Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: caboose17 on 26/05/2008 04:05:25

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: caboose17 on 26/05/2008 04:05:25
what do you believe?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Soul Surfer on 26/05/2008 09:55:55
The big bang is correct and well modelled as far as the observational record extends but that is clearly not the end of it. I strongly suspect we are observing one universe within a vast multiverse of indefinite size containing many similar universes to our own. That is essentially constant.  See my evolutionary cosmology topic in the new theories section for a bit more explanation.  I do not believe there is any significant prospect of ever communicating with or observing one of these other universes so we will have to do without confirmation of their existence.

I also consider it very likely that our universe itself creates new universes as part of its normal existence.  These new universes are probably what we call black holes.

To my answer would be a tick in three of your boxes  big bang yes,  constant universe(multiverse) yes.  other yes. 

The concept of"scientific" creationism is a load of total rubbish.  The creation myths in ancient writings contain a great deal of wisdom about life and human nature and are valuable for that reason only.  To regard them as a basis for scientific actuality is totally batty.

It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings. This reduces their value and causes many modern people to ignore them and the true wisdom that they contain.  Please note I include the myth of Jesus Christ in that category and am a practicing Christian myself.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 26/05/2008 10:44:24
Quote
It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings.
Yes, indeed.
The existence of alternative opinions and 'explanations' doesn't imply that they have equal weight and are equally likely to be true.
The popular ideas about probability and 'odds' are partly to blame for the fact that people seem to think that any alternative idea should be treated on an equal footing with well established theories which are supported by a body of evidence.
The relative probability of two alternatives is not necessarily 50-50.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: DoctorBeaver on 26/05/2008 14:01:48
Quote
It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings

Ian - I agree with you totally. However, it is interesting that in proper Qabbalism (not that deranged nonsense proselytised by such as Madonna) Ein Soph Aur equates rather nicely to quantum foam. It is the "Great Nothingness" from which everything ultimately emerges.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: LeeE on 26/05/2008 23:16:24
I can't vote in that poll because a) for me it's not a question of belief, and b) because it doesn't include the one answer I know is correct.

I know that I don't know whether the BB is correct or not, so I can't 'believe' any of the options given - that would just be wishful thinking.

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

However, I do accept that the universe does actually exist, unless I'm just imagining it all [;)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 27/05/2008 10:11:08
I voted a constant Universe because that was the only option for me. By voting I mean that the Universe is without an end or beginning and is therefore the medium for all astral events, a minuscule proportion of which we are privileged to have witnessed. But from which we cannot make assumptions about because we have and always will have insufficient data!

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.

Andrew K Fletcher
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 27/05/2008 12:57:10
Quote
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's bizarre. Where did you get that idea from?
Where is the gravitational potential energy to  make that happen?
Where does all this extra mass come from?
Even Jupiter doesn't have enough mass for that.
Stars are the objects which are big enough to sustain that sort of behaviour.
Would you expect the Moon to do it, of a piece of rock?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 27/05/2008 18:44:52
The concept is my own.
The energy from gravity comes from the alignment of all of the particles on the Earth pushing against opposing particles that are aligned on the opposite side of the planet, each particle adds to the pulling force of the planet and this increases the attractive force of the planet enabling the larger planets to capture the lions share of the particles of decay from space, many, including the larger more visible objects decompose and then recompose on entry into the Earth’s field. The pushing / repelling forces of the particles are by no means lost in this equation they are the source of the heat at the core due to the friction generated by the immense pressure causing the particles to be in close proximity with other particles and this causes tremendous friction as the particles try to move away from each other but are confined to the molten chamber at the core.   

Jupiter does not have enough mass yet but it is slowly getting there and will become another sun long before the Earth does.

I expect the moon to decay into the Earth’s mass when the attractive forces become great enough to strip away the moon’s surface and cause tremendous upheaval with the moons gravitational field-giving rise to huge distortion and friction on the moon, as is the case with Jupiter’s own Moons

Stars are planets that have reached critical mass and become suns themselves

Andrew K Fletcher
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: LeeE on 27/05/2008 20:18:00
"I'd much rather be happy than right any day" - Slartibartfast.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 29/05/2008 18:43:19
AKF
Have you read any books on standard ideas about Cosmology? Your model is well out of kilter with accepted Science. The fact is that the present models do an extremely good job of explaining our observations and have been confirmed again and again. I seriously recommend that you find out about the existing theories before you go too far out on a limb; can you seriously think that 'they' have got it so wrong?
'They' didn't just wake up one morning with the present Cosmology running around their heads, you know.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 29/05/2008 22:25:58
The thing about lots of people going in the same direction does not mean the direction they are going in is the correct one. Take a shoal of fish for example, they circle in harmony as each of them tries not to end up as the lunch of a predator. Now all of those fish could argue that they are safe in a shoal. Except the ones that get eaten! And indeed for now they are definately safer inside the tightly packed shoal so long as the pack sticks together. Whales have learned how to exploit this habit of its prey forming a tight ball. It has learned to blow bubbles all around the swirling frightened prey as it brings them closer and closer to the surface and then scoops up the whole shoal proving that safety in numbers may not be as safe as we think it is.

Andrew K Fletcher "Out on a Limb"

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 29/05/2008 23:28:15
1. What evidence do you have to fit your theory?
2. Do you know just how much evidence there is to fit 'theirs'?

And they're not fish.
btw, the behavior of each fish is in its favour. It stands the greatest chance of surviving by staying in the shoal. If another pattern were more favorable they would have evolved to follow it. They aren't all that dumb! The fish that stays out on its own is just drawing attention to itself and will get eaten PDQ.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 30/05/2008 11:02:49
Once the astronomers had figured out the mass of Gliese 581 C, they then used one of Kepler's laws to figure out its distance from the star. That gave them a rough estimate of the planet's temperature—anywhere from 0 to 40 degrees Celsius. Where the true temperature lies along that spectrum depends on how much light the planet reflects, which in turn depends on its composition. But you can't tell what a planet's made of unless you know how dense it is. To get the density, you have to figure out the volume, which usually requires watching the planet "transit" across its star—a partial eclipse that lets you measure its size. Astronomers can then compare the measured density to the known values for substances like rock, iron, and hydrogen. A good sense of the planet's composition helps them make a better guess about its temperature, and the likelihood that it can support life. However, it's very unlikely that we'll ever see Gliese 581 C transiting across its star, so scientists may not be able to determine its composition.
Explainer thanks David Charbonneau and Dimitar Sasselov of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Dr. Jo Pitesky of NASA.
Correction, April 26, 2007: This article originally stated that Jupiter is 100 times the mass of Earth. (Return to the corrected sentence.) http://www.slate.com/id/2165044/

Note the word Guess regarding temperature of planets.
This is very important, because at present the model predicts a hot planetary birth and a gradual cooling, so guesses will obviously be loaded in favour of the current model of planetary evolution.

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

The point is no matter how sure we are of the current paradigm it is at best a wild guess, nothing more and nothing less The eminent scientists above are humble enough to admit this.

To create an explosion in a swirling ball of dust and have it forming into a molten mass and then cooling down over billions of years sounds a little absurd if you think about it for a little while. What caused the ignition? Why didn’t the material hurtle away from the violent explosion rather than it forming a homogenous mass? Where did all of this energy suddenly spring from? What evidence do we have for this?

It makes more sense that we have a gradual seeding of a planet as atoms form into a mass and then gradually attracts more atoms until they are large enough to attract solid objects. The moons surface shows this to have some merit with all of the impact craters and stellar / moon dust on it’s surface. Here we do not see a hot planet but a cold planet with little instability on its surface. It certainly fits the pattern of a gradually growing planet rather than a hot planet cooling down!

What about the sun? Could this be the formation of another planet from a dust cloud too? Or is this a planet that has become unstable and reached the point where it decays over many billions of years sending out its atomic particles to settle on other emerging planets? Could it have been H20 that became unstable as the planets mass increased that fuels the enormous energy of the sun? Was this water once the life-bringer to a planet teaming with life very much like our own that gradually warmed up until it grew hot enough to turn the fluids into volatile gasses? Could it be that as the sun ultimately cools down and again becomes stable and begins to grow?

What about Jupiter?

Jupiter has several unique characteristics: http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/jupiter.html
·   The first one is its immense size. It is indeed, as its name suggests, the king of the planets. About 1,320 Earths could fit inside of it.
·   The second characteristic is the Great Red Spot. This is a gigantic (three Earth diameters) storm that has existed for more than three centuries (Galileo discovered it in the seventeenth century). It will probably continue to exist for hundreds or thousands of years, for it is constantly being fed by smaller eddies surrounding it, such as the white spots in the picture at the right.
·   The third characteristic is its many moons. Jupiter has the most moons of any planet in the solar system: 63.
·   Another interesting property of Jupiter is how it generates heat. As seen in the table below, the average temperature of Jupiter is approximately 160 K. However, due to the equation for thermal equilibrium (below), it should only be about 100 K. This extra heat is generated due to gravitational contraction - the planet is slowly shrinking in diameter. This way, by compressing by only a few millimeters every year, it can generate heat by increasing the pressure of its constituent gas.
Again we see that the observed temperatures do not fit with the maths so we add that the “planet must be shrinking” in order to generate more heat? When logically the planet must be growing and the core must be getting hotter in order to explain the higher temperature levels than expected. 

What about other planets? How does their size compare to the temperatures and how much of this heat relates to activity at the core? 

What happens to gas and liquids under extreme compression? Hot Ice?

The multipurpose Z machine, whose main use is to produce data to improve the safety and reliability of the US nuclear deterrent, has compressed spherical capsules of hydrogen isotopes to release neutrons — the prerequisite for controlled nuclear fusion and essentially unlimited energy for humanity.

But it has potential practical value. The work, which appears online March 11 in Nature Physics, was undertaken partly because phase diagrams that predict water’s state at different temperatures and pressures are not always correct — a fact worrisome to experimentalists working at extreme conditions, as well as those having to work at distances where direct measurement is impractical. For example, work reported some months ago at Z demonstrated that astronomers’ ideas about the state of water on the planet Neptune were probably incorrect. http://www.physorg.com/news93200439.html


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 31/05/2008 12:14:39
The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.

Now, even if light is eventually found to be a constant “which I doubt” but can be bent by the gravity from other huge planets, this can seriously affect the distance of objects even when measurements are taken over many years. A projectile has mass on Earth. Measured over 50 metres and travelling fast enough it could be viewed as a constant speed. Yet the end result is the object falls to Earth. One could then argue that is because gravity is affecting it’s velocity and this my friend is precisely the point. Gravity does indeed affect velocity here on Earth, so it must follow that gravity also affects the velocity of objects passing within the gravitational field of planets and stars as it travels many billions of miles. Add to this reflection from particles orbiting around Large masses in distant galaxies and it soon becomes apparent that relying on light as a constant might not be all it is cut out to be. So take away the red-shift, which clearly cannot be relied upon and what have we got left as evidence for the assumption of a big bang for the arrival of the Universe?

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

I look forward to your reply with interest.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: syhprum on 31/05/2008 18:01:51
I must qualify my vote for the Big Bang that my view is that our universe is only one of a quasi infinite number and the Big bang will be followed by the Big Crunch add infinitum.
It is well established that the minimum mass for a star to maintain nuclear fusion of Hydrogen is 80 times that of Jupiter all though relatively short lived fusion of Deuterium can occur at 15 Jupiter masses
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 01/06/2008 00:59:29
Quote
The point is no matter how sure we are of the current paradigm it is at best a wild guess, nothing more and nothing less The eminent scientists above are humble enough to admit this.
Not "a wild guess' but an informed estimate with upper and lower limits (not usually stated in the Press but an essential constituent of any Scientific publication).

What possible mechanism can you suggest for the Earth (and presumably every other object in space) gaining mass?

Liquid water is a good medium for heat transfer but have you any idea of the proportion of the depth of the Oceans is of he total Earth's diameter ?  It corresponds to no more than the 'bumps' on the surface of an orange skin. What difference is that likely to have on the cooling rate in the interior?

The Earth is not thought to be just cooling down but there are thermonuclear reactions going on inside it which account for a significant amount of internal heating. Remember that the rocky planets have a very different composition from that of the stars; there are many  other radioactive heavy isotopes in the Earth's core than Hydrogen isotopes, the majority constituent of stars. That is because they have been formed in a Supernova.

What sort of fringe literature do you read for your strange picture of the World? Have you no idea of the completeness of the current views?
 Whilst I would be the first to concede that we do not have a Theory of Everything, the theories we currently accept have a huge body to support them and their relevance to what we observe. It has been possible to predict and verify so much of what is going on around us by using current theories. Merely pointing out some possible exceptions doesn't invalidate the whole of Science.
A new theory, such as your own  must satisfy and improve on the present state of knowledge. It needs evidence - not just 'fancy' and must include and explain all presently known facts and evidence.
I have to question your real understanding of the accepted theories if you are so set on your own versions.
Science is a very disciplined and conservative business, you know. Every step has to be based on as much verification as possible and not on personal whim. That's why the peer review system works so well. It leads to a number of brilliant ideas being rejected at first but also prevents thousands of loony ones leading us up blind alleys. Personal feelings have to come second, I'm afraid but the 'truth' will always come out in the end.
The 'giants' of Science have all gone through the mill of conventional Science before arriving at their theories. None of them woke up one morning with an independent complete view of things and invented a completely new model. True greatness is, actually, very humble, when it comes to Science.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: graham.d on 01/06/2008 14:58:42
I can't vote in that poll because a) for me it's not a question of belief, and b) because it doesn't include the one answer I know is correct.

I know that I don't know whether the BB is correct or not, so I can't 'believe' any of the options given - that would just be wishful thinking.

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

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


As a figment of Lee's imagination, I have to agree with him. I am a firm believer in the statement "Everything we know is wrong", err, including that statement. I think I've just disappered in a puff of logic.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: graham.d on 01/06/2008 15:19:35
More seriously, I think there is some danger in being wholly logical. It can be better to take a "positivist" view in order to be able to say anything at all without a trainload of caviats. As a physicist it is better to accept a theory as a reality for the purposes of conversation but just keep in the back of your mind that the whole edifice may crumble at the drop of a self contradictory hat. So I would tend to say that there was "probably" a big bang and work from there, at least, compared with the other options on offer.

This is rather more speculative than other theories that do not stretch the physics quite so far. When it comes to questions such as is the earth older than 4000 or so years, I am inclined to be very much more robust in saying yes to this. Adding caviats here simply weakens an overwhelmingly strong argument to one on an equal footing to a creationist one - at least in some people's minds. I note that in New Scientist (April) it quotes a survey showing only 40% of Americans think that "human beings, as we know them, developed from an earlier species of animals", 20% were not sure, and 40% though that this was true. Scientists are clearly not communicating very well.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 01/06/2008 21:01:04
Say a diesel engine requires 10 litres of water to maintain its temperature and there are no leaks or pressure loss to the atmosphere. The Truck does 1 million miles for arguments sake (more common than one would think) and does 8 miles per gallon, so we divide 1 million by 8  = 5682500 litres X 10 kwh / Kg = 5682500KWH cooled by 10 Litres of water with no overall loss of water, because the water does not vanish. Add to this the water returned to the atmosphere when the diesel is burned and we begin to see the true value of this thin layer of water you doubt would have any effect on the cooling of the planet due to its mass.

1 litre of water will quench a 20 mil x 20 x 60 mil white-hot steel bar in 2 minutes, or put out a substantial fire.

Objects gaining mass in space happens whether you acknowledge it or not. I have argued this point before on here and no one can deny that particles of atoms, atoms, meteors and even comets have added to the mass of Earth over billions of years. The force is gravity that attracts mass and Gravity after all is a result of mass so it must follow that the more mass our planet attracts the greater the attractive force becomes, so it follows that the larger planets in our system attract the larger objects and this was observed when the meteors were absorbed by Jupiter for all to see during the recent collisions.

Not a wild guess but an informed guess with upper and lower limits? Who has the arrogance to put limits on the Universe? Who says the guesses are informed guesses?

As for the peer review system, it is not the perfect vehicle you profess it to be. May I draw your attention to the peer reviewed Fraud being investigated in the drug cartel’s corner as we debate this and what about the debunked eminent scientist who fiddled the aspirin breast cancer scam? What about the DNA rip off where they stole Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray photographs claiming it to be their own? So please don’t use the Peer review system to back you out of a corner. Quote: “It leads to a number of brilliant ideas being rejected at first”.

Quote: “The Earth is not thought to be just cooling down but there are thermonuclear reactions going on inside it which account for a significant amount of internal heating. Remember that the rocky planets have a very different composition from that of the stars; there are many  other radioactive heavy isotopes in the Earth's core than Hydrogen isotopes, the majority constituent of stars. That is because they have been formed in a Supernova.”

The thermonuclear reactions at the core are caused by what action?
For every action there must be a reaction right?

Formed in a supernova? Who was there to see this?

Is the Earth shrinking? Is the Earth Growing? Is the Earth stable?

Andrew K Fletcher
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 01/06/2008 22:40:04
Don't quote what was clearly a commercial-corruption-inspired fake peer review as a reason for rejecting the system. The system doesn't always work, of course, but, as in your quoted case, the failures get revealed. Was the DNA information incorrect, then? Peer review is not there to protect individuals- it's there to maintain stability. Would you expect someone to fund your particular ideas as research topics on the basis of the opinions you have presented?

You are mis-quoting the 'action and reaction' thing, actually, but the 'action' in this case is due to the presence of radioactive isotopes.

Water 'quenching' hot steel is due to the latent heat of vaporisation. When the vapour condenses, the heat is transferred to the atmosphere. Are the oceans boiling? Is the rate of vaporisation significantly more than you would expect from 1kW per sq metre of Solar energy.? In any case, the only mechanism by which 'heat' can be lost from the Earth can only be radiation so that local bit of transfer is not relevant to the final temperature balance. (See Stefan's Law and a few other well established principles to see that the Earth's effective surface temperature is determined more by Solar radiation than anything else.

You can tell what elements are present / being formed in Supernovae by looking at the spectrum of light from such events.

The history of day-length indicates that the rate of accretion has been pretty small as far back as they can see. If it were significant, the moment of inertia would have changed and so would the day length.

If you so vehemently doubt the Science that you read, how can you square that opinion with the fact that technology constantly draws on the Sciences (and often in the very latest theories) and manages to show that they work. You wouldn't be on this forum if quantum mechanics, electromagnetic theory, relativity and chemistry hadn't got things pretty much right.
Or is it just in a few instances that you find fault?
Perhaps if you read some more reputable sources you might be better informed.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 02/06/2008 10:19:37
RE: Peer review and it's purpose
I quoted the clearly commercial corruption to show that the system is not as robust and infallible as we are led to believe it is.

What is the Peer Review System? Who are the peers of Non-Academic scientists? The Peer Review System is designed to keep out the “Fringe scientists” and safeguard the jobs of academia. It is run by Academia so all it has to do to ensure it’s own perpetuation is to publish papers by Academia and reject papers by people outside of Academia, “who according to your own words are on the fringe of science”. And to which I wholeheartedly agree! Because it is the fringe of science that moves science forward. Swimming around with the shoal of Academics and trying to avoid being singled out is never going to move science forward and never has! It takes a “Fringe Scientist” who thinks differently to challenge the safety of the shoal!

http://mediaresearchhub.ssrc.org/news/call-for-papers-legal-security-and-privacy-issues-in-it-lspi/

Read and learn: The conference committee is seeking submissions of papers for oral presentations at the conference in two major categories:
·   Academic, peer reviewed papers - these papers will be peer reviewed by members of the program committee and other independent reviewers (where necessary) and will be published under a non-exclusive copyright agreement in the edited conference proceedings with ISBN. Selected papers will also be published in several leading international law journals. Case studies, abstracts of research in progress, as well as full research papers will be considered for the conference program for presentation purposes. However, only complete papers wil l be published i n the proceedings. Previously published peer-reviewed papers will also be considered, provided the authors(s) are granted license from the publisher and publication information are noted in the article.
·   Non-academic papers - these papers will not be peer reviewed. These papers will be selected on merit by the program committee. This category covers corporate papers, best practices, new technologies, policy issues, etc.
Why do you think there are no Peer Reviewers attached to the “Non-Academic Papers”
Could it be “The Not Invented Here Syndrome” “Or the jobs for the boys Syndrome”? Jobs in Academia are safe providing they corner the market on publications and with the Peer Review System in place, they have done just that!

But in doing so have already sealed their own fate, because they are stifling the original thought and in doing so are strangling the progress of science and calling into question their own validity. And this is why theories like big bangs, Black Holes, have a huge backing, not because they deserve a second glance but because if you write a paper to demolish these and make these false theories transparently obvious, then the whole of academia who perpetuated and endorsed them is going to look pretty damned stupid and obsolete.

Science is about truth not politics!

I am not mis-quoting the action and reaction thing! If it is due to the presence of radioactive isotopes, which I have already stated it is earlier. What is causing the action that forces the isotopes to become too close to each other and then become unstable? Could it be the immense pressure that I stated earlier? Or is there some quirk in science we are all overlooking?

I mentioned the Diesel Engine analogy to show how water can transfer heat into the atmosphere and in doing so showed how the atmosphere can also transfer heat into the Universe.

The oceans are boiling where the heat from the core is transferred directly to the water. So the answer is yes, there is significant heat being transferred to the oceans from the ocean floor! See deep ocean smokers. We are talking about the thermal nuclear energy from the core of the planet, the energy that provides Iceland with it’s central heating and Japan with hot pools that are frequented by its monkey population, The energy that has been said would provide the entire Human Population with all the power it could ever need. The same energy that transformed Lanzarote into a wasteland and poured molten rock into the oceans.

I mentioned the diesel engine and water cooling because like the earth’s core and indeed the hot steel bar it transfers its heat to the atmosphere, where it dissipates. The oceans also provide a method of dissipating the heat, both from solar energy and thermal energy from the core, And you are right to state that the heat can be radiated from the Earth’s surface and thermals obviously rise and transfer their heat into the universe and the cooling of this thermal energy causes downdraft and this circulation of air over deserts is called the Hadley Cell. So we have described a very efficient means of transferring heat from the planet to the Universe. So why is our planet taking so long to cool down? You have stated thermal nuclear reaction may have something to do with it. And Eminent scientists have stated when confronted by odd temperatures on other planets that there is another source of heat!

My theory is not at odds with the current theory that much. In fact it is pretty damned close except for the timescales involved. Mine also includes particles coming together and fusing into a planet., However not the violent beginning perpetuated with zero evidence but a stable seeding and gradual infinitesimally slow growth that began with a stable surface evolving to a surface like our own moon and progressed, increasing its mass to the point where the pressure at the core was capable of holding the atomic particles close enough to generate thermal nuclear reaction. Here Pressure from the mass is the action that causes the reaction as the pushing / repelling force of every single particle on Earth is focused towards and opposing particle, while the attractive forces combine together to attract more and more mass!

Along the way, our planet became large enough to cause atoms to bind together in many ways, non-more important than the binding of hydrogen and oxygen to make water. Water then provides the surface with an atmosphere and due to the fact that water has a habit of flowing to the lowest land surface it gave rise to oceans and rivers in the familiar water cycle we see today. But again at an infinitesimally slow rate as the building blocks arrive from the decay of other planets as they become stars in an endless conveyor belt of composition and decomposition. Scientists are studying the tails of comets to find out more about the building blocks of the Universe. This does not sound like people who are absolutely sure they have all of the answers does it?

You refer to the history of day length…. The history of the arrival of mankind, the dinosaurs and even the trilobites is insignificant in the history of a planet. I tried to point this out in another thread about Is the Earth Continually recycling it’s surface. It was stated that it would take approximately 1 million years to erase all traces of human existence given the turn over at the surface.

You cannot rely on ice cores to date events if there is no ice to rely on that stretches back far enough. You cannot rely on fossils if they have been recycled a billion times into rock, sand, sandstone, lava…

In order to understand the Universe we have to stop trying to put limits on events that are in a completely different timescale to what we are capable of imagining. And contrary to popular belief the Universe does not revolve around the Earth. The Earth is not even an insignificant atom from a particle of sand compared to the Universe!

If I read the Bible enough do I also become a believer?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: BenV on 02/06/2008 10:40:24
What about the DNA rip off where they stole Rosalind Franklin’s x-ray photographs claiming it to be their own?

I think it's worth pointing out that they didn't claim her work to be their own.  Certainly, she didn't get the credit she deserved, but it's not like they were racing to work it out and then stole her work.  They were shown the x-ray crystallography results by Rosalind's superior, and integrated them into the other evidence they had in order to work out the structure of DNA.  Rosalind was not trying to find the DNA structure (and anyway, didn't have the other results they had collected), so it's not like they stole her work and then beat her to it.

I'm not getting involved in the rest of this debate, but thought it was worth clearing that one up.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 02/06/2008 11:22:28
Good point Ben, which I accept. However I was merely showing that the peer review system is far from being bullet proof, so please accept the following as a replacement and there are many replacesments> Academic article scrapped over plagiarism
In an unusual move an academic publisher has withdrawn an online article because of apparent plagiarism

By Peter Williams 03 Mar 2008
Michael J Dunn, editor-in-chief of the journal Proteomics, said the article ­ Mitochondria, the Missing Link between Body and Soul: Proteomic Perspective Evidence, by Mohamad Warda and Jin Han ­ published online on Wiley InterScience had been retracted and would not appear in print.

“The article has been retracted because it contains apparently plagiarised passages from several previously published articles,” said Dunn.

Ian Russell, chief executive of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, told IWR: “Accusations of plagiarism in academia are pretty rare. Academics are about as honest as they come, although clearly plagiarism does happen even among academics.”

Dunn said: “We are fully aware of the considerable interest and controversy that the article by Warda and Han has engendered, both with respect to the issue of plagiarism, as well as the controversial viewpoints expressed by the authors.

“Clearly, human error has caused a misstep in the normally rigorous peer review process that is standard practice for Proteomics and should prevent such issues arising.”

Dunn said he had acted as soon as the problems with the article had been brought to his attention.

The episode comes at a time of increasing disquiet in education over student cheating and plagiarism; it will also highlight concerns over the peer review process.

Russell said: “Plagiarism is difficult to detect and the peer review process is not there to detect it. Historically, there have been no tools available to editors and publishers to root out this problem, although there are technology solutions being worked on which automatically cross-reference.”
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2211253/academic-article-scrapped-3851673

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=thousands-of-copycat-articles
A new computerized scan of the biomedical research literature has turned up tens of thousands of articles in which entire passages appear to have been lifted from other papers. Based on the study, researchers estimate that there may be as many as 200,000 duplicates among some 17 million papers in leading research database Medline.

The finding has already led one publication to retract a paper for being too similar to a prior article by another author.

Andrew K Fletcher "Still Out on a Limb"
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 02/06/2008 13:34:10
If you want to set up an alternative network of 'Your Science' then no one will stop you.
If you want to be funded (which is what it's all about) then you need to convince people with money that their money has at least an even chance of not being wasted.
The only way to convince them is to demonstrate a reliably working model of Science and I am not aware of an honest alternative one which 'works'.
There is a network of charlatans who rip people off with magnetic bangles, snake oil, magic beads and wonder tools. That system 'works' for them because it makes a lot of money for some but I guess you would not support  that sort of practice.
So how do you get a system which is best value for all of society? You have a system which involves, as you say, jobs for the boys (just the same as the fringe commercial non-Science industry) but which has a built-in mechanism of conservatism to avoid the wildest excesses  and waste which a free for all would involve.
Instead of getting all upset by the fact that 'they' won't listen to what you have to say you have to learn to talk the right language with the right amount of rigour and from a truly informed standpoint.
If you make a statement which doesn't hold water, then you have to rethink it and back it up with more evidence. Don't get mad - get even.
When you complain of the system failing I think what you are complaining about is cynical exploitation and corruption - not the system, as such. Where commercial interests are at work, the risk is highest.
But, in most of the fora on most of the Internet Science sites, the issues are not commercial - they are about people trying to 'get Science right'. An invalid idea will be criticised, not for commercial reasons, but because a disinterested reader has spotted an error in thinking or a wrong 'fact'.
Because there is little commercial interest in Cosmological matters - far too blue skies for investors to be interested - the majority of people involved are in it for genuine interest and, of course, ego polishing.  Money has to come from Governments. You are more likely to get a fair deal (but not a lot of money) in that direction than in Pharms etc., where the real money lies.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: syhprum on 02/06/2008 16:21:57
What has become of the voting system?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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.


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
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: graham.d 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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?

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: qazibasit 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: qazibasit on 13/06/2008 14:12:36
nothing its still going on.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 13/06/2008 19:22:24
Was that a reply?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: qazibasit on 14/06/2008 21:23:23
probably yes
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: qazibasit 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: LeeE on 15/06/2008 15:20:45
Sophie - DNFTT - life's too short.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 15/06/2008 15:32:01
Point taken, once I'd looked up what dnftt means.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher 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"
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 18/06/2008 17:36:25
I have learned a lot about you for sure!
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 18/06/2008 22:01:25
I hope you have learned that I make sure of my facts before I spout off about something.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 19/06/2008 14:04:37
No! You make sure someone else has thought of it first and published it before you digest and regurgitate it without thinking for yourself. And when you find someone who does not conform to your way of non-thinking you begin to throw insults and suggest the person you are conversing with is unscientific in their line of thought. Well, how do you suppose science moves forward? Does it move forward by everyone accepting everything that has been written by someone else? Or does it take someone moving in the opposite direction to discover something unexpected and novel?

The other person who wrote do not feed the trolls did not think of the abbreviation himself but copied something that some other pleb had wrote in order to make himself look smart and in doing so has revealed he is not worth giving the time of day to. Fortunately my memory still holds true after 51 years and it will be used to great effect in remembering his rather short and meaningless post.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 19/06/2008 14:37:03
I only speak as I find. Your behaviour has been very troll-like so I had to agree with the comment.
Your problem seems to be that you get set on some alternative view of a process and are not prepared to test that against all the existing evidence and models. If, instead of getting upset about my / our reactions, you did some proper reading around and, just possibly, accepting some of what you read of conventional Science, you might see why some of your ideas seem so whacky. After all, as I have said before, not ALL of Science is wrong, so which bits do you want to accept and which bits not? Pick the bits that you do accept and subject your new, alternative models to those bits. Do they fit? You may well find that they don't.

I do not 'regurgitate' thoughtlessly. I use my past knowledge and skills, based on a body of well accepted proof and on a certain amount of experiment by me.  I do have a track record of inventing (working) systems and producing technical papers. My advantage was that I had to justify virtually every line of reasoning to my peers and I didn't manage to throw a wobbly when I was disagreed with. 

Quote
Well, how do you suppose science moves forward? Does it move forward by everyone accepting everything that has been written by someone else? Or does it take someone moving in the opposite direction to discover something unexpected and novel?
But, unless that 'someone' actually understands what it's all about (including existing stuff he is building on) then, for 'novel', read 'unsupportable'. I have read enough of your ideas to realise that you basic knowledge of much of established Science is very shaky. This is why you are so reluctant to quote actual figures in your declamations. The wonderful thing about Science is that there are so many cross links which support one another. 'Basic' Science is not wrong. Learn that first.

What you write is interpreted as troll-like because you love to post but refuse to be pinned down to solid facts. Don't get offended; get better informed.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 19/06/2008 15:24:09
My behaviour? Where have I once used foul language? Where have I got uptight about your reasoning? I have never thrown a "wobbly on this forum" I never try to belittle anyone. I may on occasions think aloud while getting my head around problems and offering an alternative explanation for observations like your back ground radiation. You never did reply to my suggestion that the background radiation may becoming from stars and not the big bang and the direction of that5 radiation might be travelling in the opposite direction to our insignificant spot in the Universe.

As for setting up a mathematical equation on the whole Universe to show it has already been there and never originated and will never end, I would need to live to infinity myself in order to complete it. And as I have more pressing things to do than write chalk on a blackboard and grow old, grey bald and demented while doing it. I will continue to think laterally.

You mention you have to get every line past your peers. Perhaps this might be because your peers are only interested if your line of thinking does not conflict with theirs?

I was not offended. I was informed about my opponents line of thinking, that’s all. You nor anyone here could offend me. However, if you were to insult or assault anyone of my family that might prompt a very different reaction from me and you probably would not like me any more.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Flyberius on 19/06/2008 15:39:53
Thank you Andrew for providing the most "entertaining" read since I bumped into a "free energy" forum.  I just had to register here to let you know.
By all means continue with this crusade against the scientific community I wont stop you.  Infact I may just go make a brew and go read the rest of your posts.  I have a mate here who only got a B in his GCSE science and he can see the funny side :)
If anyone wants a real laff check out the "conspiracy of science".  Its a corker

BTW if your theory is correct does that mean that our little solar system will eventually be 9 stars orbitting a black hole or some black holes and some stars orbiting a black hole?  If so wouldn't these structures be observable elsewhere in the universe?  I mean 9 stars spinning around a star/blackhole cant be easy to miss, especially if we have found gas planets that dwarf jupiter, I mean how much bigger do they need to get? lol
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 19/06/2008 16:27:56
Quote
As for setting up a mathematical equation on the whole Universe to show it has already been there and never originated and will never end
That would be too much to ask. No, I would be much more happy for some demonstration of  knowledge  of the most elementary bits of mechanics and Newton's Laws which would then be a basis for giving some credence to your more adventurous notions. If they don't satisfy Newtons Laws, to a first approximation, then they have to be nutty, remember.

And 'behaviour' doesn't have to be as unsubtle as being rude. It is a general term which describes the way someone conducts themselves, for instance the way they argue  scientifically. You can insult someone's intelligence too, you know, by expecting them to believe something with no foundation.

I can rest easy in the knowledge that I will not wake up with a horse's head on my pillow next to me, then?

Flyberius - they can get a lot bigger than Big J.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 19/06/2008 22:27:13
The sad thing is that you think this is a crusade against the scientific community. It is nothing of the kind. All I have been trying to show is that there are many ways of looking at problems. When we are dealing with then Universe, nothing is set in stone! No one knows how it all works in a unified field theory and in our lifetime probably never will. The thing that gets me going is that people read a hypothesis and just because a large group of academics add their name to it, they dare not question it. Well, I learned a long time ago to take nothing for granted.

Not convinced there is a black hole out there except in the head of the person that came up with the weird notion.

The evolving planet hypothesis predicts that stars will form as mass increases, and yes there may be another star emerging in our own solar system and when it happens it will decompose and lose its particles into the universe and accelerate the growth of other planets. Eventually the sun will cool down when it reaches the point where there is insufficient gravity to provide the light bringing reaction and will become a dull star and eventually will reverse from decomposing to recomposing and repeating the cycle. The idea of all the planets turning into suns fits but not on the same timescale as you interpreted it to. As one star is born another is on the way to becoming ineffective and growing cold. It may be that two stars cannot be close together due to their polarity being reversed

The Gas phase of planets comes as the planet reaches sufficient size as to attract sufficient hydrogen to outnumber the oxygen molecules, again part of the evolutionary planet hypothesis. Hydrogen arriving here on Earth has to be pared off with oxygen in order to create water, this is how hydrogen is attracted to the mass for now at least.

I do not expect anyone to believe. I expect them to form an opinion for themselves and question everything because today’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 19/06/2008 23:10:25
Quote
today’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!
Well there's your problem, Andrew. You clearly believe that but it is seldom true.
Today's Science has not 'proved the old stuff to be wrong'. It has extended it and modified it because it has been based on it.
Hence, tomorrows Science can be expected to do the same.
I am, of course, only referring to developments since the Enlightenment.

Today's daft ideas won't prove anything to have been wrong because they have no foundation. Do you not realise that an idea that is based on someone's fancy is about as likely to be proved right as I am to float up to the ceiling.

Yes, there are many ways of looking at things but, I'm afraid that most of them are just not valid - particularly the ones which are not based on evidence.

Do you really think you are in any position to challenge the competence of an eminent Cosmologist to propose Black Holes? That's a pretty arrogant statement from someone who is reluctant ever to get into any substantial theory. Do you actually understand the basis of the black hole concept? Do you think it is just based on fancy?

What is the basis for all this waffle about your alternative Cosmology? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you do any measurements or have you used existing data to come to this conclusion? Put it another way; what is your authority or basis for rejecting the accepted model?

If you refuse to engage in proper Science, how can you take exception to the 'Troll' epithet?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Flyberius on 19/06/2008 23:37:43
Andrew can you show me an observation of any of these processes.  And some maths.  Some maths would be wonderful.  God knows I wont understand it but someone here will.  Anyway nuff said.  Flame war on a science forum. 


(BTW am I reading this right.  20,000+ posts!  How long has this forum been going?)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: LeeE on 20/06/2008 00:29:13
No! You make sure someone else has thought of it first and published it before you digest and regurgitate it without thinking for yourself.

Sorry for being a bit late again (stick to what I'm good at) but that's a totally unfounded accusation.  I've not been around here very long but I've been here long enough to realise that that is not sophiecentaur's modus operandi.

Foul!
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: JimBob on 20/06/2008 00:48:26
Hi guyws,

Before this gets personal, can we back off and just take a breather? It will help a lot as we try not to let the discussion get to heated.

Thanks,

JimBob
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: LeeE on 20/06/2008 00:55:57
Do you mean too heated?

Anyway, it's not even warm yet, and it's optional to participate [;D]

Sophie seems to want to go for it, and I'm always happy to start throwing spanners around [;D]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 23/06/2008 09:41:41
May I suggest an important read before you assume I have not researched my statements again. Forbidden Science by Richard Milton.

There is a review here: http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Science-Suppressed-Research-Change/dp/1857023021

Another revealing book from Milton is Alternative Science; More reviews here: http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0892816317/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Milton, who I have spoken with about my own problems with academic attitudes towards anything that challenges their closely guarded and vehemently defended subjects has written a compelling account of deliberate attempts to suppress valuable research and emerging theories. And in some cases at a great loss of lives.

Dark matter candidates have not been observed. All that has been observed is anomalies with gravity! Even in our own galaxy we identify new planets. All planets generate gravity! The dark matter out there are large (currently obscured from detection) planets and dull / spent stars that will be found in due course as our technology improves. No mass = no gravity! The greater the mass = higher gravity!
Gravity is not a mystical force that lives in black holes and bends space time it is the sum of all of the particles that combine to make a planet. And contrary to popular belief this happens very-very slowly giving the earth an evolutionary age far older than the current estimates.

Great Beyond - New Planet Discovered

Jupiter
Geoffrey Marcy and Paul Butler, a pair of astronomers from the United States, have discovered a planet that closely resembles Jupiter. Though astronomers have found other planets out there, none so far have so closely resembled the planets of our own solar system. This new planet, which is being called Jupiter's cousin, orbits the star 55 Cancri and takes 13 years to go around the star once. It takes Jupiter just over 11 years to circle our sun.

 
Quote
today’s facts frequently become yesterdays errors!
Well there's your problem, Andrew. You clearly believe that but it is seldom true.
Today's Science has not 'proved the old stuff to be wrong'. It has extended it and modified it because it has been based on it.
Hence, tomorrows Science can be expected to do the same.
I am, of course, only referring to developments since the Enlightenment.

Today's daft ideas won't prove anything to have been wrong because they have no foundation. Do you not realise that an idea that is based on someone's fancy is about as likely to be proved right as I am to float up to the ceiling.

Yes, there are many ways of looking at things but, I'm afraid that most of them are just not valid - particularly the ones which are not based on evidence.

Do you really think you are in any position to challenge the competence of an eminent Cosmologist to propose Black Holes? That's a pretty arrogant statement from someone who is reluctant ever to get into any substantial theory. Do you actually understand the basis of the black hole concept? Do you think it is just based on fancy?

What is the basis for all this waffle about your alternative Cosmology? Did it come to you in a dream? Did you do any measurements or have you used existing data to come to this conclusion? Put it another way; what is your authority or basis for rejecting the accepted model?

If you refuse to engage in proper Science, how can you take exception to the 'Troll' epithet?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 23/06/2008 23:40:33
Quote
vehemently defended subjects
Do you actually know about any of this vehemently defended stuff.
Have you read and understood it?
Are you in a position to challenge it?
Can you suggest why so many clever people should be so easily fooled if it's such rubbish?
Rather than quoting, ad nauseam, this and that link about alternative views, why not actually read some of this stuff which you feel you have to reject?

Try applying Newton's Laws to some simple orbital problem and see that they give you a very nearly right (observed) answer. Then try to apply your ideas to the same system and see if you still get  the same answer. That is the acid test. It would also be very un-trollish. Go on.

Quote
Great Beyond - New Planet Discovered

Jupiter
Geoffrey Marcy and Paul Butler, a pair of astronomers from the United States, have discovered a planet that closely resembles Jupiter. Though astronomers have found other planets out there, none so far have so closely resembled the planets of our own solar system. This new planet, which is being called Jupiter's cousin, orbits the star 55 Cancri and takes 13 years to go around the star once. It takes Jupiter just over 11 years to circle our sun.
Fascinating but apropos of what?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Flyberius on 01/07/2008 10:52:05
I know a "good" alternative.  TIME CUBISM!

Visit www.timecube.com and prepare to be assaulted on levels you never knew you had.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 01/07/2008 13:35:37
Visiting this website confirmed my doubts about this post, save yourself some time and have a cup of tea instead.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Flyberius on 02/07/2008 03:32:35
No seriously check it out man.

Its full of insight, and I quote:

"Educators are KILLING US -
teaching Death value ONEism."

sounds familiar,

oh, and who can forget

"The Word EARTH indicates
One, Entity or Singularity,
but Earth is not an Entity,
for the Half of Earth seen
from Space cannot exist
without the Opposite Half
NOT SEEN - existing only
as opposites with a plus &
minus zero existence."

Clearly this guy has an intellect far surpassing yours.  He invented it!  Time Cubism.  He is a doctor of Time Cubism.  Its like being a doctor of homeopathy


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Alan McDougall on 03/07/2008 02:40:24
What do you think?

Alan



CASE FOR OR AGAINST  STEADY STATE BIG BANG UNIVERSE

(SS =STEADY STATE UNIVERSE),(BB =BIG BANG UNIVERSE)      

SS
1.Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models   

BB
The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event.


SS
2.The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.   

BB
Another unacceptable statement. The variation in background radiation is independent of stars or galaxy clusters within our universe. It is extremely even – something one would predict from an expansion that began 14 billion years ago. The variation in background radiation is only 0.00001°K – the exact amount predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. This variation represents the large-scale structure of the universe only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

SS
3.Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.   

BB
The overall prediction of element abundance is exactly what would be expected from the Big Bang. Immediately after the quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other, atomic nuclei form (hydrogen) and for 3 minutes, the fireball remained hot enough to support nuclear fusion, which formed the 25% helium that we see in the stars today.

SS
4.The universe has too much large-scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.   

BB
The amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe.

SS
5.The average luminosity of quasar must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.   

BB
Since quasars have a very short lifespan (a few billion years at most), they would all have the same apparent brightness because they would be all roughly the same age. All quasars have large redshift values, since they were all formed over 5 billion years ago.

SS
6.The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.   

BB
This appeared to be true a few years ago. However, recent measurements have indicated that the Hubble constant is smaller than originally thought (making the universe older) and the ages of globular clusters younger than previously thought. The results of these studies are shown in the table below from a study published in Science.

SS
7.The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.   

BB
The motions of the galaxies are exactly what are predicted from the Big Bang. The farther galaxies are receding at a higher rate than those that are nearer. The relationship is extremely linear (very little deviation).


SS
8.Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.   

BB
At least four different scientific techniques have confirmed the presence of large amounts of cold dark matter in the universe.

SS
9.The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.   

BB
Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 14 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 14 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they "burn" so intensely, they do not burn for long.

SS
When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don't see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don't see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it.

10.   

 COMMENT

If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.   

Alan
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 03/07/2008 13:04:02
Not familiar with static universe. The Universe is anything but static, it is in a constant evolutionary state and that everything in the Universe is constantly changing except for the Universe meaning the canvas on which all the planets stars, meteors, comets, atoms and sub atomic particles are being recycled over eternity is Static But not the components that are in it. And we have privilege to gaze upon it in nothing more than an equivalent nanosecond that encompasses the evolution of our own planet.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Alan McDougall on 04/07/2008 16:21:13
Andrew,


Quote
Not familiar with static universe. The Universe is anything but static, it is in a constant evolutionary state and that everything in the Universe is constantly changing except for the Universe meaning the canvas on which all the planets stars, meteors, comets, atoms and sub atomic particles are being recycled over eternity is Static But not the components that are in it. And we have privilege to gaze upon it in nothing more than an equivalent nanosecond that encompasses the evolution of our own planet.

I agree!!

Regards

Alan
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Alan McDougall on 07/07/2008 23:37:53
Andrew,

I meant "Steady State universe" E.G. Fred Hoyle

Alan
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: socratus on 20/08/2008 01:23:44
Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything .
============ ========.
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles,
and frictionless gears?
by Tim Folger
published online July 18, 2008

When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.

http://discovermagazine.com/topics/space

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

#
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, 
 is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "

  / Paul Dirac ./
#
"Now we know that the vacuum can have all sorts of wonderful effects
over an enormous range of scales, from the microscopic to the cosmic,"

 / Peter Milonni.
from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico./
#
Etc.
============ ==.
Can the Nothingness be the Origin of the Universe?

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: socratus on 20/08/2008 11:47:29
Does Time Run Backward in Other Universes?
One of the most basic facts of life is that the future looks different
from the past. But on a grand cosmological scale, they may look the same
By Sean M. Carroll
=========.
“ The universe does not look right. That may seem like a strange thing
 to say, given that cosmologists have very little standard for comparison.
 How do we know what the universe is supposed to look like?
Nevertheless, over the years we have developed a strong intuition
for what counts as “natural”—and the universe we see does not qualify.”

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-cosmic-origins-of-times-arrow
===========..
My question is:
“ Who is right: The Universe or the brain of some physicists? “
===============.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: imnotreallyaphysicist on 24/08/2008 11:51:08
I Think that the universe is correct because of a single quote
"Only two things are infinite:The universe and human stupidity and I'm not certain about the former" -Albert Einstein
and I also have that edition of scientific american and I read through the whole thing.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Don_1 on 27/08/2008 13:31:38
Stone me!!! What a read!!! Are you trying to beat War & Peace???
Good job I didn't bother reading most of it.

To get back to the point, I cannot vote for the BB or the steady state.

As has been said, the universe is anything but steady.

As for the BB, when did it happen? Why? Where did the matter for it come from? Why did it not happen before?

Just a few questions to which we can never find the true answers. We must rely on supposition & belief. As for my belief, well I come down somewhere in the middle. To my mind the universe is in a cycle. All matter was at one time in one body. The gravitational pressure and temperature of this unbelievably dense body caused it to explode (The Big Bang) and scatter in every conceivable direction.

Today it is still moving away from the centre of this explosion. In time, these pieces will slow down and begin to reform into fewer larger bodies with immense gravitational force. Forces 100, 1000, 1000000 + times greater than anything we are likely to observe in the universe now. Such will be the radius of these gravitational fields, that these immense bodies will be drawn toward each other to form still fewer and still bigger bodies with even greater gravitational force and so great will be the force, that when these ‘super’ bodies collide, rather than shattering into trillions of pieces they will fuse together.

This will be repeated until all matter has once again been squeezed into a single body and the cycle starts again.

As for the empty space left when all matter is in this one colossal body, I seriously doubt that man has the intelligence or understanding to conceive of the notion of infinite empty space, without boundaries. So I certainly won't be attempting to explain that, since I fall into the category of ‘thicky’. [???] Also the time scale I am thinking of runs into ???? digits. Once again, I am far to much like that single body (dense) to contemplate such a time scale. [:o)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Don_1 on 27/08/2008 13:44:07
By the way, perhaps I should point out that I dismiss the creation out of hand, being as I am an atheist.

Man created God, not the other way around.

But I must stress that I grant all the freedom to believe in whatever they wish to believe. I just wish that everyone could afford the same allowance to everyone else. [:(]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: common_sense_seeker on 08/09/2008 15:18:07
I believe in the creation of stacks of galaxies before the big bang. Everything was under extreme stress due to gravity but still perfectly symmetrical, until an event caused it to behave asymmetrically, and it imploded upon itself.

There's no need for dark matter.  [:)]

AL
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: labview1958 on 10/09/2008 14:55:04
Is the CERNS experiment going to prove anything?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Flyberius on 10/09/2008 18:08:27
I would like to think that it prooves that the world isnt going to end when you turn it on.

Other than that there is the existence (or lack of) the higgs and of course, one more nail in religion's coffin (which is beginning to look like a pin cushion).
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 11/09/2008 09:47:24
The Problems with the Big Bang, Cern, Higgs, and particle accelerators.

We are trying to observe the hypothesised events before and during the hypothesised Big Bang event.

Prior to the big bang we don’t know what was there and never will. In fact we don’t know if there was a big bang or not! But supposing we assume there was a big bang and we are really trying to observe particles responsible for the big bang event.

This would require a non-gravity environment, so is a particle accelerator based on the Earth free from gravity? Is it free from other energy sources such as electricity, radiation, static and magnetic energy? Or does the very apparatus designed to observe the events contaminate the behaviour of the particles?

David Miller after closure of LEP;
‘In that three years.
Hundreds of scientists would have wasted their time working on theories and hypothesis that may not have been necessary.’

One only has to look at the contamination of forensic DNA evidence and contamination of laboratory microbial experiments to realise the implications of observing interactions in a planetary gravitational field. And indeed one only has to hear the hum of the massive power used to drive the new Particle Accelerator to realise there is a very high probability that events observed are artificially unwittingly fabricated like alien DNA at the scene of a crime.

I Have heard Enough!

The Universe is the Ultimate Free Lunch Quote from the BBC Radio Podcasts did it for me.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 18/09/2008 22:37:49
I think you ought to read more carefuly what is being said about the LHC experiments. I don't think I have heard anyone say that it will explain 'everything' - it's just a step.

Some of your arguments about the big bang are a bit naive - why would this all have happened in 'zero gravity'? There was a huge concentration of matter / energy, initially. There would have been 'a lot of' gravity, as a result.

Also, there is a very small probability of any 'high energy' contamination - it has cost billions of pounds to produce any of the stuff. If it could be found just anywhere then they would have used it instead of making the LHC. The DNA analogy just doesn't apply.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: BenV on 19/09/2008 09:55:24
We are trying to observe the hypothesised events before and during the hypothesised Big Bang event.

Nope, they're hoping to recreate conditions that occurred very, very shortly after the big bang, so not before or during it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Gabe2k2 on 01/10/2008 22:16:00
Sadly I have to disagree with the big bang theory.

If my model of the universe is correct objects in space unless acted upon by some opposing force do not explode without some interacting and opposing force. With this in mind there was not one body that simply exploded into the universe.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 06/10/2008 23:41:44
If your model hangs on the sort of statements you have made in that post then it is unlikely to be correct. By all means believe what you like and make up your own Science to justify it but, if you are going to quote from conventional Science, you might try to get it right before using it for proof.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dege on 09/10/2008 03:42:27
OK i do not agree with the big bang theory.

what i have come to understand is that it was just a huge mass of energy that picked up speed in rotation until it exploded.

I also have come to understand a law that states that an object that rotates and spins off more masses, that the mass that spun off from the original mass, ( in this case the planets), would spin the same direction of the original mass.

then why do we have some planets spinning in counter clock wise motion and some spinning in clock wise?

well that is my input :)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/10/2008 19:51:50
"what i have come to understand is that it was just a huge mass of energy that picked up speed in rotation until it exploded."
Does anyone else understand that?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 13/11/2008 13:01:24
Dege.
Rather good question that one.
Why does not all planets spin the same way?

Think about yourself holding a jojo.
Depending how you 'spun' it up before our experiment it will spin in 'that direction' when let out, right?
So if you now start rotating very fast:) letting your jojo move out from that centrifugal force it can only rotate one way, no matter which way you are rotating right.
And that way will hinge on how it was 'spun up'

But if you think about something spinning around its axle very fast acting on a surrounding substance like air, then that air will follow the same direction as two wheels connected by friction. (creating a lot of spinning vortexes around you if I'm correct:)

One explanation to how planets may chose to spin might be what forces acted on them when they were created. The idea is that they were created by a lot of small 'masses' joining/colliding  creating a very high temperature under the collisions. Perhaps how they collided (their vectors) had something to do with it, as well as planets colliding. But most planets spin the same way as those 'clouds' they were created from. All that 'dust and gas' that created the suns, and then the planets.
As I understands it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: xersanozgen on 25/11/2008 19:03:09
I have an effective report.(ISBN 975 93583-0-1)

The master idea: If the absolute form of universe is a spherical surface How is the visible form by the reason of limited value of light's velocity.

Effectice form of universe is an asymmetric elipsoidal surface. And If we analyze this form; for example we can find the speeds and distances of cosmic units and set a diagram velocity-distance, we will have similar graphic of observational data.

Therefore the bing bang theory is a reality.

8407
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/11/2008 11:21:51
8619


New model to examine the big bang theory (my proposition)


We never see the simultaneous situations of events and subjects.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

F' : Observational position of the cosmic unit.

F: The position of the cosmic unit at present

Vg: The expanding velocity of universe at present.

Vg': The expanding velocity of universe at past.

The point F' [and all points of visible form] must check these relations:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: xersanozgen on 30/11/2008 11:26:58
The relation of Time is very important: 

T : The age of universe

The distances OA and OF' travel by the expanding velocity of the observer and the cosmic unit; but the distance F'A travels by velocity of light "c".

Henceforth we obtain the visible form of universe.

And then we can calculate the values of parameters (distances and escaping speeds) for the points on the visible form theoretically (For the values of the age of universe 10, 14, 18, 22…).

 [ Invalid Attachment ]



If we put the values on a diagram (Escaping speed/distances), we find the graphics for visible form. It is similar with the graphic of observational data.

 Is the similarity a proof for the big bang theory ?

 Bibliography: Ersan O, Evrenin yaşı ve boyutları (The age and diameter of Universe),kendi yay. Izmir, 2007  
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: xersanozgen on 02/12/2008 09:49:42
The distances OA and OF' travel by the expanding velocity of the observer and the cosmic unit; but the distance F'A travels by velocity of light "c".


I apologize for typing.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: xersanozgen on 06/12/2008 11:42:03
Interesting points of visible form:

If OF' is perpendicular to AF' the component of V'g for escaping velocity will be zero. And the escaping speed is just composed only by observer's speed at present. We can find the value of expanding speed of universe at present.

The distance of cosmic units is 12,26 Gly [For example 3 C 326.1 (Z = 1,827)]for this condition in my model. 

8995
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Scorpius on 08/12/2008 21:23:34
   Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
   These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
   Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one. With nothing to feed on,the event horizon can no longer sustain itself. The mass collapses under the great pressure of its own gravitational force. The neutrons then pull into and collect at a specific point. At that moment the gravity,force,and pressure needed to sustain this process can no longer be achieved,resulting in a collapse into the vortex.
   This,in turn, results in a cataclysmic explosion on the other side of the vortex itself. Concluding in the unimaginable thrust beginning the cycle again. This process repeats itself infinitely.   
   Enter the being and absorb the universe. Beyond lies the beginning.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: xersanozgen on 10/12/2008 12:39:57
   Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
   These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
   Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one. 

Initially, the universe was pure energy. And the energy is the reason of everything. Scientific and philosophic thinkings must be set on the axle of energy.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 12/12/2008 09:49:30
I rest my case your honour. This clearly relates to Star Treck and Deep Space 9 more than it does to science. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Black_hole

Does the defendent have any proof to support his statement?

   Black holes hold together an astronomical geometric network. This network includes the means capable for the transfer,or recycle, of energy. The mass of energies collected by black holes is then pulled through a space time vaccum. These wormholes release the collection of mass energy into the adjoining dimension, thus sustaining an even flow of mass and energy throughout the universe.
   These dimensional vortexes are the gateway to infinite proportions, in fathomable by humans. This vast geometric network holds together every variation of questionable reality.
   Black holes continue to collect and distribute energies as they grow. This growth rate continues until there are only two supermasses remaining. These masses eventually collide becoming one. With nothing to feed on,the event horizon can no longer sustain itself. The mass collapses under the great pressure of its own gravitational force. The neutrons then pull into and collect at a specific point. At that moment the gravity,force,and pressure needed to sustain this process can no longer be achieved,resulting in a collapse into the vortex.
   This,in turn, results in a cataclysmic explosion on the other side of the vortex itself. Concluding in the unimaginable thrust beginning the cycle again. This process repeats itself infinitely.  
   Enter the being and absorb the universe. Beyond lies the beginning.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 24/12/2008 02:22:54
The big bang is correct and well modelled as far as the observational record extends but that is clearly not the end of it. I strongly suspect we are observing one universe within a vast multiverse of indefinite size containing many similar universes to our own. That is essentially constant.  See my evolutionary cosmology topic in the new theories section for a bit more explanation.  I do not believe there is any significant prospect of ever communicating with or observing one of these other universes so we will have to do without confirmation of their existence.

I also consider it very likely that our universe itself creates new universes as part of its normal existence.  These new universes are probably what we call black holes.

To my answer would be a tick in three of your boxes  big bang yes,  constant universe(multiverse) yes.  other yes. 

The concept of"scientific" creationism is a load of total rubbish.  The creation myths in ancient writings contain a great deal of wisdom about life and human nature and are valuable for that reason only.  To regard them as a basis for scientific actuality is totally batty.

It saddens me greatly when people insist on regarding the myths in the worlds heritage as factual writings. This reduces their value and causes many modern people to ignore them and the true wisdom that they contain.  Please note I include the myth of Jesus Christ in that category and am a practicing Christian myself.

It seems to fit observational evidence, but that is all. There is no conclusive proof which can settle the matter as of yet, or which can be used in the future.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 29/12/2008 10:39:01
It seems that we soon will have some new proof for the BB at Cern:)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4722261.ece

That will be quite a 'kick'.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 11/01/2009 16:26:19
I just joined the forum, this is my first post. I voted steady state. My problems with the Big Bang is that it looks too much like a creationist scheme; it seems faith based; its originator was a Catholic Priest; it only works if you permit an expansion period that violates physical laws; and a few other things.

This is the Primevial Atom (http://www.photontheory.com/lamitre.html) by Lamitre that started it all.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 11/01/2009 18:54:57
I would like to believe in the big bang but I have two main problems with the theory the first is Hubbles red shift and the second is the microwave background theory both are wrong. Anybody want to support them.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 11/01/2009 19:27:23
On the microwave background; I remember seeing something from Eddington I think. His group calculated the temperature of the universe based upon the radiation of all the stars in it. His answer was about 4 K, very close to the MB. Predictions of the MB from the Big Bang was around 20 K.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 11/01/2009 19:59:28
I agree with you Vern but when one considers how many galaxies there are in the universe its surprising that they only heat it up to 4 degK. Or am I wrong to think that the galaxies are doing it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 11/01/2009 20:43:17
It's been about 40 years since I read that article, but I seem to remember that they measured stars and estimated galaxies contribution. I don't know if they were right or not, but starlight should be counted as a warming agent for the CMB. It would modify it somewhat if not altogether.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 11/01/2009 21:05:21
One has to admire Eddingtons calculation no mean feat, I think we are in agreement on the MRB problem, any comment on Hubble red shift.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 11/01/2009 21:38:18
I think photons lose energy as they age. I know there is a problem with this in that the CMB is blackbody radiation and so can't possibly be just aged starlight. There's also some observations of super nova that pose a problem. But I think the problems are a lot less with the tired light scheme than with the Big Bang.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 12/01/2009 17:17:38
I agree again the photon that is travelling from a ditant galaxy to us loses enery (cooling/ageing) during the time that it takes to travel to us. This energy loss can only happen if the path is curved which I think is in agreement with Einstien space curvature, the energy loss resulting in a frequency shift to the left (IR shift). My maths isn't good enough to do a calculation, has anybody attempted one.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 12/01/2009 17:32:48
My maths isn't good enough to do a calculation, has anybody attempted one.

I'm not sure if he is still around but a physicist Arp, was his last name, did lots of work on Tired Light schemes and had pretty much all the math worked out. But there was such faith in the Big Bang that he couldn'g get agreement out of the scientific community.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 12/01/2009 17:49:48
Your very knowledgeable, not heard of Arp. Had a second thought, star shift is observed during a solar eclipse has any one obseved a frequency shift at the same time.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 12/01/2009 17:55:05
The quote below from another forum discusses Arp's contribution.

Quote
Among the several thousand quasars known today (cf.
Hewitt & Burbidge 1993; Ve¨ron-Cetty & Ve¨ron 1993;
Hewett, Foltz, & Cha†ee 1995) there are a number of cases
where a quasar is found in close angular proximity to a
galaxy (Monk et al. 1986; Arp 1987; Stocke et al. 1987;
Burbidge et al. 1990; Borgeest et al. 1991; Bowen et al.
1991; Womble 1993; Burbidge 1995), but where the redshifts
of the galaxy and the quasar are notably di†erent
from each other. This led Arp and others to conclude that
this points to a Doppler interpretation of the observed redshifts
of the quasars (Arp et al. 1990 and references therein).
In this hypothesis quasars are ejected from galaxies (cf.
Valtonen & Basu 1991) and, hence, do not lie at those
cosmological distances which are inferred from their measured
redshifts. This point of view has been criticized by
various authors (““ The Redshift Controversy ĻĻ ; Weedman
1976). Serious arguments against the hypothesis of Arp et
al. are the agreement of the cosmological interpretation
with the observational data from gravitationally lensed
quasars (e.g., Dar 1991), the detection of the host galaxies
of some quasars (e.g., Bahcall 1995; Bahcall, Kirhakos, &
Schneider 1995; Disney et al. 1995; Hutchings & Morris
1995), the nondetection of tidal perturbations in the morphology
of quasar-galaxy associations (e.g., Sharp 1985,
1986), or other reasons (e.g., Newman & Terzian 1995).
Although the arguments for the cosmological interpretation
of the quasar redshifts are highly convincing, here I
discuss another observational test which could allow us to
check whether the apparent close angular proximity of
some quasars to galaxies is due to a spatial closeness of
these objects to each other.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 12/01/2009 18:04:13
Quote from: A Davis
]Had a second thought, star shift is observed during a solar eclipse has any one obseved a frequency shift at the same time.
Gravity tends to give light a red shift. I don't know if anyone has reworked the numbers since we changed our thinking about the strength of ambient gravity to be close to an order of magnitude stronger.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 12/01/2009 18:42:21
Just read Hilton Arp on yahoo surprised to learn that the science community actually denied him access to their telescopes they make him out to be a heritic just like my hero Prof Eric Laithwaite unfortunately no longer with us, would like more data on ambient gravity.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 12/01/2009 19:56:40
Here's a link to (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-881714.html) the great attractor. Looks like they now think there's an even greater attractor out there [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 13/01/2009 15:16:19
Don't think you sent that Vern?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 13/01/2009 18:22:55
Quote from: A Davis
Don't think you sent that Vern?
You lost me here.

Edit: I just meant that the Great Attractor would contribute to the ambient gravity of a system. I know we speculate that somehow there is some kind of Dark Matter that does it. It might just be burned out stars.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 13/01/2009 23:29:46
I asked you about Ambient Gravity a word I had not heard of before then you came up with the Great Attractor another word I haven't heard of before, know Dark Matter.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 14/01/2009 00:27:28
Maybe I just made up the term ambient gravity; I haven't heard it used that way either. In electronics we talk about ambient as being the total amount of stuff there; or the natural amount; like ambient temperature is the temperature before we start adding or subtracting from it. Sorry it was confusing.

In recent times we have changed our thinking about the total amount of gravity present in galaxies by a great amount. That was the point I was trying to make.

The great Attractor is that thing what ever it is that is causing our Milky Way galaxy to move toward the constellation Leo at near 500 miles per second.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: A Davis on 14/01/2009 15:59:41
Thanks Vern
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: demadone on 22/01/2009 07:23:09
Creationism doesn't contradict the big bang. It explains what was there before the big bang.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 22/01/2009 11:57:57
Creationism doesn't contradict the big bang. It explains what was there before the big bang.
What was it that was there? The diety?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: CosmicAudioChic on 28/01/2009 03:19:36
hmmmmm...seems like quite a bit of confusion here about the BBT.
BBT is not about the origin of the universe. It is about the development of the universe over time.

The best way I could describe this to you is in the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler. The word "expanded" should not be taken to mean that matter flies apart -- rather, it refers to the idea that space itself is becoming larger.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 28/01/2009 09:32:33
The Uninverse was not very dense or very hot! Evidence for this is?

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: CosmicAudioChic on 28/01/2009 14:59:34
BBT Evidence:
a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect .
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 02/02/2009 09:30:27
Yebbut how could you convince someone who just didn't choose to believe in the BBT? After all, "it just doesn't make sense" does it?
LOL
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 02/02/2009 13:09:35
Yebbut how could you convince someone who just didn't choose to believe in the BBT? After all, "it just doesn't make sense" does it?
LOL
The key words are "believe in" as in believe in god. The Big Bang must be taken on faith.  To me it seems that when we must dispose of the physical laws in order to perpetuate a belief, there might be something lacking in the belief.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 02/02/2009 19:29:12
I think it is appropriate to use the word "believe" in the context of Science. Evidence is, surely the best basis for belief.
Belief in a God is still based on some evidence, as far as the believer is concerned. You and I might say that it's not valid evidence, however.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 02/02/2009 19:49:00
There is lots of evidence for the Big Bang; I readily admit that; but in science we only need one thing that don't fit the scenario. I used to read Halton Arp a lot. He had some very good arguments against the Big Bang theory. Then I see that Abbe Georges Lamaitre (http://photontheory.com/lamitre.html) was a Catholic Priest and think he might be predisposed to some form of creationism.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Irishgirl on 02/02/2009 20:06:37

I am new to this site but I just had to comment on the question.
I don't think it is a question of belief but question of what we still don't know.
I don't see a system of logic in the BIG BANG THEORY. The world could not have been just spontaneously been formed with such delicacy, complexity and such beauty. Everything is so calculated and balanced.

Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" 

He himself was not sure if his theory was correct. Mankind is looking for answers but, its time for us to look at the possibility of seeing that this world was truly designed and it in deed has a designer. When I was studying world religions, my professor who was once an atheist really inspired and brought a lot of idea of thought that he had been pondering on. He said, " When you look at all the beliefs starting from ancient historical beings, all knew and understood that there was something or someone higher than not only them but of nature. Until today, we have not had anyone factually prove to us, not even all the intellects of the century,that the universe stands in existence because of its own self evolving process." On the contrary we now have documentaries such as Expelled and many more that do admit to an " Intelligent Designer theory "

I just think and know that I as an INDIVIDUAL UNIT OF LIFE with my own DNA Structural process, and my own different fingerprint, and uniqueness was and is not an accident that happened. I was not formed of evolved through some spontaneous atmospheric action.

Again, I respect all opinions and wanted to share my own opinion in a few lines which could of been longer..... LOLOL

Best of Luck to all :)

IRISH GIRL   
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 03/02/2009 17:07:21
Quote from: irishgirl
He himself was not sure if his theory was correct.
You have observed an interesting thing that is true of most theories. The thinkers who bring them forth are unsure of them. Students later put great faith in them.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Irishgirl on 03/02/2009 21:50:37
Hi there Vern,

I do know that I am not a scientist but if you are one. I have always wanted to understand why scientist could be so limited in their perspectives? For instance, if I were a person studying science, just seeing how the planets are held by gravity, by taking notice of how nature forms itself the four seasons, by seeing how the human body functions, by seeing how each creature differs from the other is enough for me to realize that there is more to this life than what the intellects or books have written to be. Why is it that science has a hard time accepting that there might just be truth in the creation theory???


There were and still are many scientists who believe in God.
I thought this site was very interesting to share with all......

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

Look at the current situation in Israel. If there was no truth in God, we would not even be in this war. It is about a clash in religions, cultures, and history that science cannot explain.







 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 04/02/2009 12:39:37
Hi irishgirl. I separate the two things this way:

Science is about discovering things about nature. We then develop a hypothesis about how we can use the things we have observed to predict other things that we might observe in the future. We test these hypothesis relentlessly. If they are always successful and never fail, they may become a theory.

God is about faith. You either believe or you don't.[:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Hei-Tai on 07/02/2009 06:11:34
what do you believe?

 [:)]

Your question is,,is the big-bang correct.

I make that same question some years ago and my answer is clear, NO.

Two reason.;
1. Theory of big-bang is theory and this theory has many basic-problem.
- basic is atom-theory (we dont known matter smallest particles yet)
--- atom-theory is non-living matter theory
- also planets g-idea
- also thought that space is empty, no ether-matter
- and thought that pure 0 can happening something
- theory that light-speed is constant

2. Space-nature measured information, like images etc.
- our measuring time,,,few hundreds year


Big-bang theory is wrong,,, [^] i dont know how this wonderfull space was start but i know that it is and exist and without that we cannot write text by using computer. [:I]

My clear thought is;

Human kind at one small planet cannot solve space-born problem on that time how human-kind live that small planet.

Why so;

Because space is so big,,no walls to see and there is so many planets,,we cannot calculate how many,,,and because it is timeless.

--------
Other issue.
God on non-God is different issue.

Why;
Nature-Space exist like is exist with or without God.
--------

Big-bang theory is wrong, that is my clear opinion.

But, do we known exactly what is in-center the earth? We have many other interesting thing to do near,,like this planets,,or moon.

 [:)]




 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 07/02/2009 12:31:02
Hello Hei-Tai and welcome to Naked Scientists.

The BBT has failed to convince me also. Too many assumptions about stuff no one has ever seen.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 07/02/2009 15:37:10
Hello Hei-Tai and welcome to Naked Scientists.

The BBT has failed to convince me also. Too many assumptions about stuff no one has ever seen.
And I would add that there is an overwhelming desire of true believers to have it be true. This adds a bias that clouds the outcome of much investigation into the question. IMHO  [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Democritus on 09/02/2009 15:02:50
From elsewhere, re an audible Big Bang, if you wish...

The 'Big Bang' was a term coined by the late great Sir Fred Hoyle who should have been awarded the Nobel but shamefully, to the Swedish Academy of Sciences' discredit, wasn't. But Fred wasn't a proponent of Big Bang Theory, in fact he bitterly opposed it, advocating rather the Steady State Theory where matter was constantly being created, which accounted for an observed expansion of the universe.

Ironic that Fred coined 'Big Bang' as a term of ridicule and derision when now it's the accepted term by cosmologists and the public alike for a theory of origins, consistent with most observations, especially the cosmic background radiation referred to in these pages.

Interestingly, the Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang. In fact it was pretty much over, which is to say its destiny was writ in stone as it were, when the primordial universe was not much larger than a grapefruit.

Intuitively I would think an observer, receptive to all possible audio frequencies, within a Big Bang event would find it a reasonably hostile environment as far as ambient noise is concerned. To paraphrase, find me a noisier place. An observer outside of a Big Bang event is beyond definition as there is no space or time or place or any set of events within which an observer can exist there. There is no there there...

And the Nobel? Well, Fred described the processes that created the heavy elements, nuclearsynthesis, within stars, and how these elements were flung about space by stellar events including supernovae, eventually forming other stars, planets, moons, comets, oceans, people, peacocks and popcorn. A heroic achievement.

That Fred was denied a Nobel after discovering the origins of the stuff we are all made of is truly lamentable.

He was not without some controversy and was fearless in challenging accepted wisdom in many disciplines beyond his native physics, astronomy and mathematics. One idea he developed was 'panspermia', the theory that life arrived on Earth and elsewhere from space; from comets and other interplanetary and interstellar debris. Well, you can imagine how he was mocked in his time. Yet, with recent discoveries on Mars, and the discovery of hundreds of ex-solar planets around neighboring stars, the idea of panspermia is looking increasingly less ludicrous these days.

To conclude. I'm not sure if the Big Bang was audible or not. But if it was audible there is a good chance that, if Fred Hoyle was around, you wouldn't hear it. Fred's noise was louder.  [:)]  

Best wishes & regret if this contribution is inconsistent with the low trust, high hostility and zero tolerance demonstrated in some of this debate.      

 
 

 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Irishgirl on 10/02/2009 01:08:12
Hi there everyone....

You are absolutely correct Vern. I do put a difference between both as well. Its good to know that there are people who feel that way..


Irishgirl
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 10/02/2009 02:06:06
Hi there everyone....

You are absolutely correct Vern. I do put a difference between both as well. Its good to know that there are people who feel that way..


Irishgirl
Yes; that way we can go to church; sing and be happy; without ever revealing deep down what we might think. I think that deep thoughts are best left with the thinker [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Astronomer_FB on 12/02/2009 20:51:08
Hello I do believe in some parts of the big bang. but before i say what i want to say this is not meant for a religious thing, also i believe that science and religion are and should be separate. Saying this the Qu'ran even has this warning within it saying this book is a book of religion not of science but will give you the knowledge.  The Quran does speak of how the Universe began and other scientific questions. The Qu'ran does have a verse that describes what happened and it fits the big bang.  The Qu'ran also tells that one day the universe will continue to stretch and then come together like it was in the beginning. Scientist are now seeing that the universe is stretching out (with the red shift and blue shift things are going back). So to answer the question I do believe in some of the big bang theory.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 15/02/2009 11:16:50
Enjoyed reading your post very much.

From elsewhere, re an audible Big Bang, if you wish...

The 'Big Bang' was a term coined by the late great Sir Fred Hoyle who should have been awarded the Nobel but shamefully, to the Swedish Academy of Sciences' discredit, wasn't. But Fred wasn't a proponent of Big Bang Theory, in fact he bitterly opposed it, advocating rather the Steady State Theory where matter was constantly being created, which accounted for an observed expansion of the universe.

Ironic that Fred coined 'Big Bang' as a term of ridicule and derision when now it's the accepted term by cosmologists and the public alike for a theory of origins, consistent with most observations, especially the cosmic background radiation referred to in these pages.

Interestingly, the Big Bang wasn't big and it didn't go bang. In fact it was pretty much over, which is to say its destiny was writ in stone as it were, when the primordial universe was not much larger than a grapefruit.

Intuitively I would think an observer, receptive to all possible audio frequencies, within a Big Bang event would find it a reasonably hostile environment as far as ambient noise is concerned. To paraphrase, find me a noisier place. An observer outside of a Big Bang event is beyond definition as there is no space or time or place or any set of events within which an observer can exist there. There is no there there...

And the Nobel? Well, Fred described the processes that created the heavy elements, nuclearsynthesis, within stars, and how these elements were flung about space by stellar events including supernovae, eventually forming other stars, planets, moons, comets, oceans, people, peacocks and popcorn. A heroic achievement.

That Fred was denied a Nobel after discovering the origins of the stuff we are all made of is truly lamentable.

He was not without some controversy and was fearless in challenging accepted wisdom in many disciplines beyond his native physics, astronomy and mathematics. One idea he developed was 'panspermia', the theory that life arrived on Earth and elsewhere from space; from comets and other interplanetary and interstellar debris. Well, you can imagine how he was mocked in his time. Yet, with recent discoveries on Mars, and the discovery of hundreds of ex-solar planets around neighboring stars, the idea of panspermia is looking increasingly less ludicrous these days.

To conclude. I'm not sure if the Big Bang was audible or not. But if it was audible there is a good chance that, if Fred Hoyle was around, you wouldn't hear it. Fred's noise was louder.  [:)]  

Best wishes & regret if this contribution is inconsistent with the low trust, high hostility and zero tolerance demonstrated in some of this debate.      

 
 

 

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Hei-Tai on 21/02/2009 06:05:20
 [:)]

I make one question to this issue,,it is on new-theoryes thread.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20289.0

My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start. [:I]

 [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Darkcoder on 22/02/2009 22:59:03
Wow, I just stumbled upon this site and after seeing this thread I had to sign up and post.

The amount of misinformation being spread about the Big Bang is quite amazing. I also find it amazing many people can form opinions for/against the theory with such little knowledge about it.

For example:

Quote
My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.

The big bang theory doesn't aim to explain how the universe started, where did you make this stuff up from? The first line from wiki says "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation." which sums it up better than I could have. The key part here is the 'evidence', there's lots of evidence for the big bang, in fact just go to the wiki page on it and read it, it even links to sources if you don't think wiki's a credible enough.

And I know this post is 3 weeks old but:

Quote
I don't see a system of logic in the BIG BANG THEORY. The world could not have been just spontaneously been formed with such delicacy, complexity and such beauty. Everything is so calculated and balanced.

I'm not sure if you're a creationist by this comment as they usually believe the world was created spontaneously and with such delicacy, the big bang isn't even close to this. And you think everything is so calculated and balanced? Really now, perhaps you should take off your selective vision goggles and realize the universe is a death-trap for humans and almost all life as we know it at every step. Most of it isn't even beautiful at all, what with bacteria, viruses, natural disasters, death etc etc, and in the past you have your lovely mass extinctions and 99.9999+% of the universe is completely inhospitable for human life, even many places on Earth will quickly kill us so calling it calculated and balanced, i.e. inferring someone or something had to tweak it to be balanced is absurd as I could surely do a much better job if I had the controls.

So really, if you think you know something thousands of scientists don't then do some scientific studies that refute their claims and submit your papers to the peer-review process. Simply saying it's crazy because you know jack all about it doesn't mean a single thing, you can think it's the most stupid theory that's ever graced the planet but until you refute their claims on the proper playing field that is the scientific method then your opinion doesn't count for squat. Some of the 'claims' you people have been pulling out of certain bodily exits is such a slap in the face of scientific work that I'm surprised more people haven't posted here attacking people's incredibly misinformed viewpoints, maybe they just can't be bothered as so many people don't know anything about science yet still manage to form opinions about it? Before you so quickly jump on the bandwagon of thinking these theories are far-fetched as you read ~5 words of it realise that the scientists who developed and refined these theories are much the same as the scientists you most likely owe your lives to and your life expectancy, your access to food, electricity and pretty much everything.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Hei-Tai on 23/02/2009 10:01:40
Wow, I just stumbled upon this site and after seeing this thread I had to sign up and post.

The amount of misinformation being spread about the Big Bang is quite amazing. I also find it amazing many people can form opinions for/against the theory with such little knowledge about it.

For example:

Quote
My opinion of Big-Bang is that we cannot never solve the problem how universe start.

The big bang theory doesn't aim to explain how the universe started, where did you make this stuff up from? The first line from wiki says "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation." which sums it up better than I could have. The key part here is the 'evidence', there's lots of evidence for the big bang, in fact just go to the wiki page on it and read it, it even links to sources if you don't think wiki's a credible enough.


 [:)]

Facts or not [:I]

- Theoretical evidence born about 1930-1970 period
- Basic that theory explosion-big-bang is also atom-nuclear theory and those practical works
- Basic is also,,creation/ateism-- maind-dividing

Also;
- Human kind has study universe and existing todays equipments and theoryes about 30-100years.
- we speak something 1 000 000 000 000 years things happend at some old days only using that 30-100years measuring time data

So,,,i dont see any scientific reasons and fact that Big-Bang-theory is correct or that is it proved any kind of measured scientific data.

We actually dont know what kind is the earth-middle-inside and that is the temperature inside of earth-ball-middle.
Hmm,,how i say that;

Because i think earth diameter,,,what is the surface-matter thickness? If all is middle-center full of hot lava then must make question,,why this surface level temperature is only -40-+40 C. ?

There is enormous thermal-porwer under this thin surface-layer? I think that if this thermal power is full in this earth-ball then we cannot stand this surface because it must be much hottest than it is now?

I think that lava is no full of earth-inside,,,only perhaps layers or caves like oil or gas is.


 [:)]










Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Darkcoder on 23/02/2009 15:32:50
Quote
So,,,i dont see any scientific reasons and fact that Big-Bang-theory is correct or that is it proved any kind of measured scientific data.

You don't see any because you don't know any of them at all. The whole premise of you dismissing this scientific work is that we weren't there to witness it. You can apply this bad logic to anything, if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height? No. Similarly, the Big Bang isn't just some crazy idea someone thought up one day and everyone suddenly agreed with them, we saw evidence and it all lead back to showing that all energy in this universe being at one single point and expanding out into what is the current universe.

Quote
We actually dont know what kind is the earth-middle-inside and that is the temperature inside of earth-ball-middle.

We know exactly what our planet's core is comprised of and have very accurate estimates as to what its temperature is, such a statement shows you know nothing about scientific achievements of the past century. You do realise that we don't have to physically be somewhere to be able to measure something, for example we can measure the temperature of the sun's surface and we've never been close to it, we can also estimate its core temperature based on its mass, density, composition etc much like is used to determine the conditions of Earth's core I'm sure.

Quote
Because i think earth diameter,,,what is the surface-matter thickness? If all is middle-center full of hot lava then must make question,,why this surface level temperature is only -40-+40 C. ?

The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Hei-Tai on 24/02/2009 07:13:50

The Earth isn't comprised of a layer of crust then suddenly it's all lava, look this stuff up, it takes 5 seconds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

 [:)]
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Surface layer about 30-65km. Under surface layer about 6000km.

If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.

6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.

If cource i can be wrong,,,but,,still,,i think that this hot lava-thing is not inside on earth ball full,,,i think that lava-things comes when oil-caves start to heat,,or gas-caves.

Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.

 [:)]




Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Hei-Tai on 24/02/2009 07:33:28

 if I see a tall tree and measure its height and the next week I measure it and it hasn't grown, does this mean the tree has always been this height?


 [:)]

Of cource no,,,tree and planets has own life-cyccle,,, sizegrowing period//time.

Growing,,,because tree and planets take growing-material round of it,,like we also,,eat food.


But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?

 [:)]

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Darkcoder on 24/02/2009 14:15:17
Quote
If you calculate 6000km-diameter ball energy-amount at lava-temperature,,,my thought is that surface level must much more warm be.

It's a 6000km radius, not diameter(the diagram even shows that). And you keep mentioning 'calculating it', did you do this or did you just make this all up? One major thing you likely didn't factor into your 'calculations' was the extreme pressure at the depths of the Earth's core.

Quote
6000-km diameter ball and if it is full of 600-800C temperature matter then it's thermal power is so big that this 30km thin layer-surface cannot be so good thermal insulation.

Why not? Oven gloves can insulate you from 100 C of heat very well and they are at most a centimetre thick, besides, Earth starts to get very hot before you reach this 30km depth, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with :s.

Quote
Example moon,,,if moon get layers,,cave,,oil-pocket etc,,then can comes heat,,lava,etc.

The moon is made from layers(like almost every planet/moon in this solar system/universe), including magma so what are you talking about?

Quote
But do whole universe has same life-cyccle?

No idea, nor will we.

I can't be bothered to post any more as you haven't bothered researching any of this and are just making random assertions.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Hei-Tai on 24/02/2009 17:53:42
 [:)]

The moon is made from layers(like almost every planet/moon in this solar system/universe), including magma so what are you talking about?

Who says that inside moon is full of magma? What scientific measured evidence we have that?

Moon can be only rock-ball,,like many balls in space is.

What is the moon diameter/year growing speed?

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

What is gravity,,my opinion,,,space is full od matter and when in this matter is some object like planets,,then round of planet matter-density increase because planet push this matter,,and if some object is near this planet it stay that position up the surface level where object density is same than density round of that object itself.

Example gas-balloon or submarine.

 [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: nel on 08/03/2009 13:15:07
 [:)] [:)] [:)] [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: ichatfilipina on 09/03/2009 09:54:41
yep correct there are lots of universes similar to our universe. When you go inside of the black hole you are delivered to other universe. As far as I know, different planets or universe when going inside in the black hole. Going inside in black hole will pull you very fast and very long way to arrive the new universe.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 12/03/2009 13:25:44
what do you believe?

Let us put it this way. If it's not correct, then there will be a lot of other ideas that will have to be 'corrected/discarded' too. Let us start with redshift as that is the stepping stone from where the rest will come. Redshift as seen here is when electromagnetic energy is shifted towards its lower, less energy containing electromagnetic spectrum. It should be pointed out here that cosmological redshift and Doppler redshift is not seen as the exact same though even though you can use Doppler redshift for explaining both the expansion and redshift effects due to the relative motion between two frames of reference.

It is referred to as the Doppler effect from Christian Doppler who 1842 proposed that frequency and wavelength of a wave was a relation between any two frames of reference. A simple example of that is you hearing that ambulance passing you, receding in the distance (redshift), noticing how the sound changed from when it was approaching you (blueshift). "Doppler correctly predicted that the phenomenon should apply to all waves, and in particular suggested that the varying colors of stars could be attributed to their motion with respect to the Earth. While this attribution turned out to be incorrect (stellar colors are indicators of a star's temperature, not motion), Doppler would later be vindicated by verified redshift observations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

We tend to say that it was Edwin Hubble and Humason that discovered the redshift of galaxies but this idea existed before they presented their 'empirical Redshift Distance Law of galaxies' 1929 (Hubble's law). "In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way".

In that 1929 paper, by Edwin Hubble and Humason, they suggested that if redshift would be a measure of the galaxies recession speed (withdrawal), then that was "consistent with the solutions of Einstein’s equations of general relativity for a homogeneous, isotropic expanding space." The theory proposed that the distance to a galaxy was proportional to its redshift. the farther away a galaxy was, the more redshifted its light as seen from Earth would become. A implication of that theory was that if the galaxies became more redshifted the further away they were, then that also implied that they once should have been much closer. Another implication was that we had an expansion of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble

It was Georges Lemaītre that 1927 presented his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". In it he suggested that the recession of the galaxies was due to the expansion of the universe (Expansion) and in 1931 he went further and proposed that if you backtracked those galaxies there should have been a single 'point' from where they all must have started, that then would have to be a 'state' of infinite density, a singularity in fact, meaning something we don't really know as our physics laws only starts after that moment (Big Bang).

Unfortunately for him :) he  not only was a scientist (jesuit?) but also a priest. In much the same manner that some see Al Gore to be the 'predecessor' of all evil :) namely Global Warming. And therefore, as they have another political view, disavow any probability of it ever being true, some use the fact that Georges Lemaītre was a man of the cloth to repudiate his ideas. As a byside it's worth mentioning that the name itself 'Yhe Big Bang' was coined by Fred Hoyle in a radioshow 1949. Although he in fact was an adversary to that idea, as he stood for a 'steady state universe' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory . I warmly recommend you to read 'The Black Cloud', a real pearl of science fiction :)


There is a lot of indirect evidence for the Big Bang. The idea have tested in high energy physics "resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition" In here you will find some more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

You can find direct mathematical proof by for example looking at the Friedmann equations. They are also referred to as the the standard cosmology model.

"What you do with the Friedmann equations model is you plug in some values of the parameters and see how it fits the data (Experimental evidence). The test you do then is to see how well you can make a single choice of like 3 main numbers and then have it predict all the data in sight. All kinds of data----galaxy counts and redshifts, supernovas, the temperature map of the microwave background---all sorts of relatively old and relatively new stuff!

The fit is amazing. so the 3 or so main numbers (the parameters) can be determined with remarkable precision and reliability.

This is a big change since 1998. Before 1998 there were various competing guesses as to how to model the universe and what parameters to use. Now the data is a lot better. Better instruments helped.

Anyway, the way the model is confirmed is by fitting to a huge body of observations. Once you have the Friedmann model you can just look at it and it is obvious that, since it is always expanding for all our past history, if you follow it back in time you get to a condition of very high density and temperature

I wouldn't call that a theory. It is more a little piece. It is just an automatic feature of the model that fits all the data over all time in the best way we know, so far. It's how the model that fits begins telling the whole story.

Someday when we get a better model (if we do) maybe it will have a slightly different beginning. To me, for what it's worth, the beginning is not the most important feature. What impresses me is how well it covers the whole story."

If you feel the need for a fuller description of the observational evidence you should read this one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 17/03/2009 17:07:06
Here is a up to date view on redshift and Einsteins relativity theory.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/expan.html
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: aevela78 on 18/03/2009 05:57:41
i personally believe that we are giving too much credit to science and not our inner human instincts the proper credit they deserve.  yeah yeah, lood at our evolution, technologically speaking for the past 50 yrs., does that not seem odd to you.  yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?    hit me up with comments. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Chemistry4me on 18/03/2009 06:14:43
yeah, a human being developed and manufactured the computer, but how many are smarter that one?     
Aye? [???]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: aevela78 on 18/03/2009 06:46:45
i would love to hear your take on the subject......aye
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Chemistry4me on 18/03/2009 06:49:58
On what subject? The Big Bang?

There are already 7 pages on the subject, what more can I say? [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: aevela78 on 18/03/2009 07:04:31
you have got to be kidding me....from a molecularly finite point known as the singularity.....all of this matter, mass, intelligence, space and dark matter emerged....seems too weird for me....i believe that we as human beings are wasting our time trying to figure out the impetus of the universe, and need to spend more time on our own existence.  in any event....pursuant to science theory...are we not going to be destroyed when our sun...yes a star...runs out of "fuel".     
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 21/03/2009 15:23:17
    
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?

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

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

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

1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.

2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I will be happy to answer any questions.

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

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

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 (http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: 112inky on 26/03/2009 04:07:47
Hey.. i think the big bang theory is more convincing than the other ones...  [:)] [:)] [:)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Fluid_thinker on 26/03/2009 17:11:24
Hey maybe it isw just like the Matrix

We are all fictious software programmes in the construct

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Woodpile on 28/03/2009 02:11:06
The BB seems to be the best working hypothesis, but I wasn't there when it happend, so for all I know, it might not have happened at all.

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


Solipsism is a wonderful thing.  It rebutts every argument but it is Cotton Candy philosphy- All Flavor, No Substance...
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 09/04/2009 21:36:18
what do you believe?

None of them. I am Copenhagenist at heart, so i simply do not believe the universe will allow us to simplify it's infinite complexities so easily. Thergo, i do not believe we will ever know, or should prefer one to another.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: sanjidcb on 16/04/2009 16:54:13
What is Belive. lolzzzzzzzzzzzz See this ................
The Earth for example is believed by the majority of people to be gradually cooling down. So models are developed around this assumption to emphasise how slowly a planet might be cooling down, when in reality with a surface covered mostly with a very efficient coolant H2O, coupled with the water cycle to assist its effectiveness, the Earth over many billions of years should not be still spewing out molten lava onto it’s surface and have lakes of hot water a geezers gushing from the floor. Yet, this is exactly what we find with our both feet firmly on the ground. Now, if our model for the Earth is completely wrong and the Earth is gradually getting warmer due to it’s slowly but surely increasing mass, which is transmitted to the core as additional atomic friction, a whole different set of predictions might be in order as we guesstimate the temperatures of other planets.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 23/04/2009 17:08:22
I just discovered a little problem for the Big Bang theory. If expansion is the reality, spectra from distant stars should be shifted the same amount at both ends of the spectrum. It seems that it may not be.

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

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2FRedshift2.png&hash=8b5a05c7755eeae6161edb7e1ce54f90)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: tangoblue on 30/04/2009 12:12:17
no one know for sure how the universe was created dude.... oh man. [O8)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: dlorde on 30/04/2009 21:01:04
Quite right tangoblue. Science models and describes the way the universe we observe behaves. It doesn't pretend to tell us what to believe or that the big bang really happened. It looks at the universe as we see it today, and it sees expansion, with good evidence that it was smaller and less mature in development in the past. This suggests the hypothesis that it may have been expanding from some start point. To see whether this is a reasonable hypothesis, we try to see whether our existing model of the universe would allow it, and whether, if you use the model to run forward from such a starting point, you could end up with the sort of universe we see now, without too many tweaks and adjustments. The answer to those two questions, with some caveats, is broadly 'yes'. We can't actually model the start point itself, but the rest works out fairly well, although there are a few holes - it's good enough to be considered a reasonable theory by most. The other point to consider is whether there is another theory that fits the observations as well or better and has as good or better explanatory and predictive power. So far, the consensus is 'no'. So it's possible the universe is steady-state, or perhaps it's turtles all the way down, but most agree that the big bang is the best fit so far for what we observe. Science is less about certainty than about reducing uncertainty.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 03/05/2009 22:56:31
The thing that I can't get past is that you must accept the notion that empty space can expand and stretch photons moving through it. That is really a weird notion. It would be even more weird except that Einstein used variable space-time. If we had stuck with the Lorentz version of relativity phenomena in which space and time were solid constants and it was the matter that distorted to produce the phenomena, there could be no notion of a Big Bang.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Chirios on 05/05/2009 09:11:52
The Red shift "Hypothesis" holds that light is a constant un-altering reliable tool for measuring over long distance. Albert Einstein wrote light can be bent by gravity. Light has a mass and therefore must show characteristics of mass. We cannot have a special law for different mass. It has been written by others that light is slowed down over great distances. Slowing light down in the calculations for red shift would undoubtedly show an expanding universe. Add to this the fact that we are measuring from a planet that has an orbit around the sun with many other planets all of which have mass and all of which according to Einstein can affect light.

Eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence for the big bang includes of course all the evidence for the theories from which it draws its assumptions. There is the uniformity of the universe, doppler effect, the cosmological principle, cosmic microwave background radiation, pretty much every experiment ever done on light ever, and everything we know about particles including absorption and emission spectra.
Quote
It never ceases to amaze me that when someone proposes a preposterous academically originated hypothesis, how many more academics rush forth to defend it.

I look forward to your reply with interest.

Scientists only support things which have experimental evidence for them.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Fortran on 14/05/2009 16:41:58
A wonderful subject this, and there's a little something that puzzles me about the big bang.

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

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

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

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

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




Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 14/05/2009 18:48:31
Quote from: Fortran
Now here's the nub, we say that the big bang happened around 13BN years ago however it seems to me that as you look back in time the universe (we are told gets smaller) therefore the mass density of the universe increases and time must dilate. You must get to a point where the universe was all contained in such a tiny space that time had dilated so much that the actual age of the universe is close to (and may even be) infinite.
It seems to me that the Big Bang theory gives more problems than it solves. It was necessarily a black hole when it began. It consisted of the whole of the universe. This should be enough mass for quite a large black hole. If light can't escape a black hole, all the energy must still be inside the primordial black hole. Therefore the universe must be a black hole. But then we must be inside the event horizon.

Now we have black holes inside black holes.

Edit: But never fear; we have the rapid expansion period in which we can suspend the laws of nature. So we can just ascribe whatever values to the natural laws needed to make the Big Bang as we imagine it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: moonrider on 02/06/2009 10:44:40
We can't really say that the Big Bang Theory is correct, since it was and still a theory. Which means it is not yet proven. Or there are just some missing evidences or missing links to the outcome that we say the Universe itself. But, I believe it though.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 06/06/2009 21:50:15
The big bang theory evades falsification by changing the laws of nature. I can't think of any other notion that requires a rule change except other creation theories. I suspect that nature's rules are more substantial than theories. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: meta-sci on 23/06/2009 21:57:25
I'm very sorry Sophie but I must disagree, on that of chance and probability. It is no 'chance' in that all alternative views in history are publically available. Most are off-shoots from that of the infrastructural belief containing some sort of momentary patriotism. Any pure change in direction has been due to regime change or assimilation. Providing one has a psychology, an economy, and a product, one can create the most amazing block-busters. Such has been shown in religion-, science+, politics, and hollywood. No revolution of thinking has undermind it infrastructural regime simply by firepower, although many coups have occured, these are usually the cause of politics and humanities and not the cause of revolutionary thinking. On the few occasions history has shown revolution of thought, it most certainly not has been due to that of proof alone. Each case involves a comprimise, as is the case with the inquisition-the church conceded to Copernicusism not because the calculations added up, it was because Issac Newton belonged to another regime that was in competition and certainly posed a threat, had Newton been Roman, he may well have been under house arrest instead of being 'on the house' and rested. Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved. Every story has a pay-off, except your own to yourself(in lonely reality). We can only be convince that we do not know and enjoy answering the questions at hand, to push the boundaries of those that came before, and remember to pay the dry-cleaning for those who's lapels we soiled on the way to further hieghts.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 23/06/2009 22:35:24
Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved.
Your peculiar sentence structure makes comprehension difficult. If I understand you correctly then you are mistaken. Einstein was accepted by the science community and the world at large after the eclipse of 1919(?) confirmed his predictions. The nuclear possibility only emerged a couple of decades later.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 29/06/2009 21:17:10
IS BIG BANG POSSIBLE?

   
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?

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

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

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

1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.

2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I will be happy to answer any questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 10/07/2009 12:14:05
ACCEPTANCE IS THE ANSWER IN A LIFE OF SCIENCE

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

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

Events since 1960 have convincingly demonstrated that . . .

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

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

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

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
or http://www.omatumr.com
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 11/07/2009 02:11:37
G'day from the land of ozzzz

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

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

As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 11/07/2009 23:07:39
WELCOME, HARRY!

G'day from the land of ozzzz

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
or http://www.omatumr.com
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 12/07/2009 02:18:43
G'day Oliver

Thank you for the welcome.

Your post reminded me of this paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0537
Sociology of Modern Cosmology

Authors: Martin Lopez-Corredoira
(Submitted on 2 Dec 2008 (v1), last revised 18 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Quote
Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.

It also reminds me that the KING does not wear invisible robes.

Science takes priority over the flow of information that is supported by ad hoc theories. I have not seen any other science topics where journal writing in cosmology overtakes the science. You read many papers and journals assuming that the BBT is a fact than proceed to fit the data regardless of scientific evidence available proving that the BBT is not correct. Are we blinded by the light of the MOB?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 12/07/2009 04:56:08
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS

Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.

If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.

This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. 

Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I have recently noticed encouraging signs of less arrogance in the violation of scientific principles by NAS and federal agencies and of less arrogance in the violation of basic human rights by leaders of the United States government.

Hopefully ethical web sites like the "Naked Science Forum" may be able to help save science from total self-destruction.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 12/07/2009 08:17:10
G'day from the land of ozzzz

Behind the Iron Curtains scientists are doing "their thing".

The problem is trying to find those scientists.

Have to read many papers to find a few.

Most papers have the BBT mind set affecting the outcome of the DATA.

Many Forums are directed by the same.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 12/07/2009 09:57:00
Behind the Iron Curtains scientists are doing "their thing".
Harry, the iron curtain fell almost twenty years ago. It is no more real today than the iron sun. If your cosmology is as up to date as your politics it is no surprise you post the same debunked ideas across the internet.

G'day from the occassional visitor to the land of Oz.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 12/07/2009 10:12:38
G'day ophiolite

You missed the point on the Iron Curtain like many other points.

What debunked ideas?

Or you just like being a critic
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 12/07/2009 19:13:39
LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICS

I have been published, censored, misrepresented, and black-listed by some of the world's finest scientific journals and proceedings publishers. 

Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I survived and avoided efforts to silence me by publishing papers in a variety of science journals and conference proceedings - in various countries, on both sides of the Iron Curtain, and in countries aligned with neither side!

My most rigorously honest publication - with absolutely no intrusion from editors or reviewers - was a paper transcribed directly from an audio recording of my 1977 comments on elemental and isotopic variations in meteorites from stellar nuclear reactions - nucleosynthesis  [Proceedings of Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII. Cosmochemistry (1978) 263-272].

I have published papers, for example, in Science; Geochemical Journal of Japan; Nature; Chinese Science Bulletin 41 [Chinese, issue 19 (1996) 1778-1782]; Geokhimiya [Russian, number 12 (1981) 1776-1801]; Nuclear Physics; Journal of Analytical Chemistry; Physical Review; Energy and Environment; Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry; Zeitschrift für Naturforschung; Comments on Astrophysic;  Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics; Icarus; Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta; Health Physics; Talanta; Journal of Fusion Energy; Meteoritics; Journal of Geophysical Research; Geochemical Journal of Japan;  Earth and Planetary Science Letters; Yadernaya Fizika [Russian 69 number 11 (2006) 1847-1856; ibid. 67 (2004) 1983-1988]; Environmental Science & Technology;  Journal of Economic Geology; "Proceedings of the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference" [Lunar Science Institute]; Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry; "AIP Conference Proceedings"; "Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Neutrino Oscillations" [Istituto Veneto di Scienze ed Arti]; "Isotopic Ratios in the Solar System" [Centre National D'Etudes Spatiales]; "The Origin of the Elements in the Solar System: Implications of Post 1957 Observations" [Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers]; "Neutrino Mass and Related Topics" [World Scientific Publishers]; "Encyclopedia of Science and Technology" [McGraw-Hill Book Company]; "Coal Science and Technology" [Elsevier Science Publishers]; "Institute of Physics Proceedings", "Essays in Nuclear, Geo- and Cosmo-chemistry" [Burgess International Publishing Group]; "Isotopes in Earth and Planetary Science" [Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences]; "Proceedings of the SOHO-ACE Workshop 2001 on Solar and Galactic Composition" [Physikalisches Institut Universität Bern]; etc.

Looking back over the past 50 years, I can honestly say that my research career has been advanced by the actions of scientists, editors, and NAS members who chose to ignore unexpected experimental observations.

Those actions allowed me to continue the path of discovery while mainstream astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists remained stymied - stuck with the 1960 illusion that:

(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!

The above are all empirically false.  Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept. 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 12/07/2009 21:11:32
What debunked ideas?

Or you just like being a critic
I think we both know who the critic is here Harry.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 13/07/2009 04:12:04
GET A GRIP!

What debunked ideas?

Or you just like being a critic
I think we both know who the critic is here Harry.

Relax, Ophiolite, what is does not depend on our opinions.

Critics become "groupthink" scientists when the mainstream shifts.

Continental Drift, Helio-centric Solar System, Iron Sun, Neutron Repulsion, etc.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel   



Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 13/07/2009 08:42:43
LET'S LEAVE OUT POLITICS
You are the one who brought it up.
I have been published, censored, misrepresented, and black-listed by some of the world's finest scientific journals and proceedings publishers.
Does it ever occur to you that they may have a good reason?
Thanks to the kindness of Fate, I survived and avoided efforts to silence me .........
Do you understand the difference between ignore and silence?
Looking back over the past 50 years, I can honestly say that my research career has been advanced by the actions of scientists, editors, and NAS members who chose to ignore unexpected experimental observations.
If their actions have enhanced your career, why are you complaining?

(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!

The above are all empirically false.  Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.
Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 13/07/2009 11:28:30
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

I understand that the flow of information down a river takes along even dead logs.

How can the dead log question the strong current flowing down main stream?

It takes a strong swimmer and determination to swim against a strong current and many times without being noticed untill the current changes.

History proves it over and over again.

The following paper is quite interesting, rather than expressing my opinion and avoiding the Chinese Whisper read it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3151
Critical Thoughts on Cosmology

Authors: Wolfgang Kundt
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2009)

Quote
Abstract: An overview is given in section 1, of uncertain building blocks of present-day cosmologies. Thereafter, these edited lecture notes deal with the following four special problems: (1) They advertise Wiltshire's result -- making `dark energy' obsolete -- that accelerated cosmic expansion may be an artefact, due to an incorrect evaluation of the cosmic timescale in a Universe whose bulk matter is inhomogeneously distributed. (2) They cast doubt on Hawking's prediction of black-hole evaporation. (3) They point at various inconsistencies of the black-hole paradigm, in favour of nuclear-burning central engines of AGN. (4) They re-interpret (a best case of) `anomalous redshifts' as non-cosmological, kinematic redshifts in strong jet sources.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 13/07/2009 15:43:22
DO YOU WANT TO KNOW OR TO DEBATE?


(a.) The Sun is a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion powers the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are attractive, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a new mystery!

The above are all empirically false.  Those who claim otherwise are simply ignoring experimental data that they cannot accept.

Item (b). What empricial evidence show this to be false?


Ophiolite:

If you want to understand, I will be happy to explain.

If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.

I am Oliver K. Manuel.  My background includes:
 
(a.) BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Chemistry
(b.) About 50 years of active teaching and research
(c.) NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship in Physics
(d.) Fulbright Fellowship at Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
(e.) Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo
(f.) Research funded by NSF, AEC, ERDA, DOE, etc.
(g.) Directed research of ~50 BS, MS and PhD students
(h.) Former Department Chairman
(i.) Taught Nuclear, Physical, Analytical and General Chemistry
(j.) Published > 100 research publications
(k.) Invited speaker at international science conferences in Canada, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, the United States, the USSR and Wales.

Who are you?  What is your background?  I need to know so that I can explain to you why:

(a.) The Sun is NOT a ball of Hydrogen (H),
(b.) H-fusion does NOT power the Sun and the cosmos,
(c.) Neutron stars are NOT "dead" nuclear embers of stars,
(d.) Neutron-neutron interactions are REPULSIVE, and
(e.) Every energetic cosmic explosion is a NOT new mystery!

Thanks, Ophiolite.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 13/07/2009 15:48:34
The following paper is quite interesting, rather than expressing my opinion and avoiding the Chinese Whisper read it.
Yes it is quite interesting. Since the author is a believer in the Big Bang Theory I must ask what it is your opinion on the paper? I would have thought you would have been offering us papers that questioned the very concept of the Big Bang, not ones that supported it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 13/07/2009 16:12:21
Quote
If you only want to debate - as an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym - then it would be a waste of my time, yours, and the resources of the Naked Science Forum.
Careful doctor Manuel, that is in danger of getting personal. Describing me as anonymous is certainly accurate, but the coward bit and the implication of hiding are unjustified. Persons can have many reasons for wishing to protect their anonymity. I may express politcal views on this or other forums that would be unpopular with my employers. I might not wish to risk the chance of them learning of these. Is that cowardice? I would call it sensible protection of my family's income.

More to the point my academic and professional qualifications (which pale into insignificance besides yours) are quite irrelevant. So too are your qualifications. This is not a dispute between degrees, but between facts, observations, deductions and hypotheses. It is the ideas that count, not the man or woman promoting them.

But to show willing here is some information that may help you pitch your explanation at the right level:
(a.) B.Sc (Honours) Geology
(b.) About 40 years of active work in technical, logistic, administrative, R & D, teaching and managerial roles in three major global companies, one medium sized company, one small company and as a consultant.
(c.) Acknowledged global expert in my particular (very restricted)technical field which has absolutely nothing at all to do with astronomy and is therfore irrelevant, but you did ask. 
(d.) Interest in astronomy spanning fifty years at the level of the enthusiastic armchair amateur. My specific interest is in planetary formation. My university minors in chemistry and physics are of some use in this regard.

I would specifically like you to address your point (b.) in which you dispute that the sun is powered by hydrogen fusion. This is the only one I think I would have sufficient background to stand a chance of debating with you on.

And yes, I do wish to debate. You seem to think that deabting is a cowardly act. I do not simply want an explanation of your views, I wish to challenge those views and see your responses to those challenges. I am at a loss to understand why you would think that is unhealthy.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 13/07/2009 17:43:37
Thanks, Ophiolite, for letting us know that you have a B.Sc (Honours) in Geology.

What is the most abundant element in Earth?

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?

Professor W. D. Harkins published the answer in the Journal of the American Chemical Society 39 (1917) 756-879.

What stellar nuclear reactions and conditions produce this element?

Professors Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle published the answer to this question in Reviews of Modern Physics 29 (1957) 547-650.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 13/07/2009 20:41:18
I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions? You appeared to supply the answers.
Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching? Whatever, I’ll play ball. (And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)

What is the most abundant element in the Earth?
Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)

The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).
White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17

………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.
Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41

From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)
The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32

Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more current that your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)

Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet. Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.

Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron? I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?
I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.

I find no fault with B2FH. WHo would argue with genius?

What is your point?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 14/07/2009 00:07:39
G'day Ophiolite

Sounds like you are a smart cookie.

Self Discovery is probably the best path.

Read some of these papers

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/index.html
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 14/07/2009 17:28:08
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST

I did not complete high school, I never had a course in geology, but I worked at the interface of nuclear chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy for almost 50 years and my first PdD graduate has been a professor of geology at a major university for a few years less. 

I rather thought the idea was for you to explain your ideas to me, not for you to probe my knowledge. Or were those rhetorical questions?  You appeared to supply the answers.  Or are you using the Socratic method of teaching?  Whatever, I’ll play ball.

The idea is for you to learn something from this exchange, which may happen if you are personally engaged.  Knowledge cannot be poured on a student, . . . like water.

(And thank you so much for apologizing for implying I was “an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym.”)

The comment was not meant to be personal.  I simply cannot afford to invest time trying to explain science to those who are locked in their ego cages, trying to confirm their self-importance by arguing or challenging every concept that they don't understand.

I am pleased to see from your response that you are not one of those.

What is the most abundant element in the Earth?

Off the top of my head I would say oxygen, with iron a very close second. (The top of my head has gone bald in recent years, so it is always as well to check.)

The most abundant elements in the Earth are O and Fe (both close to 32%).
White, W.M. Geochemistry page 17

………..and oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth.
Krebbs, R.E. The History and Use of Our Earth’s Chemical Elements page 41

From the Figure 4. Fe (32%) Oxygen (30%)
The Academic Press The Encyclopedia of the Solar System page 32

You are right, Ophiolite.  IRON (Fe) is the most abundant element in the Earth and in ordinary meteorites.  Fe is element #26. 

Oxygen (O) is the second most abundant element in the Earth.  O is element #8. 

Oxygen (O) is the most abundant element at the surface of the Earth.

[There is a lesson there.]

Although these are only textbooks, rather than original research they are considerably more current that than your 1917 reference. (I do not intend to demean Harkins. His insights into such matters as the relative abundances of odd and even atomic numbered elements supported his position as a nuclear evolutionist. He was a geochemist before the term was coined.)

You are right again, Ophiolite. 

Harkins used the results of wet chemical analysis of over 400 meteorites to show that the abundances of even numbered elements are higher than those of odd numbered elements.

Harkins also correctly predicted that even-numbered elements have higher nuclear stability than odd-numbered elements.  Harkins' 1917 prediction about higher nuclear stability of even-numbered elements was finally confirmed in the 1930s.

How did Harkings figure that out in 1917?  See item (2.) below

Papers that are "more current" than Harkins' 1917 paper are not necessarily more informative.

Two techniques seem to advance knowledge:

(1.) Experimental observations
(2.) Meditation and contemplation

Modern science has fallen in love with technology, which can certainly provide data faster and more accurately than older techniques.  That leaves little or no time for item (2.) above.

Modern instruments crank out data much faster than we can adsorb, and there is now a tremendous overload of reliable data out there that has never been comprehended.

Many scientists cannot see the forest for the leaves!

I experienced this problem myself when I was a NASA PI for Apollo samples.  I had a "state of the art" mass spectrometer, designed and built by my research advisor at UC-Berkeley - Professor John H. Reynolds.  It seemed that NASA would have another lunar sample in my mailbox almost every day, wanting me to crank out additional data for the next Lunar Science Conference.

Of course, it is a somewhat meaningless question. There is still considerable debate as to light component in the core. Different views yield variations in bulk Earth composition of 2 or 3 percentage points for iron, readily shifting it between the most abundant, to the second most abundant in the planet.  Equally, controversy rages over mantle composition and volatile depletion therein, on a whole mantle basis. Oxygen might easily vary by a similar percentage.

You display great insight in questioning the composition of the Earth's core.

From the information I have obtained from meteorites, I tend to go along with John Wood's (Harvard) idea that the fluid outer core is mostly nickel-iron mixed with sulfides, like the troilite inclusions found in iron meteorites.  The fraction of the core of the terrestrial planet that contains (Fe,Ni)S increases with distance from the Sun: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars.  The fraction that is metallic Fe,Ni increases toward the Sun: Mars, Earth, Venus, Mercury.

Shall we just agree that there is a lot of iron?  I doubt your argument is materially effected if it is only placed as number two.

Okay.

What is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites?

I have absolutely no idea? I have never heard of an ordinary meteorite. I have heard of siderites and their many subdivisions, IAB, IIc, IID, IIE, etc; and siderolites, including pallasites and lodranites; not to mention aerolites, both chondrites such as the enstatite chondrites, the olivine-hypersthene chondrites, and everyone’s favourite the carbonaceous chondrites, and achondrites like the diogenite and eucrite varieties. I’ve forgotten to mention most of them, but nowhere in there can I find an ‘ordinary meteorite’. Please enlighten me.


The term, "Ordinary meteorites" came from Harkin's 1917 paper.

I find no fault with B2FH. WHo would argue with genius?

What is your point?

I want you to know the stellar nuclear reactions and the stellar conditions that produce IRON (Fe).  Okay, it is the e-process defined by B2FH.  What does e represent?

I thank you, Ophiolite, for your willingness to learn.  I have family responsibilities and must sign off now.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 15/07/2009 00:59:15
G'day from the land of ozzzz

The reason why I post links is to share the information and give credit to those who write them.

Do we really know what the heck is going on out there?.

I'm not a smart cookie, I know that. For this reason I want to see evidence and scientific logic to direct my thoughts. I just hope mainstream is correct, because billions of dollars spent on projects in the name of Standard Models.

This paper is informative and the ABS explains it. Yes I do read the links.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0162
Field Fractal Cosmological Model As an Example of Practical Cosmology Approach

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
(Submitted on 1 Oct 2008)

Quote
Abstract: The idea of the global gravitational effect as the source of cosmological redshift was considered by de Sitter (1916, 1917), Eddington (1923), Tolman (1929) and Bondi (1947), also Hubble (1929) called the discovered distance-redshift relation as "De Sitter effect". For homogeneous matter distribution cosmological gravitational redshift is proportional to square of distance: z_grav ~ r^2. However for a fractal matter distribution having the fractal dimension D=2 the global gravitational redshift is the linear function of distance: z_grav ~ r, which gives possibility for interpretation of the Hubble law without the space expansion. Here the field gravity fractal cosmological model (FGF) is presented, which based on two initial principles. The first assumption is that the field gravity theory describes the gravitational interaction within the conceptual unity of all fundamental physical interactions. The second hypothesis is that the spatial distribution of matter is a fractal at all scales up to the Hubble radius. The fractal dimension of matter distribution is assumed to be D = 2, which implies that the global gravitational redshift is the explanation of the observed linear Hubble law. In the frame of the FGF all three phenomena - the cosmic background radiation, the fractal large scale structure, and the Hubble law, -could be consequences of a unique evolution process of the initially homogeneous cold gas. Within field gravity fractal framework a new qualitative picture of the structure and evolution of the Universe has emerged, with some quantitative results that may be tested by current and forthcoming observations.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Fortran on 17/07/2009 09:10:23
ahhhh... Iron and Oxygen, Earth's two most abundant elements -- Rust -- Hemaglobin!

Hemaglobin... the color of the glow of health and of the blush of embarrassment, the color of both the wondrous renewability of the womb and the shameful sin of war.  Hemaglobin, of all the proteins, the most symbolic of life!!

(And why do I feel underfoot around 2 struggling titans? -- or at least 1½ titans?)

Now dave, just lie back on the couch and tell me all about it..  :)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 17/07/2009 16:27:26
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued)

Yes.  Iron (Fe), element #26, is the most abundant element in ordinary meteorites and in rocky plants that orbit close to the Sun.

Oxygen (O), element #8, is the next most abundant element.

Those facts alone suggest that the Earth and ordinary meteorites came from a supernova.

Both of these elements are produced by very rapid, violent nuclear reactions in a supernova.

1. B2FH reported that Iron (Fe) was made by the e-process, equilibrium process.  That is the violent nuclear reactions that occur near the core of a supernova, consuming other elements to produce the most stable of all nuclear species, Fe-56.  Those same nuclear reactions also produce lesser amounts of Ni-58 and Ni-60.

Fe and Ni are the ash, or stable end products, of nuclear reactions driven to completion, just as . . .

CO2 and H2O are stable end products of grape sugar oxidation. 
[Incomplete oxidation makes alcohol, then vinegar, then . . . . CO2 and H2O.]

Meteorites made mostly of Fe,Ni metal still fall from the skies today.
The core of the Earth and other terrestrial planets consists mostly of Fe,Ni metal.
Initially there were more metal meteorites than stone meteorites accreting here, as suggested by Turekian and Clarke ["Inhomogeneous accumulation of the earth from the primitive solar nebula," Earth & Planetary Science Letters 6 (1969) 346-348], but the solar nebula itself was never homogeneous.

2. B2FH reported that Oxygen (O) was made by Helium burning.  That is also a violent series of nuclear reactions that overcome Coulomb repulsive forces between the positive charges on the Helium nuclei (He-4) and fuse them together to make high abundances of other nuclei with high nuclear stability: C-12, O-16, Ne-20, Mg-24, Si-28, S-32,  etc.

He-4 + He-4 + He-4 => C-12
C-12 + He-4 => O-16
O-16 + He-4 => Ne-20
Ne-20 + He-4 => Mg-24
Mg-24 + He-4 => Si-28
Si-28 + He-4 => S-32, etc.

The products of explosive He-burning - [O, Mg, Si and S] - and products of the e-process  - [Fe and Ni] - make up the bulk of the material in the Earth, in ordinary meteorites, and in the other terrestrial planets that orbit close to the Sun.

Conclusion: Geochemical information on the composition of the Earth and ordinary meteorites, when combined with nuclear astrophysics from B2FH, confirm that major elements in the Earth and in ordinary meteorites came from a supernova.

Questions:

How does the O/C ratio on Earth compare with that in the solar photosphere?

Why was Nobel Laureate W. A. Fowler puzzled by the O/C ratio in the photosphere?

Can Ophiolite describe where rocky, Earth-like planets were first observed in another planetary system outside the solar system?

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




Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Harry Costas on 19/07/2009 03:40:05
G'day Oliver

Your response is fantastic, thank you for the info.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: eonfluxs7 on 19/07/2009 20:02:12
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS

Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.

If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.

This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. 

Perhaps I am just an optimist, but I have recently noticed encouraging signs of less arrogance in the violation of scientific principles by NAS and federal agencies and of less arrogance in the violation of basic human rights by leaders of the United States government.

Hopefully ethical web sites like the "Naked Science Forum" may be able to help save science from total self-destruction.
-----
This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something. 
-----
There are many ideas about universe. There are many names comes up like G-String to the String Bikini.
I just make a simple research based on Newtonian, Keplerian and Einstein's Gravity. I found that the Big Bang is only a stage of our universe process. Perhaps, there are some big bang had occurred in our universe.

The time before big bang can be read here: http://ian-titen.blogspot.com/2009/07/view-from-event-horizon.html

The big bang is an explosion of mass after loss the energy can be seen in the video here:
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 20/07/2009 05:08:43
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued)

G'day Oliver

Your response is fantastic, thank you for the info.


Thanks, Harry.
- - - - - - - - - -
Before continuing, let me answer the questions that I asked Ophiolite:

1. In the Earth O/C ~ 1000 and in the solar photosphere, O/C ~ 2 !

2. The latter value is a major problem for nuclear astrophysics, as noted by Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler:

“. . . we still cannot show in the laboratory or in theoretical calculations why the ratio of Oxygen to Carbon in the Sun and similar stars is close to two to one . . .” [William A. Fowler in Cauldrons in the Cosmos: Nuclear Astrophysics by Claus E. Rolf and William S. Rodney (David N. Schramm, series editor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA, 1988) page xi].

The problem is this:  It is almost impossible to get three He-4 nuclei to fuse into C-12.  The conditions which make this happen are so extreme that another He-4 is almost always added.  I.e., almost all of the C-12 should have been quickly converted into O-16.

3. Rocky, Earth-like planets were first observed outside the solar system orbiting the pulsar collapsed core of a supernova, PSR 1257+12 [A. Wolszczan and D. A. Frail, “A planetary system around the millisecond pulsar PSR1257+12," Nature 355 (1992) 145-147; A. Wolszczan, “Confirmation of earth-mass planets orbiting the millisecond pulsar PSR B 1257+12”, Science 264 (1994) 538-542].
- - - - - - - - - -

We showed above that Earth and ordinary meteorites consist mostly of elements like Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - elements that were made in a supernova.  All six of these elements have even atomic numbers.

Harkins used data from wet chemical analysis of over 400 meteorites to conclude correctly in 1917 that “... in the evolution of elements much more material has gone into the even-numbered elements than into those which are odd...” [See page 869 of W. D. Harkins Journal American Chemical Society 39 (1917) 856-879].

However, Cecelia Payne analyzed line spectra from the solar photosphere and correctly reported in 1925 that an odd numbered element, Hydrogen (H), appears to be the most abundant element in the atmosphere of the Sun and the next lightest element, Helium (He) is the next most abundant element in the atmosphere of the Sun [See: Cecelia H. Payne Stellar Atmospheres (Harvard Observatory Monograph #1, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1925) pp. 177-189].

Cecelia Payne did not suggest that the interior of the Sun is H and He!  And indeed it is not.

The most abundant elements inside the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - like in meteorites, but lightweight elements are highly enriched in the atmosphere of the Sun.  We know that because independent quantitative measurements on two separate samples of the Sun show conclusively that . . .

a.) Lightweight isotopes are systematically enriched in the solar wind relative to their abundances in planetary material [See: "Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222], and
 
b.) Lightweight s-products are systematically enriched in the solar photosphere relative to the abundances predicted from neutron-capture cross sections [See: "Nuclear systematics: Part IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radio-analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (205) 159-163]. 

I am unable to post the data here for you to see, but you can see it in Figure 6 of the paper, "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856; Yadernaya Fizika 69, (2006) number 11; astro-ph/0609509; PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

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

PS - The energy source that continuously produces solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and the solar-wind Hydrogen pouring from the surface of the Iron Sun in exactly the proportions measured is shown on page 20 as messages # 263063 and # 264134 of the Naked Science Forum discussion of Science Photo of the Week http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=957.475

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 21/07/2009 05:03:55
ASTROPHYSICISTS RE-DISCOVER: DYING STAR WAS LINKED TO BIRTH OF SOLAR SYSTEM

Eonfluxs7 need not despair.  "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].

In the last 24 hours there have been several news reports:
 
A team of international astrophysicists have discovered that a dying star was linked to the birth of the solar system !
http://www.physorg.com/news167302986.html (http://www.physorg.com/news167302986.html)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720092022.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090720092022.htm)

That is precisely what we told astrophysicists over 30 years ago, in scientific journals and in research conferences attended by leading astrophysicists:

1. "Elemental and isotopic inhomogeneities in noble gases: The case for local synthesis of the chemical elements", Transactions Missouri Academy Sciences 9 (1975) 104-122.

2. "The xenon record of element synthesis", abstract P58, presented at the 1976 AGU Meeting, Sheraton Hotel, Washington DC, April 14 (1976); Published in Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 57 (1976) 278.

3. "Xenon record of the early solar system", Nature 262 (1976) 28-32.

4. “Key issues in xenology: The main issues and where they are leading us today”, Gregynog Workshop on Isotopic Abundance Anomalies, Montgomery, WALES (August 1976).

5. "Strange xenon, extinct super-heavy elements and the solar neutrino puzzle", Science 195 (1977) 208-209.

6. "Proceedings of Robert Welch Foundation Conference on Chemical Research XII. Cosmochemistry," Robert Welch Foundation (1978) 263-272.

7. "Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis", Nature 277 (1979) 615-620.

Even today this "team of international astrophysicists" fails to grasp that:

a. Most elements in the iron-rich object on which they live came directly from the deep interior of the dying star.

b. Large masses of iron that fall from the sky today as iron meteorites also came directly from the dying star.

c. The dying star expelled the material that now orbits the Sun, which re-formed on the remnant stellar core, a pulsar.

d. The Sun is not a ball of Hydrogen; This lightest of all elements is a neutron-decay product that covers the solar surface.

e. The Sun is heated primarily by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the pulsar on which it formed.

So do not despair, eonfluxs7.  Those who abuse political power and position are almost always corrupted and eventually destroyed by their own arrogance.

Recently when global warming became a wide-spread public concern, astrophysicists and astronomers were unprepared to explain the Sun's very obvious role in climate change. 

For over three decades they had ignored any and all experimental findings that threatened to expose the standard solar model of a Hydrogen-filled Sun as an illusion that was inconsistent with such obvious solar features as solar eruptions, sunspots, solar cycles, and the solar wind -- Not unlike the illusion of a child who believes apples must be red on the inside because they are red on the outside!

The well-established link between Earth's climate and solar cycles was, however, explained by experimental data from the mid-1970s that revealed Earth's heat source to be the unstable remains of a supernova that exploded 5 Gyr ago and gave birth to the solar system [See: "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN", Energy and Environment: SPECIAL ISSUE: Natural drivers of weather and climate, volume 20 (2009) 131-144. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704) ]

Remember, eonfluxs7, that science itself has this spiritual foundation: "Truth is victorious, never untruth" [Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85].   

 
THE MOB CONTROLS ACCESS TO JOURNALS AND TO RESEARCH FUNDS

Research proposals and research papers are evaluated by anonymous reviewers.

If your findings or your ideas are not mainstream, your paper will not be published and you will not receive research funds.

This system has become progressively more corrupt over my career and science has become progressively more like a fairy tale. 

-----
This info will make me harder for me to continue my research. Even more, I am an Indonesian that usually being banned before say something. 

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 23/07/2009 22:41:20
DIALOGUE WITH A GEOLOGIST (continued):

Before responding to Ophiolite's request for empirical evidence that Hydrogen-fusion does NOT power the Sun nor the cosmos
, please consider this

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!]

1. The Sun is mostly IRON, not HYDROGEN.
2. The Sun discards HYDROGEN as a WASTE PRODUCT.
3. Nuclear dissociation, rather than fusion, powers the Sun and the cosmos and fills interstellar space with HYDROGEN.

1. Hydrogen is a trace element inside the Sun, although this lightest of all elements comprises 91% of atoms in the photosphere.  The most abundant elements inside the Sun are Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg.  Mass-fractionation inside the Sun has been quantitatively established by two completely independent measurements:

1 a.) Abundances of twenty-two (22) noble gas isotopes in the solar wind relative to their abundances in planetary material [See: "Solar abundance of the elements", Meteoritics 18 (1983) 209-222], and

1b.) Abundances of seventy-two (72) s-products in the solar photosphere relative to the abundances predicted from neutron-capture cross sections [See: "Nuclear systematics: Part IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radio-analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266 (2005) 159-163].

When solar surface abundances are corrected for the mass fraction empirically defined by either

_ a.) Noble gas isotopes in the solar wind, or
_ b.) s-products in the photosphere,

The most abundant elements inside the Sun turn out to be Fe, O, Ni, Si, S and Mg - the elements that are also most abundant in ordinary meteorites!
 
The probability (P) that these three measurements fortuitously (by meaningless chance) agree on the dominant abundance of these same seven elements is zero (0),
P < 0.00000000000000000000000000000002 ! http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0410717v1

2. Antoine Lavoisier coined the name Hydrogen for the colorless, flammable gas that is released together with heat as sulfuric acid reacts with zinc:

Sulfuric Acid + Zinc  => Zinc Sulfate + Heat + Hydrogen

The Sun also releases Heat and Hydrogen, but Hydrogen has been mistakenly classified as the fuel rather than as a by-product of the solar engine.

3. Solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and solar wind Hydrogen pouring from the surface of the Sun arise from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core that trigger this series of nuclear reactions: 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

3 a.) Neutron-emission generates 60% of solar luminosity:
---- <n> => n + 12 Mev

3 b.) Neutron-decay generates 5% of solar luminosity:
---- n => proton + electron + 1 MeV

3 c.) Protons fuse to He-4 as they are accelerated upward by deep-seated magnetic fields, generating 35% of solar luminosity:
---- p => 0.25 He-4 + 7 MeV

3 d.) Protons surviving the upward journey depart in the solar wind, generating 100% of SW Hydrogen:
---- 3 x 10^43 protons => depart annually in the solar wind.

3 e.) Repulsive interactions between neutrons (above) were discovered with the help of five students in the last graduate class that I taught in the spring semester of 2000.


The five students were Cynthia Bolon, Shelonda Finch, Daniel Ragland, Matthew Seelke, and Bing Zhang, all at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

The above picture is shown as Figure 16, page 16 of the AIP Conference Proceedings, volume 822 (2006) pages 206-225:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0510001

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” – Herbert Spencer

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

Postscript: The following comment about a cross-sectional view of the Sun in a bottle, originally posted on Physics World (May 4, 2009), may help Ophiolite and other readers understand the operation of the Sun.

The comment concerns a book review by Dr. Cris W. Barnes [Deputy Division Leader of the Physics Division at the Los Alamos National Laboratory] of Charles Seife's book, "Sun in a Bottle: The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking" [2008 Viking Books].

It should be okay to repeat the comment here, since someone other than me deleted it from Physics World.

NO MORE THAN WISHFUL THINKING

Unfortunately, the idea of controlled fusion is based on an illusion that the Sun and other ordinary stars are giant balls of Hydrogen heated by Hydrogen fusion.

They are not: The Sun in a bottle would not be a bottle of Hydrogen!

True, the solar surface is covered with Hydrogen - the lightest of all elements.  This is smoke from the nuclear furnace at the solar core - not the primary fuel. 

Each year the Sun exhausts 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen in the solar wind, like CO2 pouring from the exhaust pipes of cars and chimneys of homes and factories.

The Sun operates like a high-efficiency furnace.  The first stage of the furnace generates 65% of solar luminosity.  The first stage also generates Hydrogen as a neutron decay product. 

Most of the Hydrogen - like the dirty, dark waste gas of a coal furnace that encounters hot catalytic converters  - is further burned into Helium as the Hydrogen moves upward toward the solar surface.  This generates 35% of solar luminosity and 100% of the solar neutrinos. 

If the Sun were in a very tall bottle that allowed nothing to escape through the walls:

a.) Pouring from the top of the bottle would be heat and light, Bottle-Wind Hydrogen that had been produced in the bottle, and enough Bottle Neutrinos to account for 35% of the heat and light by Hydrogen-fusion. 

b.) At the bottom of the bottle would be a tiny, invisible speck emitting neutrons.

c.) Near the bottom of the bottle, neutrons would decay to Hydrogen ions and electrons.

d.) Strong magnetic fields would carry the Hydrogen upward.

e.) Most of the Hydrogen would fuse into Helium during this upward journey

f.) The upward flow of Hydrogen would maintain mass separation in the bottle selectively carrying lightweight elements and lightweight isotopes of each element to the top of the bottle and away in the Bottle-wind.

See: The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856 or Yadernaya Fizika (Russian) 69, number 11, Nov 2006; PAC: 96.20.Dt   DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509 (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509)

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


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 24/07/2009 06:58:58
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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 25/07/2009 05:15:21
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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1991Data.htm)

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com (http://www.omatumr.com)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Naufal the B. S. on 25/07/2009 08:42:47
what do you believe, man!?

I think the creationism. If you're not atheist
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: TSE on 26/07/2009 00:54:21
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!
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: pshmell on 26/07/2009 18:08:04
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."
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 28/07/2009 01:53:06
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


 

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 07/08/2009 16:34:23
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
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 10/08/2009 15:18:00
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 (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  (http://www.physorg.com/news168698290.html)

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

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: krytie75 on 10/08/2009 22:11:42
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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 13/08/2009 11:42:44
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
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: lyner on 14/08/2009 15:07:50
Is this anything more than an advert?
Does it belong on this thread?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Andrew K Fletcher on 14/08/2009 21:01:16
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
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 14/08/2009 23:03:49
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
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: BenV on 16/08/2009 13:28:13
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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 15/09/2009 22:43:06
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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Tintin_Triton on 28/09/2009 08:15:27
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.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern on 28/09/2009 14:25:28
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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: werc 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
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang 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?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Mr. Scientist 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang 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.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: a-x-med on 23/12/2009 03:11:21
http://miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

Just check it up, there is not only big bang
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Webo 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!               
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Vern 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. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html)

Stated more simply: Everything in the universe consists of electromagnetic fields and nothing else exists.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 15/02/2010 14:33:01
what do you believe?

According to the Big Bang model, the physical universe has expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. The model suggests in the expansion of space every celestial object in 13.7 billion years has reached its current time-dilated spatial location in a timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_big_bang) according to the trajectory of the celestial object in its expanded space.

Nonetheless, the furthest observable galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Abell_1835_IR1916) has been observed near the CMBR boundary and this is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young; this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in 500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at 500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that 13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests Universe was created in an explosion from a small hot ball is logically fallacious.

This Big Bang model postulation is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it is mathematically valid, it is logically erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no thought experiment could work for such a scenario. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with a 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the 13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; it is simply impossible.
 
It is only logical to think that at 13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy was already formed there at that spatial location. In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.

IMHO, the concept-based expansion of space in the Big Bang theory is an erroneous assumption at the fundamental level and therefore its propositions are logically fallacious.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 15/02/2010 16:47:08
Nonetheless, the furthest observable galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Abell_1835_IR1916) has been observed near the CMBR boundary and this is believed to be a sight when the Universe was merely 500 million years young; this is a scientific evidence that at 13.2 billion years ago that furthest galaxy was already at that spatial location and it had developed to a galaxy of significant size. If the expansion of space had brought that galaxy there in 500 million years with the Big Bang expansion, the observed time-dilated image of the primordial galaxy at 500 million years young would not be able to appear at that spatial location in that 13.2 billion year timeline; the Big Bang model that suggests Universe was created in an explosion from a small hot ball is logically fallacious.
You don't seem to understand the theory here. The galaxy in question appears to be exactly where it should be given the current understanding of the Big Bang theory. It appears to be the distance is is not simply because of the expansion of the universe before the light that we observe left the galaxy but also because of the expansion since the light left the galaxy.
Quote
This Big Bang model postulation is inconsistence in its logical framework, although in its hypothetical construct it is mathematically valid, it is logically erroneous, and therefore is unthinkable; no thought experiment could work for such a scenario. Put on a logic thinking cap and ask the question on how could the time-dilated image with a 500 million years young scenario of that primordial galaxy appear at the 13.2 billion year timeline in a Big Bang expansion; it is simply impossible.
Well, how it happens is this:
1) In the first 500 million years after the era of recombination, a galaxy forms.
2) Light leaves that galaxy.
3) In the time between when the light leaves the galaxy and today when we see this light, the distance between us and the galaxy grows to 31 billion light years.
Quote
It is only logical to think that at 13.2 billion years ago, that distant galaxy was already formed there at that spatial location.
Of course.
Quote
In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.
Exactly, except that there is no absolute time. Typically one uses a specific cosmological time coordinate to talk of the age of the universe.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 15/02/2010 19:54:27
It appears to be the distance is is not simply because of the expansion of the universe before the light that we observe left the galaxy but also because of the expansion since the light left the galaxy.

Appreciate your quick respond and your attempt to explain where I might have overlooked.

Can you please elaborate on your above statement specifically, on how did that distant galaxy got to the distance of 13.2 Gly away in 500 million years of time with the expansion you have posited above. Thanks. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 15/02/2010 21:40:47
First, the galaxy that you speak of was not 13.2 billion light years away from our coordinate position at the time it emitted the light we see. If it is still in the same place, then it is currently about 31 billion light years away. It was probably less than 3 billion light years away when the light that we see left that galaxy.

Second, the rate of expansion in the very, very early universe was much faster than the speed of light. This lets a finite amount of matter spread out over a large distance.

Third, the universe might be infinite in size. This means that there will always be galaxies out however far we can look.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 17/02/2010 17:10:10
Quote
Quote
In absolute time it would have travelled to a further spatial location according to its trajectory.
Exactly, except that there is no absolute time. Typically one uses a specific cosmological time coordinate to talk of the age of the universe.

Noted and thanks. I agreed absolute time was not appropriate for the discussion here.


First, the galaxy that you speak of was not 13.2 billion light years away from our coordinate position at the time it emitted the light we see. If it is still in the same place, then it is currently about 31 billion light years away. It was probably less than 3 billion light years away when the light that we see left that galaxy.

Second, the rate of expansion in the very, very early universe was much faster than the speed of light. This lets a finite amount of matter spread out over a large distance.

My apology for not being as detailed as you are to mention the comoving distance, nonetheless, this is the neck of the problem for my issue with the BB model.

Your reasoning on superluminal expansion of space for the Universe in the earlier phase is rational and it is mathematically valid. Can you please substantiate the claim on superluminal expansion during the earlier phase, I would like to have your insight on this. It would be marvelous if it is coherent with the cosmic inflation BB model.   

Quote
Third, the universe might be infinite in size. This means that there will always be galaxies out however far we can look.

You have a very interesting proposition here that is usually not endorsed by realism or the objectivism from the BB proponents for their definitions of reality; it appears to me you have a different concept of space that is different from the classical BB model. Although I felt this is not quite relevant to our discussion here, I believe you might have some hypotheses for substantiating your this point of view. Appreciate if you could provide a link that elaborates on this concept.     

Many thanks in advance.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 17/02/2010 17:19:37
Given my training and study, I am quite confident that I am right in step with the actual understanding of space as presented in the standard cosmological model. If you want some detailed information, I recommend Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 17/02/2010 18:31:50
Given my training and study, I am quite confident that I am right in step with the actual understanding of space as presented in the standard cosmological model. If you want some detailed information, I recommend Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

I believe you training and study would be an asset for this discussion.

Thanks for the link. I found it in part II of the cosmology tutorial that suggests it could be an open Universe, inferring it is spatially infinite. Nevertheless, this is still not a known fact and realists debates against a spatially infinite Universe. Although I knew the standard cosmology model proposed open and closed Universe, I did not know before hand that an open Universe would imply it is spatially infinite, thanks for this info and I have benefited from the discussion with you.

Although the tutorial stated in an open Universe, superluminal speeds are certainly possible, it did not mention superluminal expansion of space in the Universe in the earlier phase, or was this  information hidden somewhere in the tutorial and I did not manage to find it?

However, this begs the next question. With the distant galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 observed and it  has a redshift factor of z=10, why do you think an open Universe expanding at superluminal speed at its earlier phase is compatible with inflation cosmic? Or did I not interpret your replies correctly and you did not posit this?

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: jsaldea12 on 04/04/2010 14:09:25
I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of  planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.

I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.   


Jsaldea12


4,4,10
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 04/04/2010 21:19:35
I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of  planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.
Ummm... no. There is nothing remotely similar between the account in Genesis and Lemaitre's model of the universe. At best they share a creation event, though even that is not required in a Lemaitre model.
Quote
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.   
You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: jsaldea12 on 07/04/2010 01:13:01
Number of superclusters In the visible universe = 10 million
Number of galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
Number of large galaxies in the visible universe   = 350 billion
Number of dwarf galaxies in the visible universe  = 7 trillion
Number of stars in the visible universe                   = 30 billion trillion


Above is the figures given by very respectable Richard Powell, astrophysicist, with e-mail singinglemon@earthling.net. You can find this amazing graphic data  in the internet. re-The universe within 14 billion light
years”...http://www/atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html

Can it be that such volume in the visible universe, not to mention, the infinite unreached, unseen recesses of the universe, emanated from a single point in the universe, the size SMALLER THAN A PROTON?


Jsaldea12

4.7.10
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 16/04/2010 11:16:21
I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster.   

I wouldn't use the term several big bangs of smaller sizes to describe how the physical universe had emanated; big bang model is very specific and it is definitely not an emanating model of smaller size big bangs. Nonetheless, I support the view of an emergent model from an alternative perspective.

You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.

On friendly invitation with genuine interest for amicable discussion on the expressed alternative worldview, here is an astronomical evidence in galactic scale that supports the emergent model; see a link on "Cartwheel Galaxy Makes Waves In New NASA Image (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cartwheel_Galaxy_Makes_Waves_In_New_NASA_Image.html)".

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uvs-model.com%2Fpictures%2Fgalaxy_cartwheel_opt.jpg&hash=8cbe641542b852105ce84e81ea347e13) Cartwheel galaxy group

Evidently, matters in the outer ring of the Cartwheel galaxy are evolved in the so called empty space from an apparent nothingness and these plasmatic clouds vortically coalesce to form as stars in an intensified vortex ring that harmonically resonates around the main galaxy at the center. See a UVS topic on "Black hole, dark matter and dark energy (http://www.uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20galactic%20spheroid%20of%20Cartwheel%20Galaxy.htm)" that elaborates on this apparent nothingness that encapsulate the Cartwheel galaxy.

“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein


From the perspective of UVS (http://www.uvs-model.com/) on how the physical universe has come into existence in collections of smaller emergences in the backdrop of the largest observable emergence, all celestial objects are vortically coalesced from matters that had emerged in vortical motion from an apparent nothingness in space. See also a UVS topic on "Faster than light speed in transferring of motion through interconnectedness (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20clarifying%20the%20concept%20of%20gravity.htm#FLM)" that elaborates on this supposedly emergence phenomenon of the Cartwheel's ring in the alternative worldview.

Here is an astronomical evidence in the most grandeur scale that is observable in the physical universe; see a UVS topic on "The dipole anisotropy pattern of CMBR (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20CMBR_dipole.htm)" that illustrates this phenomenon where all its smaller emergences such as superclusters, galaxy clusters, galaxies, satellite galaxies, stars, planets and their satellites are vortically coalesced from matters that had emerged in this grand vortical motion that sets every celestial object in unisonal perpetual motion as a clockwork universe.

COBE temperature map of the CMBR dipole.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uvs-model.com%2Fpictures%2FCMB_dipole_COBE.jpg&hash=b36e3ad00c340d879cb2cc48a9b9c44f)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: quibitheed on 17/04/2010 14:22:25
Hi everybody

To be honest I have skipped most of this thread as the first two pages were more about a 2 people than the subject. On the one hand Sophiecentaur, the Jean Brodie school mistress standing in resolute reasonableness of the faithful. And J K Fletcher, who proposes some startling intuitively brilliant thought that deserves more than immediate dismissal, yet may sometimes find it hard to decide how far outside the box its safe to go. Would it not be interesting if they could attempt to meet in the middle?

I think, and as this is my first post I should perhaps point out that my organised education within institutions designed for that task ended when I was aged 11. My only achievement in an educational establishment was to gain a regional record in undetected truancy. Yet such behaviour is not only indicative of delinquency but also of burning individuality. Are we to be like ants or bees that live only for the hive?

All my heroes of science are mavericks. I would hazard the guess that most of my heroes are the same as most of yours. So I would like Sophie and Andrew to stop talking past each other and see where they can agree. For Sophie you should be happy that maverick thought from those who have no academic investment is voiced here. Who knows what kernel of inspiration it may unleash? Its an ill wind and all that. I do not think you have to be an academic and use the language of mathematics to have a valid idea. Good ideas begin in peoples heads not with equations. And sometimes I get the distinct impression that scientists get lost in their theories like teenagers on WoW.

I say this because you are ignoring some extremely interesting observationally testable ideas. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff. We don't know nor understand yet how it clumps together except that something else we do not understand yet, gravity, has something to do with it. Our working models on the formation of solar systems prior to their discovery had never even mentioned the possibility of hot giants that would dwarf Jupiter, hurtling round in breakneck orbits virtually in the corona of their parent star. Burp! Sorry I meant predatory mass. We do not know much about solar systems because we only have a basic working knowledge of one.

As someone who is just an observer and accumulator of information and has no investment to fulfil but curiosity I can state there are virtually no papers that are published without someone raising caveats, contradictions and uncertainties. Science is not just a beautiful methodology it is also a never ending argument. And so it should be. So lets all enjoy it while it lasts.

As for the point of the post, the question is the big bang theory correct? , I answered "other". It seems to me the current inflationary vision from a single point of nothingness is just senseless. To believe that Newton, Einstein and their scholarly progeny have everything explained is pure poop. Their genius is in taking us to frontiers of understanding, not in giving us ultimate truth. Such a thing will never exist for our minds that think the way they do. There will always be more questions, the next frontier.

I will not pretend it to be anything other than my own ignorant opinion but my guess is we cannot begin to guess at the causal conditions of space/time until we have a greatly improved understanding of what is happening below the planck scale and the interrelational mechanics that any meaningful theory would have to include are actually in place. And they simply are not. The near constant stream of results from deep space observation continue to produce more questions than answers even as they confirm the genius of the questions our science heroes posed us. Everything seems so..... paradoxical. My hunch is that we cannot see the wood for the trees. Or imagine for a moment that capable of human reasoning you were limited to being the size of an individual virus suspended 2 miles down in an ocean with as many individual viruses as there are stars in the visible universe. To know what and why the universe is we cannot ignore the perspective of scale.

On the planck floating on the quantum sub reality that is our visible cosmos there is so much we do not understand. We do not know with certainty the mechanics of the formation of any of the scales of magnitude. Not atomic building blocks, cells, solar systems, galaxies or clusters of galaxies. Our building of explanations are all incomplete works in progress. And whilst most of the prominent thinkers that make the headlines are more than willing to agree we simply cant be sure.... yet there is this aura of dictatorial, almost religious, arrogance like a council of Bishops, from the scientific 'body' to anyone who dare shout for a fundamental rethink.

Andrews ideas at the beginning of this thread deal with fundamental issues, the attraction and accumulation of bigger and bigger chunks of stuff. Unlike Andrew I believe that there is a limit beyond which that mass becomes so squashed it forms what we call black holes. I might add that I live with this 'hunch' that really understanding black holes will unlock a whole new paradigm. It is very easy to see there are a lot of supermassive black holes out there. They are important because at their event horizons the laws of physics we use for our material reckoning stop working. Our universe is peppered with examples of mass beyond mass. Are they relevant only because they exert such enormous gravitational influence? Cosmologists are still in fierce debate as to whether they are feeding, even creating, galaxies...or devouring them. I personally love the observation of water rich black hole ejections, spraying like huge garden sprinklers life giving water into its surrounding galaxy.

Without quoting papers and from what I have read from the official science press it is now believed to be highly likely that there is not only our new found love affair with dark matter and energy, there is something else being observed too. Dark flow. And there is at least one large eddy, or counterflow, been detected. It is easy and intuitive to think of the universe as a fluid, the saddle shape version of space time commonly used to explain the Einstein universe does look a snapshot of 'flow' too. So is there a good reason the universe is not lust a snapshot of a dynamic flowing body. Again I seek refuge in my ignorance of the academic tools to prove this one way or the other but from my untutored but well read perspective I see big bang theory as being just too full of fudges and fixes to be taken with the seriousness it is.

The truth is we are still stuck on 'what is gravity ?'. Without a meaningful answer to that all else remains meaningless. That is not to say it is all worthless. 


Add: That prominent galaxy in the above pic of the Cartwheel galaxy group has to have been called the condom galaxy.....shoorly ???
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 01/05/2010 18:39:58
You are welcome to try to support this with astronomical evidence.

See a series of video clips on "Cosmology Quest - Critique of Cosmology" part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgBX-2212Cs&feature=related), 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQfKGlo49M&feature=related), 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie1GC8B2e_Q&feature=related), 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_97bhEsNGU&feature=related), 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzeSfahq4W0&feature=related) and 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnsKfAS4Iv4&feature=related).

In this video it featured some accomplished scientists elaborating their opposing views that are supported with rigorous astronomical evidence for their opinions on why they think that the Big Bang model is incorrect.

From my vortex world view, here are two UVS topics that elaborate on how and why the Big Bang model is viewed as incorrect:

- Expansion of space in the Big Bang model reviewed with UVS (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#BBM) (Note: This was partially discussed in the previous posts of this thread.)

- Accelerated expansion of space in cosmic inflation reviewed with UVS (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#cosmic_inflation)

IMHO, it does not even require my UVS (http://www.uvs-model.com/) to be involved to rationally refute the BB model; the mathematical construct of the Big Bang cosmology would fall apart under its own definitions when its assumptions and propositions are rationally scrutinized for its contradictions that are logically fallacious.

Nonetheless, UVS could illustrate the paradoxical effect of nature that are involved to cause the complexly inversed illusions in the apparent observations, it also provides as a rational alternative model for cosmic evolution that could coherently explain the evolution of the physical universe from macrocosms to microcosms, and the illustrations therein are supported with astronomical evidence in logical empiricism.

I would be grateful if the Big Bang proponents or experts here could highlight to me on where I might have overlooked, misunderstood or misinterpreted anything that are crucial for the correct understanding of cosmic evolution; I would be listening with all ears.   

Many thanks in advance.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 01/05/2010 19:15:21

I do not think you have to be an academic and use the language of mathematics to have a valid idea. Good ideas begin in peoples heads not with equations. And sometimes I get the distinct impression that scientists get lost in their theories like teenagers on WoW.

I say this because you are ignoring some extremely interesting observationally testable ideas. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff.

Science is not just a beautiful methodology it is also a never ending argument. And so it should be. So lets all enjoy it while it lasts.

As for the point of the post, the question is the big bang theory correct? , I answered "other". It seems to me the current inflationary vision from a single point of nothingness is just senseless. To believe that Newton, Einstein and their scholarly progeny have everything explained is pure poop. Their genius is in taking us to frontiers of understanding, not in giving us ultimate truth. Such a thing will never exist for our minds that think the way they do. There will always be more questions, the next frontier.

Everything seems so..... paradoxical. (You might be interested to take a look at a UVS topic on "The paradoxical effect of nature) (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20paradoxical%20effect.htm)".

.... yet there is this aura of dictatorial, almost religious, arrogance like a council of Bishops, from the scientific 'body' to anyone who dare shout for a fundamental rethink.

I might add that I live with this 'hunch' that really understanding black holes will unlock a whole new paradigm.

Dark flow. And there is at least one large eddy, or counterflow, been detected. It is easy and intuitive to think of the universe as a fluid, the saddle shape version of space time commonly used to explain the Einstein universe does look a snapshot of 'flow' too.

The truth is we are still stuck on 'what is gravity ?'. Without a meaningful answer to that all else remains meaningless. That is not to say it is all worthless. 

Add: That prominent galaxy in the above pic of the Cartwheel galaxy group has to have been called the condom galaxy.....shoorly ???


Hi quibitheed,

Thank you for your very eloquent writting, reading you post was a very refreshing experience, and I have reread it several times.

You have made many interesting pointers (as noted above) in your this initial post that summarize your worldview of the Universe. However I will stop short here to ask if you could provide the links for the  astronomical details and images on:

1. Infra-red scans from the recent generation of cryogenic satellite instruments shows a universe full of stuff.

2. Dark flow. 

Thanks.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 08/05/2010 12:55:16
Four new videos on "Nellie the Neutron" and "New Clear Science" <nuclear science> explain the role of neutron repulsion as the energy source that powers the Sun and the cosmos:

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=31352.0 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=31352.0)

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: teh theory on 16/06/2010 20:52:10
i think it must have been a constant universe that LOOKS like it inflated from a point for any observer within the universe... each observer point probably has a different point of seeming 'big bang' origin ... although all of us here on earth might find it difficult to separate the different points of origin out thanks to the huge scale...

...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 25/06/2010 05:23:21
i think it must have been a constant universe that LOOKS like it inflated from a point for any observer within the universe... each observer point probably has a different point of seeming 'big bang' origin ... although all of us here on earth might find it difficult to separate the different points of origin out thanks to the huge scale...

...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...
Quantitative experimental data on
 
a.) Nuclear rest masses of all known types of atoms,
b.) Solar luminosity, solar neutrinos and solar wind emissions, and
c.) Material in meteorites, planets, the solar photosphere, the solar wind, and solar flares

Indicate that material in the Solar System is now expanding because

d) Volume increases by 10^15 in neutron decay (Step 2 below), and
e.) Four reactions produce all of the solar products listed in b.) above:

1. Neutron emission from the solar core: <n>  => n + 12 MeV/nucleon
2. Neutron decay after emission: n => H + 1 MeV/nucleon
3. H-fusion after decay: 4 H => He-4 + 2 v + 7 MeV/nucleon
4. Escape of excess H in the solar wind: Solar H => 50,000 billion metric ton of SW H/year is discharged to interstellar space.

Our Sun is maintained by dynamic competition between neutron repulsion and gravitational attraction in the neutron-rich solar core.  In Step 2 above the atomic volume of the product H atom is ~10^15 times bigger than that of the neutron:

V(H)/V(n) ~ 1,000,000,000,000,000

Presently the universe is expanding here as compact nuclear matter in the solar core is expanding by about a factor of ~10^15 and being ejected to fill interstellar space with Hydrogen.

In the future, when the neutron-rich core of stars have all evaporated, there will be no repulsive force opposing the attractive force of gravity.  Then,

f.) If the universe is infinite it may collapse back down as part of an infinite series of oscillations, or
g.) If the universe is finite and started with the Big Bang, it may become cold, dead and static.

That's how it looks from here.

Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 (http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09)

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: CreativeEnergy on 15/08/2010 20:00:24
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaītre was right after all! LOL  [;)]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: om on 15/08/2010 20:53:55
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaītre was right after all! LOL  [;)]

Was Father Georges Lemaītre Right?

We don't know.  Why not simply admit that we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite?

But more is being revealed every day about the Little Bang that made the Solar System right here [Science 195, 208-209 (1977); Nature 277, 615-620 (1979); Geokhimiya no. 12, 1776-1801 (1981); Meteoritics 18, 209-222 (1983)].

Naked science readers may be interested in reading about the similarity in the one of the shapes allowed for electrons in the 3d orbital of the Hydrogen atom (two dumbbells passing through the hole in a doughnut) to the supernova debris that formed the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago, . . . .

And to the events that more recently formed SN 1987A and the Planetary Nebula Eta Carina:
 
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43451 (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43451)

Let's celebrate new information that is being revealed today and stop arguing about information that none of have yet.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 10/09/2010 17:47:48
...doesn't the uncertainty principle blow out the idea of absolute nothing? and conservation of energy blow out 'something' from 'nothing'...

Something cannot comes from nothing. The conventional knowledge of standard cosmology propositioned that the vast space is void of substance, but this nothingness in the WMAP exploration with its instrument of various observational bandwidths, it was discovered to be filled with discernable stuff. 

See a link on Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/) for its top ten findings.

“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein


EM field is not classified as physical object, yet this weightlessness phenomenon of nothingness could exert physical pressure on physical objects in its path.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 10/09/2010 18:02:04
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaītre was right after all! LOL  [;)]

The geocentric model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism) was even more firmly established for millenniums, was it right after all?

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Paradigmer on 10/09/2010 18:48:48
As far as I am concerned the Big Bang has been firmly established. Looks like Father Georges Lemaītre was right after all! LOL  [;)]

Was Father Georges Lemaītre Right?

We don't know.  Why not simply admit that we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite?

snips..

Let's celebrate new information that is being revealed today and stop arguing about information that none of have yet.

Greeting Professor Manuel,

We could know, let me elaborate:

The Big Bang model propositioned that the boundary of the observable physical universe in every direction is a view at 13.7 billion years ago when the physical universe was in its primordial form, but this is absolutely contradicting in all aspects at all extends; the extremely small, dense and hot state of the nascent physical universe in its isotropic form is currently being empirically observed in its time dilation image of 13.7 billion years ago to be having an extremely large radius of 13.7 Gly in an extremely sparse and cooled state. This is a self-referenced mathematical paradox of the most extreme physical extends that does not refer to reality.

In the mathematical construct of Father Georges Lemaītre's BB model, it is absolutely valid with its self-referenced deductive proofs and its propositions are therefore indisputable in its mathematical realm. Nonetheless, when it gets to reality, as illustrated above, it is absolutely bogus. 

For further elucidation, the readers of this forum might want to see a UVS topic on "Validity analysis (http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20overviews.htm#validity)" that elaborates on unassialable mathematical constructs that suffer from various paradoxes as a result of their foundational crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundational_crisis_of_mathematics#Foundational_crisis).

Best to you.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Deepanshu on 20/10/2010 08:59:05
The big bang is correct and well modelled as far as the observational record extends but that is clearly not the end of it. I strongly suspect we are observing one universe within a vast multiverse of indefinite size containing many similar universes to our own. That is essentially constant.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 03/12/2010 15:35:52
Say a diesel engine requires 10 liters of water ......
Hello Andrew,
You need to run the numbers on your thermal ideas. How much energy do you think is being cooled away by the oceans? You can then easily calculate the thermal gradient necessary through the core, the oceans and the atmosphere. If you are right the deepest parts of the oceans should be warmer than the surface. And the surface of the oceans should be warmer than the annual average of the low level atmosphere. Good Luck.
Bengt
[Irrelevant link removed - Mod]
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: CliffordK on 23/12/2010 04:14:38
Sorry, I skipped a couple of pages in the middle.  I'll try to get back to them later.

I am of the inclination that there is not ONE BIG BANG, from the size of a proton to expand to this whole visible universe with some 15 billion galaxies, not to mention trillions of stars, and quadrillions of  planets. Not to show disrespect, but the author of one big bang is a priest-scientist…that Big Bang was patterned after the creation of the Bible.

I feel it is more reasonable that several big bangs, of smaller sizes, occurred,, these array of  billions of galaxies indicates that such could be the many big bangs within visible universe. That the galaxies are the  make up of the universe, like falling rain, not one raindrop but millions of raindrops. Then, it is more plausible that the origin of these galaxies could be the size of proton, each galaxy. Why are there billions of galaxies, giants in their own individual sizes, carrying billions of satellite stars, the galaxies, comparable in size from one another,  distributed/spread on the relative distance from one another or cluster. 

I would have to agree with the "micro-bang" theory.

If there was a single "big bang" with all matter and energy emanating from a single point (or single area).  Then with a Big Bang Explosion, we would likely have a universe that would be a hollow sphere with nothing in the middle where the explosion originated (unless it is beginning to collapse back on itself).

The problem with an infinitely old universe is that hydrogen should be consumed, and no longer exist which, of course, isn't the case.  Thus, we need to come up with a theory of the origin of hydrogen (the big bang).

I suppose this gets us to Black Holes.  Originally thought to just consume matter and energy, there is more recent evidence that black holes not only consume matter and energy, but radiate energy, and possibly matter.  Furthermore, there may be some events that would cause them to explode.  And, since there may not be differentiation of atoms in the black hole, they may be able to account for the renewing of Hydrogen in the universe.

If thermal energy is represented by particle movement.  Does there reach a point in the core of a black hole where there is no particle movement, and thus no thermal energy?  And, if so, what happened to the thermal energy? 

Can a black hole enlarge to a size where it becomes inherently unstable?

What happens if two super-massive black holes collide...  and don't get kicked apart?

Anyway, there is a lot more to learn about the universe before one can conclude that all matter & energy originated in a single cataclysmic event.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Nick Fritz on 19/01/2011 13:22:38
The big bang is incorrect and obvious nonsense if one considers what is known and understood in physics.  The big bang only gains traction when we extrapolate questionable data to far-fetched conclusions.  I wrote a theory and proposed it on this forum titled, I think I have discovered the unified field theory that I think is a much more plausible and easily swallowed theory that quite easily refutes the big bang.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 19/01/2011 13:31:02
Hi Nick,
Where do I find your hypothesis?
Bengt
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: CliffordK on 19/01/2011 14:25:54
Hi Nick,
Where do I find your hypothesis?
Bengt
.

Next topic down.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=36709.0
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: kornbredrsqar on 17/02/2011 18:15:40
I vote not big bang and hear is why, and I will admit my knowledge is limited on the subject but every piece of evidence that i have Sean is based in some form on theory and correct me if i am wrong but you can't use one theory to prove another. so lets talk about the facts, if the universe is expanding in all directions then from what point in space did it start? the big bang should have a point of origin that could be calculated by the trajectory of everything moving away from it, and objects near to us should be on a similar path. now lets discuss the red light evidence, if all objects appear red when moving away from the observer then that would put earth at the center of it all, and I'm pretty sure that theory has been disproved to everyones satisfaction, so maybe the fact that we are moving at great deal of speed through space do to the earth spinning as well as orbitting the sun and the only time we can sea the universe is when we are facing away from the sun' all have more to do with the redness of stars than the stars somehow moving away from us and each other in all directions.  If this were true then the constellations would not still appear the same today as they did 2,000 years ago because although they appear to be two dimensional in the night sky in reality they are three dimensional shapes that cover vast areas of space that are lightyears apart and it is only from our singular perspective that they form the shapes that are so recognizable to this day. If the universe was expanding do to the big bang these "signs" in the heavens would surely have changed there shape, size or location over time. and according to Mr Onemug if it is in motion it will stay that way until.....so on and so forth, if this is true then what ever forces slowed this expansion would have stopped the planets from spinning and orbitting as well. so when there is an explanation that does not conflict with the things that we know to be true then I will buy it, cash up ,no grumbling!
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Phractality on 26/02/2011 03:46:25
Sorry to jump in without reading the whole thread. Reading is a learning disability for me, plus I have an attention deficit.

I don't buy the big bang. I won't even glorify it with the title "theory"; for me, it's just a scenario. It is based on a long list of unfounded assumptions; first and foremost is the assumption that the universe is finite. I do believe that our little piece of the universe (which I call "our universe") had a temporal beginning, but that was not the beginning of everything. Even defining the beginning of time as we know it is somewhat arbitrary. How do you measure the first 10^-42 second when the second is defined in terms of the frequency of an emission from cesium atoms, and cesium didn't exist until the first supernova? 

Our universe, though infinite, grew out of an infinitely larger fractal universe, which exists outside of time.

However, it is interesting that in proper Qabbalism (not that deranged nonsense proselytised by such as Madonna) Ein Soph Aur equates rather nicely to quantum foam. It is the "Great Nothingness" from which everything ultimately emerges.

I assume you are referring to J. H. Wheeler's quantum foam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam). I think that is related to string theory. It has one similarity to my own fractal foam (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=37454.0;topicseen). Both assume that the foam exists at or near the scale of the Planck length, but there the similarity ends. In my model, everything in our universe arises spontaneously from a chaotic mix of regular energy and dark energy.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: SOEDan137 on 28/02/2011 16:39:00

BLACK HOLES, EXPANSION, AND DARK ENERGY

In the continuum of space and time, exists the dichotomy of matter and energy. All things exist as both matter and energy, but are experienced as one or the other.
As energy, all things exist as wave patterns. Most wave patterns are interferences of simpler wave patterns. The simplest wave forms are those that do not interfere with other waves. These simplest wave forms hold their shape as they propagate. There are three such wave forms.
The first such wave form is seen in three dimensions as the spherical expansion wave of a bomb blast, and in two dimensions as the circular wave of expansion on the water where a rock was tossed in. The second wave form is seen in three dimensions as the cone of sonic boom following an aircraft traveling faster than sound, and in two dimensions as the V-wake on the water where the boat is traveling faster than the water wave. The third wave form is seen in three dimensions as the propagation torus of a smoke ring and is seen in two dimensions as the double vortexes of an oar stroke on the water.
The Torus is a particle of discrete exchange, from one point to another. The object exchanges position and momentum. While the spherical wave shows position, and the conic wave shows momentum, the torus shows both at the same time, and has a dynamic finite unbounded reality. The volumes of the cone, sphere, and torus are mathematically related as static objects.
The Universe is a local density fluctuation. (a wave pulse) On this local density fluctuation wave, lesser wave forms may exist. All simple wave forms are also local density fluctuations, and as such are indeed universes in their own right, where other waves may exist.
Consider the torus as a universe. Einstein said that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. There is both linear acceleration and angular acceleration. Although the torus as a whole travels in a straight line, every local point on the torus travels in a circle and experiences angular acceleration.
The rubber sheet model of gravity and curved space translates directly to the propagating torus with angular acceleration. Acceleration is downward on the rubber sheet and outward on the torus. The tension field that separates the inside of the torus from the outside holds its shape as a simple two dimensional field of space and time just as the rubber sheet does.
Experimentally verifiable is that a big fat slow smoke ring generated in a room with very still air will eventually possess a bulge that travels in a circle on the surface of the smoke ring. This bulge, being a gravitational depression, gathers more of the energy of the field toward itself. Finally the bulge gathers enough material to collapse the field and eject a new, smaller smoke ring out in the same direction as the first torus. This collapse is a black hole to the first torus, and a white hole to the second torus, where the axes of space and time in that second torus have reversed.
While gravity tends to draw depressions together locally on a dynamic torus, even to the point of field collapse, other areas on a torus expand and contract globally as the torus propagates along without regard to local phenomenon on the surface. This is quintessence. The inertia of the torus to propagate is its dark energy. This is a two-dimensional example of the process that we  experience in three dimensions.

From structureofexistence.com by Dan Echegoyen 951-204-0201

--
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: paradigm on 12/03/2011 08:51:06
The big bang theory is wrong. The cosmic red shift phenomena is indicative of the way in which light increases in wavelength as it travels and not galaxies accelerating away. It's accepted that the red shift in the light from our Sun is due to the Sun's light travelling through its gravitational (emission) field and not due to the Sun accelerating away. This also applies to the galaxies. Or, are the big bangers saying that galaxies do not have gravitational (emission) fields? Because this is also saying that galaxies to not have emission (light) and that what we see is a figment of our immaginations. No. The figment is the big bang theory. The Universe is infinite is distance and duration, space and time.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 12/03/2011 16:37:30
The claim that it all came from one single big bang is an assumption that lacks scientific support. To accept this assumption and try to build science around it will likely result in a false paradigm and a scientific detour.

To believe that visible light would travel for millions of years through a quite busy universe and not loose a little energy, and shift a little to the red, also lacks scientific support. To extrapolate this into claiming that redshift is evidence of an expanding universe only shows how little we really know.

Bengt Nyman
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: old_bob on 16/03/2011 15:31:13
Nobody knows, or can ever know, for certain, how or why our universe formed, or whether there are other universes, or what was "in place" before the first universe formed. To maintain interest of "believers" I ask who or what created your god, from what, and why.

You all have active brains so please go solve my question about a plague of worms on pavements posted in the appropriate slot on NS forum.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: GrapperJ on 29/03/2011 13:30:33
I think a lot of people mistake the big bang for an actual explosion. That's not accurate. The big bang was space/time itself and all the matter in it being created (expanding). People incorrectly imagine nothingness, then "boom" all the matter in the universe just appeared.

The big bang theory states that space/time itself (and all the matter in it) expanding from what could be described as an infinitely small naked singularity. There was no "nothingness" or space before the big bang. The big bang created the space that matter exists in.

The only alternatives to the big bang that I consider viable, or plausible would be M-theories explanation. That our universe or dimension is on a brane. And that brane collided with another dimension which caused a big bang. Eventually, due to entropy, all the matter cools down, causing heat death. This results in a universe empty of energy. Trillions of years later, our dimension collides with another and the cycle repeats.
Here is a good explanation of it with pictures:
http://zidbits.com/2011/03/19/a-laymans-explanation-for-string-theory/ (http://zidbits.com/2011/03/19/a-laymans-explanation-for-string-theory/)

~G
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Jolly- Joliver on 31/03/2011 18:44:37
12 year old child Genius intends to prove Big bang wrong

And has aleast two different theories....
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: mpc755 on 01/05/2011 22:02:55
The Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is in, a jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

'The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said.'

The clusters are headed along this path because the Universe is, or the local Universe we exist in is, a jet. Analogous to the polar jet of a black hole.

The following is an image analogous of the Universal jet:

http://aether.lbl.gov/image_all.html

The reason for the 'expansion' of the universe is the continual emission of aether into the Universal jet. Three dimensional space associated with the Universe itself is not expanding. What we see in our telescopes is the matter associated with the Universe moving outward and away from the Universal jet emission point. In the image above, '1st Stars' is where aether condenses into matter.

The following is an image analogous of the Universe, or the local Universe, we exist in:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/planetarium/graphics/st_images/BlackHole.jpg

Dark energy is the change in state of the aether emitted into and propagating through the Universal jet.

It's not the Big Bang. It's the Big Ongoing.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 03/05/2011 17:03:42
No. Its mostly correct as far as it goes but it is grossly incomplete and some of it just plain wrong.  I believe the universe to be cyclic with matter universe following antimatter universe ad infinitum
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: aspagnito on 12/05/2011 10:04:21
Okay...
Where did that demonic sparkle came from? Let's say from other universes, but it could appear spontanic... but where? In nothingness? So why do we say, it blew up in the nothingness, when there was nothing to compare it's size with. Or maybe it was the Great Division? Or maybe it's just a spectacular theory of some great explosion, because a good explosion always looks good comparing with it's background of another big explosion.
If not... what in reverse?
Let's say a photon is not what Bronstein figured out only mathematically. Let's say it is also able to loose its energy and after 20 bilion years there's no way for it to exist. A photon that "looses energy" gets more red and VOILA! we have an explanation for the so called "escaping gallaxies".
Saying that a photon is an indestructable quant of energy seems to be not too bright, but science is always about making illusions dissapear, when it comes to "obvious thinking". When we're too damn sure of something, then we're probably wrong.
The Big Bang Theory for me is just a Big Misfire Theory.
Besides. The one who told You Background Radiation is a proof for the Big Bang should also explain You, that he saw the smoke, and he's damn sure what's burning.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ken Hughes on 02/06/2011 08:09:34
In truth, nobody really knows for certain.
The big bang is clearly the current favourite, but there are other ways to explain the redshift.
For example, we normally assume that time passes at the same rate over time, but there is no scientific basis for this assumption, certainly when the mass density of the universe has changed over time.

If, for instance, time is slightly faster now than it was much earlier in the life of the universe, then this would give us the same redshift observations. The one big advantage of this idea is that the redshift would not be dependant on location in relation to any big bang and so we wouldn't have to be so creative about the expansion of nothing. This idea seems quite preposterous to me.
If time variation was the cause, we would observe the redshift independent of position and in any and all directions, even in a static universe.

So, the redshift could be the result of any combination and in any proportion of these ideas
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 02/06/2011 10:32:30
First explain to yourself: Gravity and Strong Force.
Then explain to me Magnetism and the Propagation of Light.
Then I shall be very curios to see if anybody even remembers the expression The Big Bang.
 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 02/06/2011 16:55:09
A Big Bang is an expression of something that expressed a lot of energy, in some undefinable place that through a inflation somehow become a symmetry, ruled by constants. We call it SpaceTime and it is like a jello, you push one corner of it and it 'distorts'. Nothing in it is loose, and it is described by gravity and motion, containing matter and radiation. Then we have some descriptions like 'black matter' and 'dark energy' that also may exist, possibly? Or else they might be shown to describe some 'constants' necessary for our equilibrium? Or as some think, it will all be shown wrong :)
=

Ah, and time, almost forgot that one :)
( although, heh, motion craves time to exist ::))
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 02/06/2011 17:44:45
Hi Göran,
We know. We have heard it too many times. We don't like fantasy physics with zero support in the observable world.
Real physics is based on observing reality, analyzing it, understanding it, describing it and quantifying it.
Not inventing it, spinning it or warping it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 03/06/2011 00:29:42
Now, I wasn't there.
But I can see how the idea grew, and to me it makes some sense.

The expansion is here today, and needs to be redefined if you don't want it to be 'space' expanding. If it exist then a inflation is no impossibility. Also we have what I call a bubble. Inside it a lot of stuff seems to be limited by so called constants, and they don't make sense either. It depends on how you visualize your universe I think. I have no problems accepting the idea of constants but if you want a 'clock work' universe then there will be a lot of thing things that have to be redefined, from planks constants to lights speed in a vacuum.

There is actually support for the expansion, the inflation is a way to define how the universe can seem so isotropic and homogeneous. Still, nobody can guarantee that either exist of course, they are just those theories that seems to work best for now, and are accepted by most. It's a educated guess work building on astronomical observations, Cepheid variables, red shift, the Hubble constant and Einsteins equations. Einstein wanted a static balanced universe himself and got rather upset when Fridman showed that there were other possibilities 1922. Fridman was a Russian mathematician and worked it out from Einsteins equations, but some years after his, too early death, another guy Lemaitre, a French cosmologist this time, came and developed a independent theory which went further than Fridman's three models. I think he was the guy that first presented the idea of a universe starting in a very compact area to then 'explode' outwards. I don't think he was into fantasy. He had studied mathematics under Eddington, and was a brilliant mathematician too.
==

Rechecking my sources I think Fridman actually was the guy that was closest to how we look at a Big Bang today. He saw it as coming out of a 'point' whereas Lemaitre imagined is as a primeval 'atom' of a finite size.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 03/06/2011 05:14:13
Mankind has real environmental, energy and physics problems to solve. That's why it's regrettable when intelligent and capable people loose themselves in a world of faith and fantasy based nonsense. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 03/06/2011 13:14:15
This is the pivot as I think of it. And another female unsung hero of astronomy, She was actually considered for a Nobel Prize but as they were making ready the paper work they found out that she had died three years earlier. They should have given it to her any which way. I think. Henrietta Leavitt made a incredible contribution to astronomy, before her there was no way defining galactic distances with any assurance. And she wasn't really an astronomer, she just got interested as she was hired as a 'computer' and then started to develop her own theory. A impressive feat.

You have to remember that all we know is educated guesswork, and logic, however mathematically intricate as I see it.

Henrietta Leavitt. (http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/variable_cepheids.html)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 03/06/2011 14:36:14
If you read the link it's easy to get the impression that she didn't understand the importance of her work. That is terribly wrong and a shoddy presentation. She knew exactly the importance of it, it was a mathematical correlation between the fluctuations of its apparent luminosity and its real luminosity, where longer interval's meant a stronger real luminosity. She stated that she expected her mathematical curves to make it possible to correctly judge any Cepheid anywhere in the universe. So discussing Ejnar Hertzsprung, and make it seem as if he was the one realizing the importance of her 'period luminosity relation' seems embarrassingly wrong.
==

I tried to find her published work but :( I can't.

"Ψ Henrietta Swan Leavitt Henrietta Leavitt was born in Lancaster, Massachusetts, and graduated from Radcliffe College in 1892. In 1902 she became a permanent staff member of the Harvard College Observatory (HCO) and through her scientific ability quickly rose to head the department of photographic stellar photometry.

During her tenure at Harvard, she spent a great deal of time searching photographic plates of the night sky searching for variable stars in both the Large Magellanic Clouds (LMC) and Small Magellanic Clouds (SMC). In 1904, using a rather laborious process called superposition, she discovered 152 variable stars in the LMC and 59 in the SMC. Over the next year she reported 843 new variables in the SMC. These discoveries led Charles Young of Princeton to remark in a letter to HCO director E. C. Pickering, "What a variable-star 'fiend' Miss Leavitt is, one can't keep up with the roll of the new discoveries."

Probably Leavitt's greatest discovery came from her study of 1,777 variable stars in the Magellanic Clouds. She was able to determine the periods of 25 Cepheid variables in the SMC and in 1912 she announced what has since become known as the famous Period-Luminosity relation, "A straight line can be readily drawn among each of the two series of points corresponding to maxima and minima, thus showing that there is a simple relation between the brightness of the variable and their periods." Henrietta Leavitt passed away from cancer in 1921."
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: tangoblue on 03/06/2011 23:20:26
all this talk of the big bang. Everybody just needs to face the fact that we were all created by the great arkvoodle, son of the sacred crotch. (if you know where i got that from shhh no one else knows).
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: kornbredrsqar on 20/06/2011 21:28:28
I just read a couple of different studies on gravitational redshift and they all seemed to back up what I had imagined might be true about the socalled proof that the universe is expanding by way of the doplar redshift, it makes much more sense to me that this obseved redshift is caused by the almost uncalculible amount of gravitational fields that light has passed through on it's way here from the outer reaches of spase, and the further it travels the greater the shift makes total sense to me, but what do I know I'm just a guy with an 8th grade education and an IQ of around 140, I'm sure there's a much more educated and less inteligent person out there who can explain exactly why I'm wrong!
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dr. Junix on 28/06/2011 00:45:42
I vote creationism. I read the Bible and I believe it is true, especially if what is written therein have evidence found all over the world and are being studied by archeologist.

The big bang theory is just what it is, a theory. After all, with a bang that big which supposedly created the universe, nothing could have lived. And calculating the earth's age as billions of years old is really kind of far fetched (sorry Math is not my strong suite). With the big bang theory I'm sure evolution would follow and then mutation. Albeit mutation is true, but evolution and mutation are two different things. Now back to the big bang. There is no big bang, if there was, we would be on our way to a singular linear path to the outer of whatever is beyond space. No explosion could produce something that would make a planet or moon, to revolve another body.

If someone could simulate, lets say a an explosion, no matter how big or small and make a pebble revolve around a rock, and stay that way for even an hour. I would be a firm believer of the big bang. Which by the way would no longer be a theory. But a reality. For as far as I know, explosions or bangs throws thing away from the center of the explosion, instead of making them revolve around other things.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: BenV on 28/06/2011 11:31:09
The big bang theory is just what it is, a theory.
In scientific terms, a theory is a hypothesis which has been extensively tested and holds true.  So saying something is "only a theory" is a non-argument on a science forum.

Quote
After all, with a bang that big which supposedly created the universe, nothing could have lived.
I'm not sure I understand this point - are you saying that a universe that started with a big bang must always be sterile?  I'm not sure I follow your logic there...

Quote
And calculating the earth's age as billions of years old is really kind of far fetched (sorry Math is not my strong suite).

If maths isn't your strong suite, fair enough.  But why then do you feel you can question the calculations that lead us to believe that the universe is 13-and-a-bit billion years old?  No other explaination even comes close.

Quote
With the big bang theory I'm sure evolution would follow and then mutation.

I don't think there's any causative relationship put forward - we know life has evolved regardless of what explanation we accept for the birth of the universe.
Quote
Albeit mutation is true, but evolution and mutation are two different things.
And no-one says they are the same.

Quote
Now back to the big bang. There is no big bang, if there was, we would be on our way to a singular linear path to the outer of whatever is beyond space.
The universe is expanding, in all directions, true.

Quote
No explosion could produce something that would make a planet or moon, to revolve another body.

If someone could simulate, lets say a an explosion, no matter how big or small and make a pebble revolve around a rock, and stay that way for even an hour. I would be a firm believer of the big bang.

It's not the big bang that gives rise to gravitational orbits.  It's the attraction of the particles to one another - again, this would happen regardless of the mechanism of universe birth.

Quote
For as far as I know, explosions or bangs throws thing away from the center of the explosion, instead of making them revolve around other things.
It may be easier not to think of it as an explosion.  We can see that at some point, 13.7 billion years before now, the universe was incredibly hot and dense.  It has since expanded - but not in the same way that a bomb would expand.  I think the name "big bang" can be very confusing for this reason.

All in all, I'm convinced that the evidence for the big bang is solid.  What we don't know is what caused it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 28/06/2011 14:24:33
It may be easier not to think of it as an explosion. 
It is certainly correct to say that the Big Bang theory is not about any explosions whatsoever.

More importantly, the common theory of cosmologists that goes by the Big Bang theory simply doesn't cover the beginning of the universe, except in a vague, very approximate way. The theory is about the history of the universe as far as we can investigate it and we have no way of investigating a first moment of the universe except in a very vague way. (See Peebles, Schramm, Turner and Kron, "The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology", Nature, V 352, 29 Aug 1991, pp 769-776 for a clear statement of this.)
Quote
I think the name "big bang" can be very confusing for this reason.
It was pretty much intended to be confusing, given that the name originates with a detractor of the theory, Fred Hoyle, in the service of a straw man argument against the theory.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Mr. Data on 28/06/2011 14:39:27
I voted the big bang, because in physics, beginnings of things are very important. Having an eternal universe seems likely to be unable to resolve many fundamental questions which a beginning of time involves. However, there may be a loop hole. The universe can have a beginning, but not one which is defined under any real arrow of time (not that there are any arrows of time other than the psychological arrow) - Hawking presents his theory as a no boundary proposal on the universe, veiwing time vertically rather than horizontally. Imaginary time is set 90 degrees off real time, and by making this change, you can remove a big bang scenario. But as Hawking warns, this is a mathematical foundation where a beginning to a universe is still essential.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dr. Junix on 29/06/2011 01:19:12
the voting system has been corrupted..
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Airthumbs on 29/06/2011 02:39:18
the voting system has been corrupted..

Could you please expand on that Dr J?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dr. Junix on 29/06/2011 03:55:58
the voting system has been corrupted..

Could you please expand on that Dr J?

I'd rather not it was just a passing thought. Sorry Airthumbs.

But regarding the expanding part of the big bang theory, why is it that instead of continually expanding outwards, some parts of the universe are actually collapsing inward, or imploding in other words.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dr. Junix on 29/06/2011 04:00:19
Also a passing thought, if it all started in the big bang, i might suggest that the focal point of the bang, let's say the center, must still be very visible or at least discernable, and it may in fact be still spewing out materials (Matters and Antimatters) which would contribute to the birth or continued rebirth of the universe.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: imatfaal on 29/06/2011 11:03:46
Dr J - there was no focal point.  Everywhere got bigger at a rapid rate
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dr. Junix on 30/06/2011 01:25:48
imatfaal, if conclusion of a big bang was due to the calculations made by the expanding universe, maybe calculations for a focal point could also be done, by calculating lets say the uhm, the edge? or like in explosions, the what do you call it? the Sonicboom, or yeah the sonicwave? calculate the distance of the farthest discernable evidence of a wave or whatever it is of the big bang on all directions, and maybe just maybe we could get the idea where the focal point is.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dr. Junix on 30/06/2011 01:31:16
or, say I have this other example. What if the universe is like a balloon. Constantly expanding, you may imagine the rubber is the edge yet it is invisible since we are tiny particle of air in the balloon. but it could be observable due to the fact that some particles bounce back inside that balloon when they hit the rubber (boundary). You can calculate the focal or center point by calculating the distance from one point of the balloon to the other.

But here's another theory here, the particles of air that make the balloon expand is not actually from the focal or center point but from somewhere, lets say from the hole in the balloon where someone is blowing. It is also detectable.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 30/06/2011 11:56:24
But regarding the expanding part of the big bang theory, why is it that instead of continually expanding outwards, some parts of the universe are actually collapsing inward, or imploding in other words.
The expansion of the universe is something controlled by gravity. Some regions of the universe, in the distant past, were slightly more dense than other regions. Some of these regions were just dense enough that the mass in that region exerted enough pull that that region collapsed in on itself. This is the origin of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
or, say I have this other example. What if the universe is like a balloon. Constantly expanding, you may imagine the rubber is the edge yet it is invisible since we are tiny particle of air in the balloon. but it could be observable due to the fact that some particles bounce back inside that balloon when they hit the rubber (boundary). You can calculate the focal or center point by calculating the distance from one point of the balloon to the other.
Sure, one could do this, but there are no phenomena that we have discovered that support such a model for our own universe.
Quote
But here's another theory here, the particles of air that make the balloon expand is not actually from the focal or center point but from somewhere, lets say from the hole in the balloon where someone is blowing. It is also detectable.
Exactly: such a theory should have certain predictions. We do not see any of the things that we would expect to see given such a theory. There is nothing that we see that we could use as the basis of determining a focal point or as a source of new matter, energy, or space.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 05/07/2011 18:20:32
Testing Inflation Theory - WMAP -  (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/exhibit/map_inflation.html) Just follow the links and read.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 05/07/2011 20:06:34
Cosmology has long since left the three dimensional and strictly disciplined space occupied by our other sciences. Faith based ideas and beliefs have taken center stage in the theatrical speculations about our universe. The theory of the Big Bang is today the main actor on a Physics stage desperate to draw interest and sell tickets. In doing so Physics is becoming more and more of a shabbily disguised religion where God is simply replaced by a Big Bang. The similarities are appalling. The timescales are a bit different, down from a week to a few nanoseconds. Physics has simply reinvented creationism by replacing an imaginary human-like all-mighty with a similarly unlikely nuclear-like all-mighty. An infinitely small, infinitely dense Godtron who suddenly decided to unfold himself and become our universe.

In reality this is merely a testament to mankind's inability to understand beyond certain complexities. And in doing so, minds feverishly seeking to reach beyond their own comprehension floats out into hallucinogenic fantasies; Intoxicating fantasies that feel so good that they should be bottled and sold. But notice the chosen simplicity of the Big Bang, underscoring the frustration over perplexing and unconquered complexities while clearly illuminating the contrast between them and the level of simplicity where man functions. But worse, it is also a repetitive testament to man's willingness to take advantage of a false but fascinating fantasy, and feed it to fearful minds in need of light and comforting. So a new religion is born. In this case not born to profit from thunder and lightning, but born to profit the same.

Dipoles, Interactive Particle Posturing, Gravity and Strong Force!


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/07/2011 01:04:01
So what are you saying, Bengt? That we should never try to figure out where the Universe came from? That we should just accept that it "is" and leave it at that?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 06/07/2011 05:14:51
He who bothers not to explain Gravity and Strong Force is not qualified to speculate beyond the rocks on which we step.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/07/2011 06:22:22
That makes no sense. No one has to be "qualified" to speculate about anything. That's what makes speculation what it is.

Also, it's not like physicists aren't trying to figure out the origins of the fundamental forces.

I wouldn't even hardly call the Big Bang Theory a religion. The Big Bang Theory tells us nothing about how to live morally. It does not instruct us whether we should or should not worship anyone or anything. It does not tell us about life after death or the supernatural. It did not come from a prophet who had a vision. It all came from observation coupled with mathematics, deduction and speculation.

Don't get me wrong, I am religious, but I'm also aware that religion and science are two different things.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 06/07/2011 13:57:17
People have been decrying the standard cosmological model for years as some sort of religious thing. It is an ironic activity: they never provide any evidence that it's a religion and they never provide any evidence for their own pet theory.

The only exception on the latter count is some of the work on quasi-steady state theory. However, the evidence is not very good.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Dr. Junix on 07/07/2011 08:52:30
So? Since the evidence is not very good. I assume the Big Bang theory is very much questionable. And will we ever leave it at that, a theory?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 09/07/2011 13:35:26
It would probably be more appropriate to call the Big Bang a Hypothesis since there it not enough observational or mathematical support to make it a plausible theory.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Mr. Data on 09/07/2011 14:15:36
There are subtle, but interesting differences between a hypothesis and a theory.

http://psychology.about.com/od/researchmethods/ss/expdesintro_2.htm

The big bang, as you will find, better suits the terminology of a theory.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 09/07/2011 14:39:07
Your own citation:
A theory is a well-established principle that has been developed to explain some aspect of the natural world. A theory arises from repeated observation and testing and incorporates facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses that are widely accepted.
There is absolutely no observational proof for the Big Bang hypothesis, just a handful of assumptions and hypotheses attempting to explain phenomena like Red Shift, which by the way can be explained much less dramatically.   
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Mr. Data on 09/07/2011 15:04:34
There is plenty observational proof. Big bang Nucleosynthesis is predicted, and observed with the correct values... red shift is not the only observation proof it has to stand on. There are arguably more proofs sustaining the big bang than what there is any other theory - hence why most accept the big bang theory... hence also why it cannot surely be a simple hypothesis which has no ground to stand on, and is not accepted by mainstream.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 09/07/2011 17:02:48
Time will tell.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 12/07/2011 03:28:19
Ok, Big Bang strikes me two ways. One, it is the theory that to me explains most of the things we see. Two, some of its postulates on how it came to be just phreaks me out :) like seeing someone state that photons 'lose energy' due to coming from more dense populations of space. That is not correct, as far as I know a photon does not lose any energy anywhere. Let us say that it annihilate at some position, and going from the definitions of weak measurements, defining photons as 'the same', we also might assume that we find 'it' to give us a different energy at different (4D)positions. Does that mean that this photon then is of different energies depending on positions, or does it mean that the red/blue shift (energy) is a relation to the one measuring. I would say a relation :) meaning it can't 'lose energy' except from the idea of an expansion in where it 'stretches out' defined as a wave.

And then we have those e-folds, and false vacuum :)
It may make some mathematical sense, but its presumptions sure hurt my head.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 12/07/2011 03:56:52
False vacuum somehow expect space to inflate due to its negative pressure that then also fills it with 'energy' in that it can't lower it. 'The energy density remains constant and the total energy increases'.

That is a rather revolutionary statement to me. I must admire the ingenuity of it but it goes contrary to everything we see, and know, except possibly what we call the 'expansion'. In a universe governed by such a principle 'free energy' is no problem :) any more.
==

But it also goes back to what 'energy' is?

I don't know what it is, and I doubt those creating this idea know either. What I can see from both this notion, and the idea of a Higgs field, is that they treat 'space' as if it, although a vacuum classically, still can (on the very small plane) contain different 'energies', conceptually coexisting, in where only one of those 'planes' are available to us macroscopically. Which to me makes it very alike a idea of 'dimensions'. Or am I getting this wrong?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 12/07/2011 14:43:00
There is absolutely no observational proof for the Big Bang hypothesis, just a handful of assumptions and hypotheses attempting to explain phenomena like Red Shift, which by the way can be explained much less dramatically.   
That is simply not true, though many people who would like to sell their own books and those who feel that contemporary physics and cosmology harm their religious convictions often spread such a statement whether or not they believe it. There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model--and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these. Alternative explanations for redshift and other cosmological phenomena are regularly discussed in the scientific literature and are dismissed on their merits.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 12/07/2011 17:56:50
Quote
There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these.
There are many ways to affect a beam of light to change its visible, multi-chromatic wavelength. There is a large and well established body of optical science and a multitude of applications and instruments based on the manipulation of visible light. A beam of light traveling through the universe travels through a soup of electromagnetic radiation. To insist that it does this for millions of years without any possibility for interference or energy exchange along the way is simply wishful thinking and an unsupported assumption. To further build a hypothesis about the origin of the universe on this unsupported assumption is unscientific. 

Progress many times requires admitting that the best we have is not good enough. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 12/07/2011 19:54:02
Bengt, I agree on that we can't know what happen from source to sink. But light does not bend to EM. If it did we should be able to do that in the LHC, and as far as I know we haven't, It has no charge. It do have 'energy' though, and that is a mass equivalence. And as the assumption is that light has to be without a 'clock' which is eminently reasonable to me 'distance' doesn't matter, well, exempting expansion. A gravitational field may 'bend' a photon but it will not take away its intrinsic energy. All light paths are 'straight' in that they follow a path of least 'resistance' (geodesic) not expending energy. If they did expend energy in their 'path' I doubt we would be able to call them 'time less' either?
==

But I agree on 'expansion' being mighty peculiar in that it can 'steal energy'. That though has to do with a assumption that what we call distances in some way is correlated to the 'energy' that exist. But it is slightly weird in that we assume the 'energy' of SpaceTime to stay in a same equilibrium, as SpaceTime 'grows', at the same time that we assume radiation to lose 'energy' by it. But inflation/expansion is still the theory that best fits the observations we have, as far as I know. It's the assumptions about how it does it that weirds me out, well slightly :)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 12/07/2011 21:04:21
Light does not bend to EM.
It has no charge.
Distance doesn't matter.
A gravitational field will not take away its intrinsic energy.
All light paths are 'straight' in that they follow a path of least 'resistance'.

Hello Göran,

Your five commandments for light illustrates mankind's attempt to simplify the universe to fit within our present capacity for understanding. It reminds me of a time when bloodletting represented mans insight into medicine.

Once we understand more about light and how it propagates, I predict that Bloodletting and the Big Bang will be honored on the same history page.

The Big Bang; Creationism by Physics    
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 12/07/2011 22:18:56
That's not a answer Bengt :)
It's a statement.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 12/07/2011 22:32:06
Would you care to restate the question ?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 13/07/2011 01:44:35
I said that EM do not 'bend' light. Gravity may be seen to do it, depending on your definitions, but there are no experimental proof of a EM field bending light, that I know of. I would expect that to be of real interest if anyone had succeed.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 13/07/2011 09:04:39
In my humble opinion, that does not appear to be a question.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 13/07/2011 09:15:03
You're right :)

It was a comment, but reading you I got the feeling that you expected it to be able to do so?  But rereading you, you could as easily mean 'interactions', or other interference of the radiation if looked at as waves.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 14/07/2011 01:32:14
Quote
There is no plausible way to explain the observed redshift except through some kind of expanding universe model, and the "Big Bang theory" is the best of these.
There are many ways to affect a beam of light to change its visible, multi-chromatic wavelength.
Sure there are. But there are none that can be applied to all the phenomena of cosmology. Attempts have been made and failed.
Quote
There is a large and well established body of optical science and a multitude of applications and instruments based on the manipulation of visible light. A beam of light traveling through the universe travels through a soup of electromagnetic radiation. To insist that it does this for millions of years without any possibility for interference or energy exchange along the way is simply wishful thinking and an unsupported assumption.
Not really, given that there are a number of ways we can tell how empty empty space is. Additionally, attempts to explain redshift based on such a soup of EM radiation have, again, failed miserably.
Quote
Progress many times requires admitting that the best we have is not good enough. 
Yes. And progress is made when those doing the work are honest. If someone is telling you that there is some way to account for cosmological redshift without expanding space then they are probably not honest.

Do you know of any attempt to explain cosmological redshift that fits the facts?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 14/07/2011 07:32:34
A multi-chromatic ray of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light is subject to intensity differentiation with time. This means that the constituents with the higher frequencies loose intensity at a higher degree than those with lower frequencies. Therefore, with time the lower frequencies, such as red, appear more pronounced. Compare light traveling through any energy rich media. Compare range and durability of radio frequencies in our atmosphere. Compare rogue wave accumulation among ocean waves.
The assumption about an inalterable character and durability of multi-chromatic visible light traveling through a crowded and energy rich universe for millions of years is an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us. To build a crowd pleasing hypothesis upon an inaccurate assumption represents insincere attention seeking and can only be categorized as entertainment, not science.   
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 14/07/2011 15:34:57
A multi-chromatic ray of electromagnetic radiation such as visible light is subject to intensity differentiation with time. This means that the constituents with the higher frequencies loose intensity at a higher degree than those with lower frequencies. Therefore, with time the lower frequencies, such as red, appear more pronounced. Compare light traveling through any energy rich media. Compare range and durability of radio frequencies in our atmosphere. Compare rogue wave accumulation among ocean waves.
The assumption about an inalterable character and durability of multi-chromatic visible light traveling through a crowded and energy rich universe for millions of years is an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us. To build a crowd pleasing hypothesis upon an inaccurate assumption represents insincere attention seeking and can only be categorized as entertainment, not science.   
Well, that certainly sounds interesting. Do you have any citations to support these claims? Nothing that you write here seems to be supported by any scientific studies that I know of.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 14/07/2011 15:55:23
Do you have any citations to support these claims? Nothing that you write here seems to be supported by any scientific studies that I know of.
That's the difference between regurgitating other people's work and doing your own.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: imatfaal on 14/07/2011 17:57:20
Chaps - please behave nicely and politely! 

Bengt - the request for citations of studies or experimental evidence is pretty near universal in science; please do not respond to such requests by implying that your questioner's thoughts are worthless and unimaginative.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 14/07/2011 18:22:36
imatfaal - Please do not patronize any of us or put words in my mouth !
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 14/07/2011 22:09:08
It's interesting Bengt, and waves are weird in so many ways. How did you get to it? I guess you must have considered it as waves for this, if I'm right, ahem :) ? So, how would you define it from 'photons' instead.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 14/07/2011 23:18:35
Good question. I wish I knew why and how EM energies propagate.
I suspect that all particles as well as quanta such as photons are nested balls of tiny energy strings. Assume that for whatever reason we suddenly have a lot of these little energy strings concentrated in one area. The string pressure would be higher than that of the surrounding so they would want to scatter to equalize the pressure. A shock wave of string pressure would radiate out from the source. The strings wouldn't even have to move, they could just bump each other into propagation like a wave on the ocean. That would make a photon a fast traveling, temporary perturbation in string pressure propagating through space. Is it a particle? Is it a wave? You tell me.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 14/07/2011 23:26:17
Okay, if we define a photon as strings :) Which makes a certain sense to me, then they should be able to have a pressure too. But then you have the vacuum? Do you see it as fluctuating, and if it is, is the 'fluctuating' also (temporary) strings?

That is, if we assume the vacuum to have a energy at very short timescales, averaging into a classical nothing over longer, or in some other weird way expressing that nothing that space is to us macroscopically (humanly seen, sort of) Would that be a possible interaction to you?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 15/07/2011 00:30:14
OK, so all this criticism of the standard cosmological model being "an inaccurate assumption which no longer serves us" is based entirely on pure speculation made in complete ignorance of how EM radiation actually works?

Sigh.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: yor_on on 15/07/2011 02:10:19
Don't give up before time PhysBang, Bengt have a own way of looking at the universe, doesn't mean he doesn't know the standard model, not as I understand it anyway :)
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 15/07/2011 09:19:57
For the benefit of PhysBang: There is nothing wrong with the Standard Model. It describes a macro world, where the smallest constituent is the photon which is presumed to have a resting mass of <1x10^-18eV. Feel free to find my website which details Gravity and Strong Force within the context of the Standard Model. It honors the Standard Model but it is free of space-time fabrics and other fiction. 
I am interested in the sub-photon world, the smallest building blocks that make up our universe.
Let us assume that there is a primary energy string, the smallest of all subatomic constituents. I expect it to be very small. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes a perturbation of thousands of them to show up as a photon. After all, can you make a wave on the ocean with a wavelength equivalent to the size of a single H2O molecule? probably not!
But before we nest any energy strings together and reconstruct the universe let us follow the spread of energy throughout the universe.
There are probably distant areas of the universe where there is still absolutely nothing, no energy strings, a true vacuum.
Then there are parts of the universe permeated by different densities of energy strings. For the benefit of the Standard Model let us call these clouds of energy strings for Dark Energy. I am suggesting that free floating, unorganized energy strings or dark energy occupy parts of the universe. This should therefore no longer be regarded as a vacuum. It is a potent, subatomic breeding ground for an expanding material world.
With time and by chance some energy strings will entangle themselves and nest together into energetic balls, still unrecognizable as photons or subatomic particles as we know them. For the benefit of the Standard Model let us call these little energy embryos Dark Matter.
Our part of the universe is consequently floating in a soup of energy strings, or dark energy and nested energy embryos, or dark matter.

So what is my objection to the Big Bang. Wouldn't a Big Bang be a convenient way to seed the universe with energy strings, suddenly and out of nothing? Absolutely!
That's exactly my objection: Convenience before hard work and understanding. That is not science. That is human laziness, theatrics and deception.
We do not need a new Creationism, this time created by Physics, to hide the fact that we do not yet understand what is really going on.
We already have near immortal fiction embedded in physics. Part of relativity is one and the so called space-time fabric and Einsteinian circular deception about gravity is another.

Faith is fine. So is science. But that two shall never meet!
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 15/07/2011 12:37:02
The things you write seem to have absolutely nothing to do with anything in cosmology except for a few names that you have appropriated.

The standard cosmological model, that many people call the Big Bang model, does not actually include a creation event. This is something that the model has been saddled with by those who want to refute it and, while fallacious, it is apparently very effective.

The standard cosmological model does require a finite age to the universe as we understand it, but it is possible that we do not understand the physics associated with what would otherwise be the beginning of the universe.

The standard cosmological model explains redshift as an effect related to gravity; specifically, to the way that the geometry of spacetime influences the properties of light. Through general relativity, we can measure the gravitational effects of matter and energy on redshift over cosmological time. We can see that the relationship between redshift and distance changes over billions of years. It changes in ways that are readily explainable in general relativity and that gives us measurements of the matter and energy in the universe that we can compare with other types of measurements.

Alternative theories of redshift just don't do this. Tired light theories, theories that say that light just loses energy over time, do not have a mechanism to change the redshift in the way that we observe. Even if one were to add in some mechanism, tired llight theories have another big problem: they do not have a means to demonstrate time dilation consistent with redshift. Cosmological redshift results from time dilation effects that arise from general relativity. We can measure time dilation in a few distant objects of a known redshift and we can see that the time dilation matches the redshift. Tired light cannot do that. Dust that selectively filters light cannot do that.

Scientists have spent a lot of time considering these things. These are not issues of the origin of the contents of the universe, these are issues of what the universe is and has been doing.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 15/07/2011 13:21:26
I was hoping you would either join the conversation or tell me something I didn't already know.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 15/07/2011 13:35:23
But clearly you didn't know these things, since you write things that are grossly in contradiction to them. I'm not sure if you are trying to save face or something. It's not like being wrong as an anonymous participant on an internet forum should embarrass you.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 15/07/2011 14:25:07
Have a nice day !
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 28/07/2011 12:39:28

The standard cosmological model explains redshift as an effect related to gravity; specifically, to the way that the geometry of spacetime influences the properties of light. Through general relativity, we can measure the gravitational effects of matter and energy on redshift over cosmological time. We can see that the relationship between redshift and distance changes over billions of years. It changes in ways that are readily explainable in general relativity and that gives us measurements of the matter and energy in the universe that we can compare with other types of measurements.

Is gravitational red-shift at source taken into account?  I haven't found anything to verify that it has.  If gravitational red-shift at source has not been deducted from the overall red-shift then this would seem to indicate that the universe is younger and smaller than generally believed.

Presumably, to estimate red-shift at source one must estimate the mass of the object but that means knowing the objects distance and for that we use red-shift.  See the problem?

When observing anything outside of the solar system it will appear blue shifted relative to us.  Is this taken into account.  When observing anything outside our galaxy, it will appear more blue shifted.  Is this taken into account?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 29/07/2011 03:24:12
Is gravitational red-shift at source taken into account?  I haven't found anything to verify that it has.
Why don't you estimate how much this redshift is likely to be?
Quote
When observing anything outside of the solar system it will appear blue shifted relative to us.  Is this taken into account.  When observing anything outside our galaxy, it will appear more blue shifted.  Is this taken into account?
Why don't you estimate how much this blueshift is likely to be?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 29/07/2011 05:56:18
That's no answer.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: imatfaal on 29/07/2011 11:52:28
Mike - why don't you do the sums - use upper bounds rather than exact masses if you feel the exact masses are compromised by the methods used to calculate them.  They are not particularly taxing - and you will then have a rough idea of the magnitude of the shifts involved.  With that your questions might have a bit more bite.  You see; if the upper bounds of the graviational redshift are orders of magnitudes less that those observed with distant galaxies then we can move on - if they are of the same or similar magnitude then you are right to highlight a problem. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 29/07/2011 13:16:51
Mike - why don't you do the sums - use upper bounds rather than exact masses if you feel the exact masses are compromised by the methods used to calculate them.  They are not particularly taxing - and you will then have a rough idea of the magnitude of the shifts involved.  With that your questions might have a bit more bite.  You see; if the upper bounds of the graviational redshift are orders of magnitudes less that those observed with distant galaxies then we can move on - if they are of the same or similar magnitude then you are right to highlight a problem. 

Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 29/07/2011 13:25:48

Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.


Presumably, to estimate red-shift at source one must estimate the mass of the object but that means knowing the objects distance and for that we use red-shift.  See the problem?

For object, read quasar.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 29/07/2011 14:05:34
I feel justified in adding this post as this is the new theories section.  Is the big bang correct.

Most distant quasar found.  It stretches black hole theory as it is just too big.  Please excuse pun.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/description/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions

Why are some early quasars just too big to be explained by our understanding of black holes?
Why are quasars only observed in the early universe?
Where did all the quasars go?
The further back in time we look the larger they are, why?
Why are they emitting so much power?
The standard model can explain none of these questions.

What if, a quasar is a white hole, a time reversed left over black hole from the previous antimatter cycle of the universe?  Suddenly, it all makes sense.  Quasars are not feeding upon galaxies but are the engines of creation building new galaxies.  As a quasar builds a galaxy the repulsive force of gravity between matter and antimatter eventually ejects the quasar from its home in the centre of the galaxy.  The quasar continues to feed the galaxy with material that flows across a bridge from the quasar to the galaxy.  Eventually, the quasar converts all of its antimatter into matter and ceases to exist.  A quasar has a very large red-shift as light from it is extremely red shifted at source due to extreme time dilation as the quasar is time reversed in relation to its galaxy and the universe in general.  Time dilation and reversal between universe cycles also explains inflation.  A white hole spewing out jets of relativistic material forms a barbed spiral galaxy.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 29/07/2011 14:12:09
The largest uncertainty is probably that we ignore the fact that the higher frequencies within multi-chromatic white light loose energy faster than the lower frequencies. This tends to bias all multi-chromatic white light toward the red after a few million years of travel through a busy universe.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: imatfaal on 29/07/2011 16:43:44
Mike - do the sums!

Bengt - got a citation for that?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 29/07/2011 22:10:43
I do not cite other people's work. I present my own.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 30/07/2011 06:56:42

Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.

It has already been established that there is a red-shift problem here, a discrepancy of 'orders of magnitude'

Mike - do the sums!


There is absolutely no point in me doing the maths as there is nothing for me to prove.  The problem is known to exist.

Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 30/07/2011 07:11:16
The largest uncertainty is probably that we ignore the fact that the higher frequencies within multi-chromatic white light loose energy faster than the lower frequencies. This tends to bias all multi-chromatic white light toward the red after a few million years of travel through a busy universe.

According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, see
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 30/07/2011 08:24:25
According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, see
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
It all depends on what it encounters along the way. There is a vast difference between how cosmology looks at the photon; as an indisputably fixed reference, and what optics and radio/radar technology know about the intricacy of electromagnetic radiation.
The claim that a photon is unalterable during a million year zigzag journey through a forest of gravitational and electromagnetic fields is a wishful assumption and oversimplification at best.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 30/07/2011 09:18:48
According to Fermilab, a photon does not loose energy, see
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html
It all depends on what it encounters along the way. There is a vast difference between how cosmology looks at the photon; as an indisputably fixed reference, and what optics and radio/radar technology know about the intricacy of electromagnetic radiation.
The claim that a photon is unalterable during a million year zigzag journey through a forest of gravitational and electromagnetic fields is a wishful assumption and oversimplification at best.

Do you know of any papers written on the subject, can you give references to them?

I know you said this is your own work but you must back it up with something.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 30/07/2011 09:43:12
Computer simulations.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 31/07/2011 07:53:37
Computer simulations.

If it were me, I would suspect a glitch in the computer software first or the way it is being used.

If you are confident that you are right and have evidence to back it up, why not publish it here in new theories?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 31/07/2011 08:11:22
Thank you.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 31/07/2011 19:08:03
Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.
This is actually not correct. It is difficult to tell some cases whether or not a quasar is part of a galaxy or whether that galaxy is actually between us and the quasar. In every case where it looks like a quasar has a different redshift than its host galaxy and we have been able to take a better look at the two objects, it has turned out that the quasar is much farther behind the galaxy.

For example, see Peebles et al. in Nature, 1991.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 01/08/2011 09:17:10
Quasars are frequently used to determine distance.  Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift.  This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude.  Not an insignificant amount.
This is actually not correct. It is difficult to tell some cases whether or not a quasar is part of a galaxy or whether that galaxy is actually between us and the quasar. In every case where it looks like a quasar has a different redshift than its host galaxy and we have been able to take a better look at the two objects, it has turned out that the quasar is much farther behind the galaxy.

For example, see Peebles et al. in Nature, 1991.

It was actually correct.

For example see
http://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138
Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory

The evidence suggests the quasar is in front of the galaxy.

"There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular
galaxy.  First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light
from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it.  Second, a jet is observed to
connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar
source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319".
“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to
the center of an active galaxy,” “If it weren’t for this redshift dilemma, astronomers
would have thought quasars originated from these galaxies or were fired out from them
like bullets or cannon balls,” said Geoffrey Burbidge, professor of physics and
astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and
Space Sciences

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very
Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215v1.pdf

How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 05/08/2011 07:52:46
Here is another example of a quasar, galaxy pair, although the write up, I believe, gives the wrong explanation of what is happening.
http://www.universetoday.com/46503/quasar-caught-building-future-home-galaxy/

More info on this subject
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/quasar.asp
http://www.haveagoodday.ca/fact34.html
http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/les_os_du_redshift_02_uk.htm
http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/quasars.htm
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980216c.html
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 05/08/2011 08:17:56
First, while it is possible that something might be wrong with redshift, it is important to note that the only people who seem to be taking this 2005 pair seriously have little, if any, credibility on this matter. Due to the weight of evidence from thousands of other galaxies and quasars, it just seems far more likely that these are two aligned objects. There is no way that galaxies are dense enough everywhere that they can block out any quasar behind them and the alignment of structures in our visual field is not a guarantee of association. If it were, we should believe that the constellations we have identified are really the mythical creatures and objects that we designated them to be.
How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
We can look to the cosmological distance ladder. There is a book by this title one can get out from libraries. Otherwise, one can look to almost any introductory astronomy textbook.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 05/08/2011 10:04:23
First, while it is possible that something might be wrong with redshift, it is important to note that the only people who seem to be taking this 2005 pair seriously have little, if any, credibility on this matter. Due to the weight of evidence from thousands of other galaxies and quasars, it just seems far more likely that these are two aligned objects. There is no way that galaxies are dense enough everywhere that they can block out any quasar behind them and the alignment of structures in our visual field is not a guarantee of association. If it were, we should believe that the constellations we have identified are really the mythical creatures and objects that we designated them to be.
How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
We can look to the cosmological distance ladder. There is a book by this title one can get out from libraries. Otherwise, one can look to almost any introductory astronomy textbook.

When referring to quasars (which I was) the only estimate for distance seems to be red-shift.

As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected  (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies.  This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 05/08/2011 15:03:50
As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected  (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies.  This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
No quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies. As with all astronomical objects, the objects appear at a certain position in a two-dimensional space. One has to infer the distance from the observer.

One neat thing about determining quasar distances is that one can look at gravitationally lensed images of quasars and test whether or not they match the mass of the galaxy that is lensing the image. This allows us to test whether or not the quasar really is as distant as its redshift suggests. Whenever we could do this, it works out.

Either there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are some anomalous alignments that create temporary confusion, or there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are also quasars that are not at their redshift distance but that are completely indistinguishable from these other quasars. This is not impossible, but it is something that is impossible to work into a good theory of the universe that can be compared to measurement.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: MikeS on 06/08/2011 07:49:54
As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected  (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies.  This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
No quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies. As with all astronomical objects, the objects appear at a certain position in a two-dimensional space. One has to infer the distance from the observer.

One neat thing about determining quasar distances is that one can look at gravitationally lensed images of quasars and test whether or not they match the mass of the galaxy that is lensing the image. This allows us to test whether or not the quasar really is as distant as its redshift suggests. Whenever we could do this, it works out.

Either there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are some anomalous alignments that create temporary confusion, or there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are also quasars that are not at their redshift distance but that are completely indistinguishable from these other quasars. This is not impossible, but it is something that is impossible to work into a good theory of the universe that can be compared to measurement.

Above I have given a few references to quasars that do appear to be in front of their associated galaxies.

I would imagine for a quasar to be lensed by a galaxy it would have to be a great distance behind the galaxy, therefore it is not associated and it would work out.

This is debatable, people have lost their careers by going against the mainstream on this subject.
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 06/08/2011 14:31:34
Above I have given a few references to quasars that do appear to be in front of their associated galaxies.
You have given a few references to articles where the authors make inferences about where the quasars are. There is good reason to doubt the veracity of these inferences: the entirety of what we know about quasars, redshifts, and distance.
Quote
I would imagine for a quasar to be lensed by a galaxy it would have to be a great distance behind the galaxy, therefore it is not associated and it would work out.
Well, yeah. But many of the quasars that people supposed to be ejected from galaxies turned out to be gravitationally lensed images. This is one of the reasons that the idea that quasars have their own intrinsic redshift is viewed as a false.
Quote
This is debatable, people have lost their careers by going against the mainstream on this subject.
People may have lost their careers because they did poor science. Do you have any examples of people who lost their careers because of this?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 07/08/2011 13:29:35
The black hole; A gravitationally driven super concentration of materia beyond materia. Due to dynamic and gravitational effects in the surrounding galaxy the organization of this event becomes an essentially two dimensional event. Materia and energy hitting the event horizon has a probabilistic chance to slip out of the event plane and to escape as quasar radiation or later along the rotational axis of the black pit.

Considering what we do know about the fascinating transitions between radiation and materia, including dark such, it appears scientifically unfounded to claim that once energy has taken the form of visible white light there is nothing in the universe that can affect or influence this form of energy. Not even its propagation speed or apparent wavelength. We know from the sciences of optics and radio technology that a multitude of events can alter this form of energy.
Therefore, to postulate some inalterable and axiomatic qualities to the nature of visible, multi-chromatic white light and to use this, and red shift, as the basis for a dramatic hypothesis like The Big Bang, or other forms of pseudo scientific creationism, is insincere and more theater than science.

     


   

               
 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 07/08/2011 15:46:01
The black hole; A gravitationally driven super concentration of materia beyond materia. Due to dynamic and gravitational effects in the surrounding galaxy the organization of this event becomes an essentially two dimensional event. Materia and energy hitting the event horizon has a probabilistic chance to slip out of the event plane and to escape as quasar radiation or later along the rotational axis of the black pit.

Considering what we do know about the fascinating transitions between radiation and materia, including dark such, it appears scientifically unfounded to claim that once energy has taken the form of visible white light there is nothing in the universe that can affect or influence this form of energy. Not even its propagation speed or apparent wavelength. We know from the sciences of optics and radio technology that a multitude of events can alter this form of energy.
Therefore, to postulate some inalterable and axiomatic qualities to the nature of visible, multi-chromatic white light and to use this, and red shift, as the basis for a dramatic hypothesis like The Big Bang, or other forms of pseudo scientific creationism, is insincere and more theater than science.
You seem to be operating in some ignorance of the actual science. No cosmologists say that nothing can influence light. They identify many, many things that influence light and that they can use to make astronomical observations. It's just that, through careful measurement, they do not find traces of some known or unknown influence that would make the light redder from more distant galaxies other than that from standard cosmological theory.


   

               
 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 07/08/2011 17:35:35
They identify many, many things that influence light and that they can use to make astronomical observations. It's just that, through careful measurement, they do not find traces of some known or unknown influence that would make the light redder from more distant galaxies other than that from standard cosmological theory.
Out of the many many things that influence light we chose that which supports our present hypothesis. This way science tests and searches its way forward.
What amuses me is that people doing the science admit that we do not yet know, while second hand followers take home a snapshot of science and swear that they know.   
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 07/08/2011 19:37:29
Like you are swearing that you know anything about cosmology?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 07/08/2011 20:07:26
I do not know enough. I do not think we know enough. I am interested in exploring and discussing alternatives to hypotheses and theories that seem to fly in the face of good science.
I am asking: With many possible explanations for red shift, should we not explore some of them before we put all our money on a dramatic but poorly supported big bang hypothesis.

After all, the question was: "Is the big bang correct?" My answer is: "I do not think so, let us discuss."


Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: imatfaal on 08/08/2011 11:12:59
Bengt - of all the "many possible explanations for red shift" could you briefly outline one which can be tested and provides a workable model that explains observed fact. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 08/08/2011 19:14:38
I am asking: With many possible explanations for red shift, should we not explore some of them before we put all our money on a dramatic but poorly supported big bang hypothesis.
So what about all the research in cosmology and astrophysics since 1929?
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 08/08/2011 20:08:31
Testable or not, two likely candidates are gradual synchronization through energy transfer between the various frequencies in multi chromatic white light and plain loss of energy do to cross traffic. In case of million year old multi chromatic white light a combination of the two is likely. Gradual synchronization due to energy transfer is what causes rogue waves on the ocean. Waves of slightly different frequencies can pass through each other with near zero loss or transfer of energy. However, the higher energy wave does give up a tiny bit of energy to the less energetic wave. The result is gradual synchronization forming a large composite wave. Of interest here is not the size of the wave but the fact that the higher energy wave slowly lends some energy to the lower energy wave.
In case of multi chromatic white light with an average frequency of 600 THz, traveling for a million years, one wavelength of violet light with a frequency of 800 THz will roll through one wavelength of red light with a frequency of 400 THz approximately 400X10^12X60X60X24X365X1000,000 = 1261440X10^22 times. With any transfer of energy from the high energy components in a photon to the low energy components, the violet components will weaken and the reddish components will strengthen. A shift of energy from a white mix to a more reddish mix is to be expected.

As far as white light simply getting tired, and reddish, this has been strongly contested. However, a beam of light traveling through the universe for a million years sees a lot of cross traffic. Just as a gradual energy equalization within the photon is likely it is also possible that a beam of light that has encountered a few googols of intersections with other EM radiation will have exchanged some energy along the way. When a beam of EM radiation looses energy the high frequency, high energy components fade the fastest. Compare radar, micro waves and radio frequencies. The result is a disproportionate loss of high frequency energy boosting the appearance the lower, red, frequencies.

We could also talk about the possibility of areas of dark energy clouds or fog, providing additional opportunities for a beam of light to alter its constitution along the way.

How do we experimentally test these possibilities? I do it on the computer. I welcome anybody with a virtual million year optical table to take on the challenge.

I am asking you this question: Can to name anything that is going to be exactly as it is today, a million years from now?
......  No, I didn't think so.
So why should an old beam of light be the only exception?



    
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: PhysBang on 09/08/2011 02:56:17
How do we experimentally test these possibilities? I do it on the computer. I welcome anybody with a virtual million year optical table to take on the challenge.
Well, you look at distant events of known duration and check to see whether the redshift is consistent with the time dilation of the event. If there is some excess redshift, one knows that the redshift is due to something other than cosmological redshift.

This was done in Goldhaber et al. 2001. (THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 558:359-368, 2001 September 1) http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/558/1/359
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: imatfaal on 09/08/2011 12:10:29
There is precious little evidence for gamma gamma interaction - we have seen a few instances of it, but they are in the most extreme and un-natural circumstances.  What mechanism are you proposing for gamma/gamma reactions?

A photon travelling across the void sees very little cross traffic - it's not called the void for nothing.

A molecule of hydrogen in the interstellar void will most probably be the same in a million years - as would most molecules in the void. 
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Bengt on 09/08/2011 16:52:15
There is precious little evidence for gamma gamma interaction - we have seen a few instances of it, but they are in the most extreme and un-natural circumstances.  What mechanism are you proposing for gamma/gamma reactions?

A photon traveling across the void sees very little cross traffic - it's not called the void for nothing.

A molecule of hydrogen in the interstellar void will most probably be the same in a million years - as would most molecules in the void. 

1. As my numerical illustration suggests we are talking about a fractional interaction or interference after 1.2x10^28 close encounters. I know of no experiments that have been able to replicate this exposure to prove or disprove a theoretically anticipated energy transfer from high to low.

2. Place an observer at point A in the void. Observer A sees stars in all directions. Rays of light from visible stars converge at point A. Now place an observer at a different point B. Observer B also sees stars in all directions. Rays of light also converge at point B.
A ray of light traveling from A to B is constantly traveling through the cross traffic observed at point A, and at point B, and in-between.
You say: Yes but the EM energy density is so low that it can not have any effect on the ray of light that I am interested in.
I say: Wrong. Your chosen ray of light is no bigger or better than the Xx10^XXXX crossing rays that it encounters along the way.

It's called a void because its content is close to zero. However, we all come from this negligible condition; close to zero.

3. Maybe, maybe not. With a little luck maybe your hydrogen molecule has gotten sucked into a bigger event, like a black hole. Or maybe it traveled in a different direction, found some friends and formed a helium atom.

It's a good question: What is the life expectancy of a hydrogen molecule in the void?
 
   
   
Title: is the big bang correct?
Post by: katesisco on 20/08/2011 17:50:34
Well........David Bohm sure thought so.  And he further stated that we are not privileged to know anything other than our current transformation. i do think O Manuel is on the right path; the Russians have just launched a radio telescope to look for our bitsy neutron star that has lashed Sol's system many times with magnetic waves, in other words, DL, as described by the Electric Universe.   
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: R B Bartley on 05/04/2012 18:24:50
This forum post is a good one and a subject that has a lot of different opinions, there’s some good reading in here, the 15 pages of posts backs that up I’m sure. I almost feel guilty cutting into the debate on redshift but it’s getting a little off topic. So here’s my 2 cents from what’s been said on the original post.

The “Big Bang”
Without getting bogged down in the details, people’s opinions are divided because most evidence of an expanding universe and current observations support a Big Bang theory. The problem is how can all that matter be in one place at one point in time, it’s counter intuitive because much smaller quantities of matter like suns or planets would collapse or explode in a tiny fraction of that volume.
This problem is pretty much all down to gravity so with the Big Bang we’ve added things like the quantum field theory to patch over the contradiction. This means given the Big Bang there was no gravity in the universe till a large part of its structure was formed, this is described as the first couple of seconds of the Big Bang and time and the speed of light also go out the window.
So as far as I can see it there is a great deal of logic in the Big Bang theory so it might be true, that said I can also see why people would disagree because we have to bend a lot of other rules in physics to get it started.
In my opinion I believe galaxies formed in Big Bangs but the universe did not. I believe what happened is closer to how bubbles form in liquid, galaxies popped up in little “Big Bangs” in the liquid of one big expanding universe of gravity and matter. It’s only an opinion at the moment but in my mind it makes for a better model than the current one but time will tell, It’s a large part of BartleysTOE came to be, link below.
http://www.scribd.com/rb_bartley/d/87888548-BartleysTOE-1st-Edition

A “Continuous Universe”
This is really hard to quantify, has it always been, will it always be, if you stay in one place long enough will the universe go full circle. This is pretty much on the edge of philosophy but it does make for an interesting set of ideas.
I’m on the fence for this one, I don’t see why it couldn’t be possible in a continually moving forward sense of the concept but not in an expanding forward and shrinking backwards universe. One thing is obvious though this idea will be near impossible to prove one way or the other!

“Creationism”
As science is completely unable to answer how life can choose I can see why the concept of creationism can be popular but it’s a long shot at best in my opinion. I do believe we should learn from religions in science, 7000 years of knowledge can’t be all bad, but obviously it shouldn’t be assumed as correct just like anything.
The problem with Creationism is the extremist opinions some people have, for instance. I can understand it being taught in schools along with main stream science but when it is taught as the only truth and everything else is a lie it becomes a burden on the world.

The “Other”
Will you take the Red or the Blue pill, is this all in your mind, am I really real or is all this a figment of my imagination. Everybody likes a bit of the other, take it as you will ;-)
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/04/2012 13:47:43
RB
This forum post is a good one and a subject that has a lot of different opinions,
RB, opinions in this regard are quite irrelevant. The important point is that the current best explanation for the character of the universe as we observe it is Big Bang theory. None of the alternatives even come close. In that regard there is zero evidence supporting your contention that galaxies were created by mini-BBs and abundant evidence that they were not.

There is noting wrong with having opinions, but - as noted - on a science forum they are about as relevant as six day old hamburgers.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: R B Bartley on 11/04/2012 12:33:59
Ophiolite

When your right your right, what can I say ;-).

The Big Bang is and will remain to be the best explanation for the foreseable future but I guess its still far from perfect or it wouldn't raise so many questions without answers. Theres an awful lot ridding on the Higgs Boson to plug the gaps and I believe we'll find out one way or another on that front in the next 6/12 months.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: RE.Craig on 12/02/2013 00:59:57
what do you believe?
I believe BB is BS!!!
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 03/03/2013 14:21:13
The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 08/03/2013 13:06:15
The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.
Do you have any maths to go with that?
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 08/03/2013 14:19:30
The Big Bang is not correct. Most of the maths is backwards. Each Galaxy is a mini Big Bang, and even atoms have their own mini Big Bang. Inflation is just out flow from all points, but the In Flow is the force of the out flow. So modified the flow is towards all points, with an out flow. Which make a Galaxy a Universe, and the Universe a Multi-verse. And it make the entire thing a fractal.
Do you have any maths to go with that?

You just reverse the maths...
F = G.m1.m2 / r^2

change m1 m2 into holes, and reverse the electron mass

    
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

change to

    
electron mass = -9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms (minus sign)

Reverse all of the forces of the formulas to make the physics push instead of pull.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 08/03/2013 23:51:44
This fails to address the following aspects of your claim:
1. The character of an atom's big bang.
2. Why, if atoms are experiencing a BB we can detect no difference in their behaviour over time.
3. The absence of any evidence that galaxies are expanding.
4. Clear evidence that they are not.
5. etc.

The politest thing one can say about your proposal is to say nothing.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 09/03/2013 00:47:29
This fails to address the following aspects of your claim:
1. The character of an atom's big bang.
2. Why, if atoms are experiencing a BB we can detect no difference in their behaviour over time.
3. The absence of any evidence that galaxies are expanding.
4. Clear evidence that they are not.
5. etc.

The politest thing one can say about your proposal is to say nothing.

I don't feel the need to reply. A reply has to be worth making.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/03/2013 03:26:26
In a science forum one is obligated to reply to reasonable points made, or questions raised. The absence of a substantive response can be taken as an implicit admission that your assertion was unfounded and wrong.

I do, however, praise you for recognising that any attempt to defend the indefensible would be a reply that would not be worth making.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 09/03/2013 09:32:38
In a science forum one is obligated to reply to reasonable points made, or questions raised. The absence of a substantive response can be taken as an implicit admission that your assertion was unfounded and wrong.

I do, however, praise you for recognising that any attempt to defend the indefensible would be a reply that would not be worth making.

Yeah, well make a reasonable response then. Your questions don't relate to reversing the physics. All you have done is change in your mind what a reversed Big Bang would create. You didn't actually change any of the physics to comply with how bump physics would be completely different to the standard model. And a simple mistake like that makes it beyond you to actually follow the answer. It would be like me saying that God doesn't exist to a Christian... pointless.

For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system. That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking. I even gave you an example with electron holes, and you skipped over it. Einstein wondered what Action At A Distance was, and never even considered making the action local, and move gravity away from the mass, into holes as a flow.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 09/03/2013 11:41:58
For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system.
It is not my job to do that. It is your hypothesis, it is your job to explain it.  That is how science works, that is how this forum works.

That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking.
I am delighted to be placed in the same category as Einstein. Since this mistake is not obvious to me, was not obvious to Einstein and is apparently not obvious to the many tens of thousands of physicists who have studied the matter, don't you think you should explain, illustrate and justify this mistake with more than vague hand waving ,word salad, obfuscation and a total absence of maths?
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 09/03/2013 12:43:10
For example if normal gravity is the bending of space time, then bending space time the other way just throws you off the Earth. That's all you did. You didn't work out the alternative physics for a push Gravity system.
It is not my job to do that. It is your hypothesis, it is your job to explain it.  That is how science works, that is how this forum works.

That's the same mistake that Einstein made. It's an obvious mistake to make, and it doesn't give me a very good impression of your way of thinking.
I am delighted to be placed in the same category as Einstein. Since this mistake is not obvious to me, was not obvious to Einstein and is apparently not obvious to the many tens of thousands of physicists who have studied the matter, don't you think you should explain, illustrate and justify this mistake with more than vague hand waving ,word salad, obfuscation and a total absence of maths?

I don't think it does need explaining to be honest. The mistake is obvious, and needs fixing. I don't care if 7 billion people didn't spot it, and the whole of existence. It is an illusion of pull forces that can fool everyone. But once I pointed it out, it needed fixing. There are no pull forces, you cannot pull anything with mass. Just try to pull anything in your room, your fingers are always behind the object that you are moving. If you want to be compared to Einstein, and can't see what your hand is doing then fine.. you are Einstein. You can pull a door open, you are magic.

Let's make it simple for you. Pull your mouse towards your chair, then push your mouse towards your chair. Did your fingers move anywhere?

No... the physics are all backwards. You don't need Quantum Physics, you don't need Dark Matter. You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 10/03/2013 01:54:11
You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.
No, since you think there is a problem, you need to do this. And if you wish to replace amused chuckles behind your back by credibility, you need to show the fix here.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 10/03/2013 13:31:28
You need to fix the maths, and change the physics to work properly.
No, since you think there is a problem, you need to do this. And if you wish to replace amused chuckles behind your back by credibility, you need to show the fix here.

I showed the fix in my second reply. I told you that you skipped over it. You change mass to a hole. Then the forces are pushed into the hole.. the electron, and come out as magnetism, scaled down gravity. That reverses the physics to all push forces. No attraction. The forces are now all local, and not at a distance. My fix is to get you to understand it. I don't know all of the maths that uses G, and F, because it wasn't worth learning Calculus with so many mistakes in it, so I never bothered. So I figured that it would be better to write a computer simulation that does all of the new maths for me. And being as the Universe becomes simplified by my model, it is easy to create a self building Universe fractal, which is what I am doing now.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 10/03/2013 16:49:16
Anyway, why should I use the scientific method for a theory that suggests that all of the proof are wrong? I need to change the proofs...

Quote
I am changing the rules of science. I am changing the rules of the proof.

So from now on, I am changing the rules of the proof. Proof of the Universe as a fractal is to recreate the fractal in a computer. The person that uses the least rules, and the least logic gates has the new leading model. Any output by the model does not count as part of the logic so long as the computer never uses the output as further input. This means that you can put numbers on the screen as results as often as you want, and if this lengthens the program it does not count as more logic gates. All scientist are allowed to judge the new model to say that it is truly smaller than the previous model. All scientists are allowed to judge that the output matches the actual Universe that we live in. I think that a scoring system is probably best...

Best match for actual Universe score
Smallest number of logic gates score

This is the new proof. The proof is allowed to be rewritten by the majority. But the majority must not have an alternative motive to change the proof back to mathematics. Mathematics is not proof.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 10/03/2013 22:24:31
I showed the fix in my second reply. I told you that you skipped over it. You change mass to a hole. Then the forces are pushed into the hole.. the electron, and come out as magnetism, scaled down gravity.
Really! No maths. Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Pincho on 10/03/2013 23:06:09
I showed the fix in my second reply. I told you that you skipped over it. You change mass to a hole. Then the forces are pushed into the hole.. the electron, and come out as magnetism, scaled down gravity.
Really! No maths. Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.

Part of my theory is that maths doesn't work, and that scientists always end posts with..

Quote
Arm waving. Word salad. Nonsense. I'm done.

.. to try to promote their Standard Model with proofs that don't work (i.e. mathematical). So you just became part of my proof.
Title: Re: is the big bang correct?
Post by: Ophiolite on 12/03/2013 02:07:39
Thank you for your response. I just wanted to draw your attention to the details below your forum name, where there is an error. In the phrase Full Member, Full is spelled incorrectly.