Is big bang proven to be solid true?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Jun 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Some time back they found a Type 1A supernova twice as bright as usual. The dwarf star had simply been rotating faster than usual, so been able to hold far more material before going bang. There could be other factors like the type of material taken from the larger star, what is in surrounding space, as in:

    Temperatures, masses so a slower or faster accretion, and so on. It is stoooopid to say that all type 1A supernovae are exactly the same, because all types of stars are not exactly the same.

    Before DE appeared, scientists were adamant that anti-gravity was impossible yet that is what DE is.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    The big bang is assumption and speculation based on what we see of today's universe, so it may be wrong.

    We are told that energy cooled sufficiently and became matter. Think about it. Does that sound right to you? Energy always travels at light speed. Matter can never travel at light speed, no matter how energetic.

    A supernova is incredibly powerful. A hypernova is a hundred times as powerful. We have detected a proton with an energy of 3x10^20 joules. This proton travels at virtually light speed (after 20,000 years travel , it would be less than 1 millimeter behind a photon) and this one proton has the impact of a cricket ball thrown at 60 mph.

    Why doesn't all material in a hypernova change into energy? A newly formed neutron star has a temperature of about a trillion degrees. Where is this matter changing into energy, when it supposedly happens on Earth at relatively very low energies?

    Back to the BB. After a few minutes, temperature has dropped below a billion degrees and we have plasma (what stars are made of). You know how black holes are formed so why doesn't this plasma obey the basic laws of gravity, form a black hole, and that is the end of the universe?

    Whether a singularity or a burst of energy, assuming both are somehow possible, all both do is put the origin back one step. So not a lot of help.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member


    No matter how many times you tell me Santa Claus really exists, I still won't believe you. What you quote is there for all to see on wikipedia, etc. Do you think I don't know about this information? If I want someone to mindlessly parrot what I have already dismissed as wrong, I'll ask you.

    Of course, you'd know all about dishonesty.

    I have pointed out previously that there would be anomalies in odd shapes like a torus.

    Let's see. If the universe has a radius of 13.7 billion light years, giving it a circumference of over 86 billion light years, you are saying that with light that has travelled for just 13.7 billion years, we would be able to see 43 billion light years in either direction, so see the same galaxies? Or would it be easier to look straight across the universe at 27.4 billion light years away?

    Did you ever do any maths? :shrug:
  8. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    It is taken for granted that the speed of light has always been the same but we do not know why there is such a speed limit? I suspect it has to do with the speed of gravity, but then it needs explaining why gravity moves at such a speed? It's structure, I suspect.
  9. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member


    If the universe is expanding, and expanding faster, then it will expand forever rather than collapsing so all stars will eventually burn out and the universe will eventually be barely above absolute zero. DE-believers claim that the increase will eventually cause galaxies to drift apart as it overcomes local attraction. More logical is that the greater the distance between galaxies, etc, the less pull they have on each other, so expansion would speed up without DE, so galaxies would still hold together.

    I am more inclined to a steady state universe with no expansion. It would however need a way of renewing fundamental particles, hopefully involving black holes (which would probably be bigger than any presently known).
  10. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Learn the difference between electron volts and joules. A cricket ball with 3E20 Joules of energy would go a touch faster than 60mph.

    There's a difference between anti-gravity and dark energy. Antigravity would have things repelling one another such that the force is proportional to their masses. That isn't how dark energy works, but good try at misrepresenting the mainstream, which brings me onto the next point :

    The reason you and I always end up talking about simple things is that you keep misrepresenting or misquoting the simple things.

    You haven't managed to grasp the fundamentals of what mainstream physics says so I have to keep correcting you. The fact you know how to find the information but yet you choose to ignore it or twist it makes you all the more dishonest.

    Like what? A torus is, locally, indistinguishable from flat space. If the universe is sufficiently large that light hasn't yet managed to 'loop around it' we'd not know the difference from observations.

    But feel free to be more specific, rather than "Oh there'd be anomalies."

    That's not how it'd work. A simpler example would be a circular one dimensional universe, where the visible universe is an arc section of the circle. For instance, the universe is a circle, of radius R, and we live at '12 oclock' and we can see the arc of the circle from 11 oclock to 1oclock. We only see a little interval. The diameter of our visible universe is the arc length from 11 oclock to 1oclock. That isn't enough to wrap around the entire, closed, universe. The diameter of the visible universe would have to be the entire length of the universe, which is 2\(\pi\)R. If \(2\pi R < 2 \times 14,000,000,000\) then \(R < \frac{14,000,000,000}{\pi}\).

    I know basic geometry is a little tough for you Kaneda, you might find it helpful to find a clock or draw a circle.
  11. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    This reasoning is false because it ignores the expansion of the universe.
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    * * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

    Enough with the personal insults please. That is a violation of the forum rules. Specific criticism, citing portions of a post that you believe justify it, may be appropriate if not taken to an extreme. But please do not descend into sarcasm, hyperbole and flaming. It does nothing for the discussion and it does nothing for SciForums.
  13. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    The main reason why the universe could never be gigantic black hole is because the gravity of the black hole is faaar too extreme so much that no form of life would ever be possible to exist in such extreme place, forget about it. Also, "the universe" would be completely chaotic, spiralling down to the centre of the black hole.
    However, your arguments about weak points of Big bang theory, which is actually a hypothesis are completely valid.

    But one thing you have to consider, yes big bang hypothesis has many flaws, but so other hypotheses of the universe have flaws too.
    What makes a crucial distinction between the Big Bang hypothesis and all other hypotheses it that BB hypothesis has the strongest and the most direct rock-solid scientific evidences, and it's not going to change you like it or I like, until there are no scientific rock-solid evidences for other hypotheses.
    So, no big bang hypothesis is not the answer, but it's the best tool we have so far.
    Yes, I don't believe in any of those hypotheses, I also don't believe in the Big Bang hypothesis, but the fact remains BB hypothesis has the strongest, rock solid scientific evidences of them all.

    This is why I do not know why are you so angry, you are right about everything regarding flaws with Big Bang hypothesis, but other hypothesis also have flaws and don't even have evidences or they have very, very little circumstancial evidence at best to support the origins of the universe (if there are any origins of the universe at all).

    The other problem is that for the Big Bang hypothesis and other hypotheses of the universe, scientists use computer models, and computers models are not very reliable but they are, with observation and experiments, the best tool scientists have in trying to find the answers about the universe's origins and everything in it.
    Scientists also use sophisticated computer models for to determine age of the universe but the main question is if there is such thing of the universe, there is an age of galaxies, but the age of entire universe that's dubious at best, but again this all depends on computer models which are not very reliable in these hyper-colossal sizes and complexity.
    Other scientists noticed the connection there simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for the Big Bang to form structures these colossal and they are absolutely right-that includes planet-level, multi-planet-level, solar system-level, multi-solar system level, galaxy-level, multi-galaxy-level, and of course, entire universe-level structures, the universe itself.

    Experiments also cannot answer to this question either, but from experiments we have this evolved modern world, so even though scientists cannot really answer how exactly and did the universe have a beginning, these experiments and scientific and high-tech tools used in experiments made many breakthroughs in every day life of average people.
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2013
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    You've replied to an extremely old thread and Kaneda no longer posts here. And not only that, even if he did he doesn't know anything about cosmology so there'd be little point in trying to discuss it with him. As my old powers in this thread repeatedly highlight he regularly misrepresented what the mainstream says, building strawmen rather than have an honest discussion. He didn't know and he didn't want to know.

    Shame he isn't still around, he liked to complain about how I haven't done anything original in science and doing a string theory PhD was a waste of time. Unsurprisingly reality failed to align with his desires....

    If anyone sees anything in this thread which is of interest for further discussion please start a new one, using this one would only serve to confuse discussions.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page