we can't see the big bang either. But as scientists at heart, are we happy with a model under a dichotomy which makes no sense, or would we better under a more sensible model to fit the facts?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 17:11:22
what's your point?The destruction of any information about what (if anything) happened before the big bang; by the big bang.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 17:12:51
Besides, the cold big bang doesn't differ from the evolution of the hot big bang
If I put a cold cup of tea in front of you would you expect it to spontaneously warm up?
Or do you realise that cooling down does, in fact, differ from heating up?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 17:14:44
. Saying silly things like, "Well we can't see it,"Nobody did, did they?
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 02/09/2021 00:01:09
what's your point?The destruction of any information about what (if anything) happened before the big bang; by the big bang.
Now you're making up your own version of this theory as you go along. No one said information was destroyed, in fact I said there was a short phase of non- conservation during which particle nucleation was involved.
The late Lloyd Motz, astronomer and cosmologist also agrees with me on this one. He was the first to invent a third derivative Friedmann equation. He said the and I quote, "The notion of a conserved Friedmann equation is an untirely unfounded assertion of cosmology." In other words, it's just a guess that it should be conserved.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 02/09/2021 00:04:27
Besides, the cold big bang doesn't differ from the evolution of the hot big bang
If I put a cold cup of tea in front of you would you expect it to spontaneously warm up?
Or do you realise that cooling down does, in fact, differ from heating up?
Except you ignored spacetime instabilities. Something which is well researched. I did say this before but you seem to have glossed over it.
Also, by your reasoning then we shouldn't believe the big bang, since no one knows what initially caused it to expand either? And no, it wasn't a bang, nor was it big. This was a phrase coined by Fred Hoyle as a joke about the model.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 02/09/2021 00:21:07
Let's take a look at the numerical coefficients. When N is absorbed into the general energy of a gas, wiki says we retrieve
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_gas
It says the particle number adjusts itself in a volume that it has a constant overall photon density. The picture in a pre big bang phase is ever-so-slighly more complicated in our given equation of the universe. There is no conservation of photons ib the pre big bang phase because we invited the notion of a particle nucleation event which was irrecersible. We can say the moment it began to heat up, from a liquid phase to a gas phase, was an isothermal phase transition, depending on how quickly the primordial state heated up. Regardless, it is to say that the overall density in the pre big bang phase remains the same just after leading into the Helmholtz gas phase.
For an ultra relativistic gas, the law is quite simple
And Iv'e shown previously how that factor of 3 enters the theory, not in the OP but in a later post where I corrected it for one inverse factor of speed of light squared. The wiki article says you combine the formulas, presumably for U and N to produce
How ot did this is not all too clear to me, but it's nice that the equation I derived
On the RHS, so happens to encode it. Then there's the issue of entropy, in the wiki article it has it written as
Might be just h, Iv'e adopted the reduced Planck constant, for arguments sake I'm not too bothered about these details, only the numerical coefficients. One thing we do have to be ultra careful with, is the fact wiki has for the dimensions of entropy S as k, the Boltzmann constant. In our model the entropy in fact is dimensionless, which is more true of entropy, so we really have
So a slight modification there. If we ignore the complexities in the square brackets of entropy production, the RHS of my equation in a simple form says, adopting also the zeta function interpretation of the ideal gas as
And/or
Now, trying to keep track of these coefficients can be pretty wild. There's loads of possibilities I could consider. For instance, the simple version of entropy is
The more complicated version is
We also take into consideration Einstein's
If you have any idea why this pops up in his equations, is a good start. It was plugged in like this because Newton incorrectly predicted the value of G off by a factor of
We would have
So we might consider factors of 2/3, 8/3 and even 16/3 for the Friedmann equation depending on how you look at it.
Binding the possibilities together with entropy, we get some possible coefficients
For the other case if thd entropy definition we would have, including those extra factors of pi,
Then there's the issue of how you calibrate the exact number for the gas for the zeta functions.
Since we're tracking variables, this might be important later. When we do a solid derivation of the third derivation, which I didn't, I just jumped into it, we'll notice when you take the derivative of
You get back
This is just calculus. It just felt like I should mention it to be thorough.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2021 19:18:59
Except you ignored spacetime instabilities.There may be a reason I glossed over this.
It's easy to make something which is unstable. Supercooled water is an example.
And yes, if you nudge it, it reforms itself into ice and releases energy.
But you have to put that energy into the material in the first place.
And, much more difficult, you would need to "stockpile " an entire universe worth of something massively unstable.
I'm not saying that's impossible; but to me it seems unlikely.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2021 19:21:54
Also, by your reasoning then we shouldn't believe the big bang, since no one knows what initially caused it to expand either?It's a matter of record that your idea is more or less the opposite of what I think.
This was a phrase coined by Fred Hoyle as a joke about the model.I seem to recall that he wasn't particularly pleased that his joke backfired so spectacularly.
However, nobody here has said it was an explosion and "big" is a matter of perspective.
The radius was small, but the energy was big.
Post by: puppypower on 08/09/2021 13:31:16
As an analogy, you meet a new person who arrives in your professional world. He/she is private but very professional, so you collaborate well but know very little of their previous background. Over the next year, you make observations about this person and try to infer what makes them tick. What are the odds you will be correct, not having any data from their previous 40 years, before you met?
Just because a consensus forms about this private person, at the water cooler, based on one year of data, does not mean anything, since there is still a very large data gap in the entire front end. If science understood the difference between truth and consensus, cosmology would be sent back to alternate theory, so we could brain storm instead of stonewall.
Cold Big Bang.
Photons are composed of both particles and waves. What would happen if we could separate photons into pure waves and pure particles? This is analogous to what science does to the unified nature electron. It conceptually separates mass and negative charge for a particle that cannot be broken down further.
Pure waves can mathematically add and subtract. If we had two wave generators, on opposite ends of a water wave tank, that are 180 degrees out of phase, the waves would cancel and stillness would appear in the middle of the tank. There is energy being pumped into the tank, but this energy would be hidden in the stillness of wave cancellation.
Atoms all have electrons. Electrons are negative charges in motion, with each negative charge moving a significant fraction of the speed of light. Each negative charge is generating a significant magnetic field, by itself, yet through wave addition the sum of all these moving magnetic parts, is not what we see. There is mostly magnetic stillness in the atomic wave tank.
Say we place wooden board in the stillness of the water wave tank. The wave addition will be disrupted, and the potential energy hidden within the stillness, will reappear, as troughs and crests on each side of the board. The once still tank will become full of waves.
The board is analogous to particles. Although pure waves can occupy the same space, particles take up space, and the waves cannot add the same way with some of this space occupied. The change in space, creates different wave properties, which do not add the same way, allowing the hidden energy to appear.
The stillness in the original wave tank will be analogous to cold, since the energy is hidden. To spawn the conditions of the BB, we need a partition, to help release the hidden energy and warm things up; particles.
The classic property of matter occupying space has a connection to space-time. The pure energy waves, if moving at speed of light, will be where space-time is disjointed. This is hidden since it is not part of space-time. However, the need for particles to have space, sets constraints in space and therefore in time; partition is connected to space-time. This alters the nature of the hidden energy; particle/wave composite.
The classic idea of the primordial atom, was a good intuition, since it implied a particle composite. Particles and the hidden waves combine, since the partition regulates the waves and the waves move the particles partition around so they actions become integrated.
I usually like to begin closer to the beginning, but this may be easier for everyone to see, since it is closer to the BB; day before the person comes to work.
Post by: Origin on 08/09/2021 14:43:07
I usually like to begin closer to the beginning, but this may be easier for everyone to see, since it is closer to the BB; day before the person comes to work.What I see is completely ignorant guy pretending to have a clue.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 15:16:11
It's what I expect to see from the guy who, for example, supports homoeopathy.I usually like to begin closer to the beginning, but this may be easier for everyone to see, since it is closer to the BB; day before the person comes to work.What I see is completely ignorant guy pretending to have a clue.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80667.msg615361#msg615361
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 13/09/2021 10:17:33
Also, by your reasoning then we shouldn't believe the big bang, since no one knows what initially caused it to expand either?It's a matter of record that your idea is more or less the opposite of what I think.This was a phrase coined by Fred Hoyle as a joke about the model.I seem to recall that he wasn't particularly pleased that his joke backfired so spectacularly.
However, nobody here has said it was an explosion and "big" is a matter of perspective.
The radius was small, but the energy was big.
I'm glad I don't think like you, honestly. It would be a boring world if I did.
Secondly, this doesn't really have to do with rejection of the misnomer of "initial state," than a well-traced history support that at least one point of the universe was hot. Interestingly, the Penrose model also speaks about how cold universes after an epoch have their own instabilities leading to recurring big bang themes, none of which really started in a hot big bang, but births from an ever growing and cooling universe in a final radiation phase with little degrees of thermodynamic freedom.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2021 18:56:52
Secondly, this doesn't really have to do with rejection of the misnomer of "initial state," than a well-traced history support that at least one point of the universe was hot.And that's why you should read stuff through before you post it.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 14/09/2021 06:12:02
Secondly, this doesn't really have to do with rejection of the misnomer of "initial state," than a well-traced history support that at least one point of the universe was hot.And that's why you should read stuff through before you post it.
Concerning what exactly?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 09:05:35
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 14/09/2021 10:45:25
Could you parse that sentence for us please?
You said that I need to read more carefully. To what did you have in mind specifically?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 12:34:06
What I said was
you should read stuff through before you post it.
You said that I need to read more carefully.You should read the stuff you post, before you post it.
Post by: BilboGrabbins on 16/09/2021 07:21:34
The irony...
What I said wasyou should read stuff through before you post it.You said that I need to read more carefully.You should read the stuff you post, before you post it.
I often do. So what are you on about?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 08:29:46
Could you parse that sentence for us please?