Is big bang proven to be solid true?

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. Where did I say the ONLY evidence for the BB is the redshift? Have I not posted about the CMB? Type 1A supernovae? etc.

Your idea still remains that if someone does not agree with a "theory", it is because they do not know anything about it and not because they disagree with the explanation. A position of arrogance where another opinion must be wrong, and uninformed.

Is it possible for you to make an original post, even one nanometer from what is accepted? No, of course not. It's never going to happen. What use is someone who does nothing but quote accepted science so that if others do not know, they can google it? Search engines have made you redundant on a science forum.

Why is it that losers always go on about strawmen (the word is in many of your loser posts)? I said that final proof would be seeing expansion happen. You just bring up an irrelevancy.

The goal posts are constantly moved with the BB. I haven't heard the one about branes bashing together for a long time. Does anyone still believe this trash or has it rightly been discarded?

Again the use of the word "strawman". The word for today is "strawman". If you don't have a clue and can't answer a question, use the word "strawman" and people will think you are a genius. Not.

Saying what everyone knows to be true about the bible is not an original thought. You did that work with 2 others. Which of them had the original idea?

I used the figure that an expert used to try and explain how a "rebound" would work. I sent him an email explaining why he was wrong. As easy as 1+1.

Now you are putting lies into my mouth. You said a sufficiently large (hundreds of galaxies mass) black hole would allow someone to get into it alive. I used the old idea that the whole universe could be inside a black hole as there is sufficient mass, I am told.

Rpenner is a coward who shook with fear when I posted something as he had no ready answer so old Mr Yellow Streak abused his position as moderator and had me banned so he would not be shown up for being just another parroter of the wiki who could not answer anything which went a nanometer off accepted science. I could go back as pupamancur has so many times in the past but who wants to post on a forum where the moderator is a dull-witted tyrant and a coward? How can you compete when a coward abused his position and changed a post I had written, deleting most of it and adding his own gibberish?

A universe sized black hole could be large enough that at 13.7 billion light years, we have not had time to see the EH. There would be ionised particles from infalling matter (from outside) which would create what we call the CMB at the edge of our vision.

Again you use the word "strawmen". How embarrassing to have such a small vocabulary. I have explained what is wrong with the BB many, many times so why should I explain to you now when I only have to look at the wiki to see what your answers will be?

DE and DM are related in that they are both nonsensical explanations and nothing is known about what makes up either or how they came to be. I have explained time and again what is wrong with the DM scenario. I have noted in the past that you seem to have a very poor memory, so that I have to explain things to you time after time.

 

[kaneda]

AlphaNumeric. #70. Compact enough material together and gravity will make sure it stays that way forever. If you have the whole universe at quantum size, only GOD is going to make it expand by changing the basic laws of the universe.

Congratulations on your second sentence without the word "strawman". Heard of gravity? It's that thing that makes sure black holes don't expand, even if they are called singularities.

Research is money funded and orientated. No one is going to get paid to prove the BB is right, so who are these thousands of scientists and who funds them?

I would respect DE if it was something more than a convenient explanation. Like DM, it just fills a gap.

COBE and WMAP was original work. No one is going to send up another COBE satellite of the same limited technology to confirm what COBE found out.

Of course WMAP was perfect. Not:


http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang


A man with over half a century in the relevant field found out that literally hundreds of points supposedly in the CMB corresponded with known points in our own galaxy. And then there's the fact in another test, 3 out of 4 measured galaxies seemed to show that they were BEHIND the CMB.

The quasar redshift was several years ago and big news at the time.

Try googling: linked quasars with different redshifts. I got 218,000 results. Have fun.

Explain what space is if not literally nothing? The answer you gave to my question already shows: no wiki answer available so use poor quality sarcasm.

A bit of pompousity as well as an appeal to belief, using ArXiv.

Tell me more about your doughnut shaped universe. It would need a doughnut like you to believe it could exist.

 

[kaneda]

James R. I usually hear the idea of my being angry from creationists after they have just had their ass kicked. It is the poorest kind of argument (apart from the strawmen-over use) where someone is judged to be wrong because he is over emotional. If you are short of something to quote from the wiki, I'm sure AN could help you.

The BB is based on the idea that a singularity is not ultimately stable so can inflate/expand.

Basic science as in the failure of gravity?

So I'm foaming at the mouth now. You are a desperate little creationist, aren't you. Show me these people working to test that the BB is true (the people at your church do not count).

Asking for an alternative to DE is like asking for an alternative to pixie dust. First prove that DE is viable and explain what it is.

Alternatives to the BB are swept under the carpet and have been for decades. New Scientist had an open letter on it some time back.

It was about ten years ago that it was in the news. I have very slow internet so can't be bothered to search for it.

Redshift.

At home.

If universes expanded, they would eventually contact each other, and maybe even expand into each other.

 

[James R]

kaneda:

James R. I usually hear the idea of my being angry from creationists after they have just had their ass kicked.

Just my impression. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

The BB is based on the idea that a singularity is not ultimately stable so can inflate/expand.

The whole idea of a "singularity" is that there's a problem in the mathematics when you try to push a theory beyond its limits. Since we don't have a theory of quantum gravity, we have no idea what happened at the instant of the big bang, or what happens at the centre of a black hole. The theories we do have produce mathematical singularities in both places.

Talk of singularities not being stable and the like is nonsense. Nothing can be known about a singularity because it describes a point at which the theory stops working (for now).

So I'm foaming at the mouth now. You are a desperate little creationist, aren't you. Show me these people working to test that the BB is true (the people at your church do not count).

Thousands of cosmologists around the world are working on the details of the big bang theory. Particle physicists and quantum field theorists are working on the details of the state of the early universe. String theorists and others are working on theories of quantum gravity. Astronomers are making observations to find out whether what we sees matches the theories we have.

The fact that you're unaware of all this work tells me that you're probably not qualified in physics.

Asking for an alternative to DE is like asking for an alternative to pixie dust. First prove that DE is viable and explain what it is.

Not my field of expertise. Tell me, what area of physics did you train in? What theory do you prefer to dark energy, and why? You're an expert, I take it.

Alternatives to the BB are swept under the carpet and have been for decades.

Which alternatives?

If universes expanded, they would eventually contact each other, and maybe even expand into each other.

What an odd statement. It sounds like you envisage separate universes as existing in a kind of exo-space, where they all drift around and have space to expand into. Where did you get that idea?

 

[kaneda]

James R. Impression? You want to insult me, go ahead but don't be dishonest about it.

Theories don't stop working. Imagination stops working. If a singularity is magic and can inflate, once it does so, it is no longer a singularity and the rules apply, like gravity stopping it expanding any further.

Not qualified in physics? As in, you're not smart which means I'm right and you are wrong, so yah boo sucks! A forum is not about comparing supposed qualifications but about answering questions. Euler on the Physorg forum was so dim he could not even answer simple questions I put to him so started babbling on about books he had read. Right AN?

Again with the qualifications. Answers here show how much we do or do not know. Not a claim to knowledge.

As I do not believe in expansion, I don't believe in DE. The idea that energy could make literally nothing as in space expand (faster) is cretinous. If you are going along with expansion, as things get further apart, so gravity between things gets less so expansion can accelerate.

Steady state.

If a universe can form, why not other universes form too? I believe they may form from literally nothing and possibly cover large enough areas where they can link up before maybe a trillion years later, fade away again. But just an idea, like the BB is.

 

[thinking]

No evidence that a singularity can exist. No evidence that inflation can happen. Basic physics: If you have sufficient matter in a small enough place, you get a black hole. How does inflation slow down to expansion without fudge to help it? How do you get a four physical dimension inflation/expansion to happen? How does space expand from quantum size to over a hundred million light years in diameter. Enough?

Expansion somehow increased several billion years ago, based on the BB idea. DE was made up to explain this. DE must have originally come from the BB. Why was it inactive for several billion years and what activated it? WTH is it?

The BB is not an origin in that it starts after t=0, so it merely places the origin one step further back. A lot would be solved if instead of a nonsensical singularity, matter and energy formed (somehow) over a very large area, so stopping the lot collapsing into a black hole.

Example: A race of beings live on a very hot world. They have produced water and cooled it down to 20.C so far. They draw a graph and show that at somewhere well below zero centigrade, water shrinks to a dot and vanishes. They do not know that it starts expanding again at 4.C and have never encountered ice, so their theory seems perfectly practical to them.

We do know about black holes and that a singularity should be ultimately stable. We do know that you cannot pack energy into a small area. We have no excuse for believing in the BB other than ignorance.

kaneda

hmm...... I like this refutation of BB by your self

very original

 

[James R]

kaneda:

James R. Impression? You want to insult me, go ahead but don't be dishonest about it.

I thought I was very honest about my impression that you are angry about this topic. Where did you perceive the dishonesty?

Theories don't stop working. Imagination stops working. If a singularity is magic and can inflate, once it does so, it is no longer a singularity and the rules apply, like gravity stopping it expanding any further.

If you say so. Magic things can do anything you imagine, I guess. I congratulate you on your imagination.

Not qualified in physics? As in, you're not smart which means I'm right and you are wrong, so yah boo sucks!

I just thought that you would have educated yourself a little before attempting to criticise modern physical theories. That's all. The fact that you don't appear to have done so doesn't necessarily mean that I'm smarter than you. I may just be better informed.

A forum is not about comparing supposed qualifications but about answering questions.

Absolutely. I agree. Got any questions?

Euler on the Physorg forum was so dim he could not even answer simple questions I put to him so started babbling on about books he had read. Right AN?

I don't know that guy. Why bring your baggage and anger from another forum to this one? Sort your issues with "Euler" out on the other forum, whatever it is.

As I do not believe in expansion, I don't believe in DE.

You don't believe the universe is expanding?

Ok then. Let's go back to basics. How do you account for Hubble's observations of galaxies, which led him to propose the Hubble law?

The idea that energy could make literally nothing as in space expand (faster) is cretinous.

Maybe.

If you are going along with expansion, as things get further apart, so gravity between things gets less so expansion can accelerate.

Yep. And guess what the latest and best observations of the expansion of our universe show?

Edit to add: no, wait a moment. Since gravity is an attractive force, the mere lessening of its strength with distance can't possibly explain an accelerating expansion, can it?

Steady state.

What about it?

If a universe can form, why not other universes form too?

Lots of physicists have suggested that other universes may exist.

I believe they may form from literally nothing and possibly cover large enough areas where they can link up before maybe a trillion years later, fade away again. But just an idea, like the BB is.

Yes, of course.

What experiment do you suggest we do in order to detect these other universes of yours? How could we tell if another universe linked up with our one? How would this linking process work? Can you show me the maths?

 

[thinking]

JamesR

if the Universe is expanding away from us , then would not a being , on for instance the complete extreme opposite side of this galaxy say that the Universe is expanding towards US

then further this thinking three dimensionaly , so that we view the Universe 360degrees and so do they

a null expansion is the conclusion

 

[James R]

if the Universe is expanding away from us , then would not a being , on for instance the complete extreme opposite side of this galaxy say that the Universe is expanding towards US

No.

Here's a commonly-used analogy. Think of a balloon with dots drawn on it, roughly evenly spaced. The surface of the balloon represents the universe (except in 2 dimensions instead of the actual 3). The dots represent individual galaxies.

Inflate the balloon to a larger size. What happens? All the dots on the surface move further apart. From the point of view of an ant sitting on any dot on the balloon, all the other dots move away from it. There is no dot where the ant would see other dots moving towards it.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
if the Universe is expanding away from us , then would not a being , on for instance the complete extreme opposite side of this galaxy say that the Universe is expanding towards US

No.

Here's a commonly-used analogy. Think of a balloon with dots drawn on it, roughly evenly spaced. The surface of the balloon represents the universe (except in 2 dimensions instead of the actual 3). The dots represent individual galaxies.

Inflate the balloon to a larger size. What happens? All the dots on the surface move further apart. From the point of view of an ant sitting on any dot on the balloon, all the other dots move away from it. There is no dot where the ant would see other dots moving towards it.

that is an old and quite inadequate analogy

whats more important is what is happening INSIDE the balloon

the balloon is filled with galaxies and each galaxy has a being capable of viewing as many galaxies as we can

again we come to a null expansion

 

[Ophiolite]

that is an old and quite inadequate analogy

whats more important is what is happening INSIDE the balloon

In the analogy there is no inside to the balloon. What do you find difficult about that concept?

 

[Acitnoids]

It seems some people are having a hard time imagining the infinite nature of the universe. Right or wrong here's a way of thinking about it:
The points of space that occupy "you" (your perspective or observation) is both the beginning and the end of the universe. The same gose for all observers. This has to do with the BB "taking place" in every point of the universe (all points were once one). Now imagine you could look far enough away (in any direction), all the way back to the very moment of the BB (which you can't), you would be staring into the same point that "you" rest upon. Where the universe ends, everything begins. The question becomes; how old is the universe? There are many ways to answer that question.

 

[James R]

that is an old and quite inadequate analogy

It's worth trying to understand an analogy before you dismiss it as inadequate.

whats more important is what is happening INSIDE the balloon

The inside of the balloon doesn't correspond to anything. As I clearly stated, the universe is the surface of the balloon. Understand?

the balloon is filled with galaxies and each galaxy has a being capable of viewing as many galaxies as we can

No. The balloon has galaxies (dots) only on its surface. Galaxies are not allowed to be inside it, because inside is not part of the balloon universe.

 

[Billy T]

To James R:

In post 84 you have 7 sections asking keneda things. He replies to each in post 85 with 7 sections, but fails to make this extremely obvious by posting his replies following each of your 7 points/ questions.
For example #6 of the 7 you ask “What alternatives?”and he replies with only the two words “Steady State.”

Then in post 87 your response to these two words is “What about it?” as if you did not understand he is answering your question about “alternatives” in post 84. Also in your post 87, in response to keneda’s
"A forum is not about comparing supposed qualifications but about answering questions."
you state: “Absolutely. I agree. Got any questions?”

Clearly keneda has been asking an important question in several of his prior posts, one I admit that had never occurred to me, Namely:

Standard theory states, I think, that if any gravity producing energy/ mass is concentrated in a sufficiently small volume it will collapse into a singularity. And, if Hawkins Radiation is real, this singularity is not stable, but radiates energy away so the singularity losses mass; However large masses lose mass by Hawking radiation much more slowly than tiny masses. The life-time of a “large mass” can be many times the BB’s ~14 billion years, for example 100 billion years. Yet that “large mass” with 100 billion year life time against Hawking radiation is an extremely tiny fraction of the total mass of the universe.

The BB theory asserts that the entire mass/ energy of the universe was once a singularity. Surely the mass/ energy of the entire universe should have c0llapsed into a black hole when according to the BB Theory the universe had grown to have a volume of 0.000,000,1 mm^3 . I understand that the energy density or temperature of this early universe was so high that matter did not yet exist when the total volume of the universe was only 0.000,000,1 mm^3 .

I think you have agreed that Thermal energy does produce gravity. We have discussed whether or not a cold brick makes less gravity than when it is hot. I believe that your POV and the standard POV is that “Yes, a hot brick does make slightly stronger gravity than the same brick when cold." Do you agree that gravity existed in the first stage of the universe, prior to any matter existing? I think it is the case and the stadard POV.

So to summarize keneda is asking:
When the entire universe was a very tiny volume, why did it not collapse into a black hole singularity?

Also you asked me some questions about the Steady State theory in post 78, which I have twice answered (see posts 69 &79) but you have not even commented on my answers. I honestly do not have the ability to follow the math of the BB model but do not either see any answer to this question keneda is asking nor any reason to reject the at least self consistent Steady State universe model. The BB model seems to have a serious flaw (inconsistency with the theory of Black Hole formations) and I know of no flaw in the Steady state model. If you do know of one not already shot down in my posts 69 & 79, please tell it.

BTW in your post 89, you use the very common 2D “spots on an expanding balloon” analogy to help understand the expansion of the universe. I have in prior post recommended the use of the 3D “raisins in a baking cake rising” analogy.* This avoids the reply Thinking gave you in his post 90.
(and also makes posts 91,92,& 93 un-needed.) It is always best to give a 3D analogy for a 3D problem.
-----------
*Don't confine the cake dough in a baking tin. Just put it on a baking sheet so it can expand in all 3 directions.

 

[tsmid]

No.

Here's a commonly-used analogy. Think of a balloon with dots drawn on it, roughly evenly spaced. The surface of the balloon represents the universe (except in 2 dimensions instead of the actual 3). The dots represent individual galaxies.

Inflate the balloon to a larger size. What happens? All the dots on the surface move further apart.

How do you define the distance of the dots on the 'surface' then?

Thomas

 

[Ophiolite]

Great circle distance.

 

[James R]

Billy T:

Standard theory states, I think, that if any gravity producing energy/ mass is concentrated in a sufficiently small volume it will collapse into a singularity.

...

The BB theory asserts that the entire mass/ energy of the universe was once a singularity. Surely the mass/ energy of the entire universe should have c0llapsed into a black hole...

As I think I stated above, I am not a cosmologist, so this is out of my area of expertise. However, as I understand it the big bang singularity is quite a different beast from a black hole singularity. I think I made the point above that the term "singularity" just refers to a point where our current mathematical theories break down. The mathematics of the big bang is quite different to the mathematics of black holes and so there is no reason to suppose that the two types of singularity bear any relationship to one another. In fact, if you read Hawking's A brief history of time, he is careful to distinguish between what he calls "final singularities" (black holes) and "initial singularities" (big bang). That's if I remember correctly.

Also as I understand it, the big bang was initially driven by "repulsive gravity", which later settled down into the attractive gravity we're familiar with. I do not know how or whether dark energy fits into this part of the theory.

So, the answer to your question, as best as I am able, is that the nature of gravity itself was different under the conditions that existed at the big bang, compared to its effects in black holes, and that is why the universe did not become a giant black hole during the big bang.

So...

Do you agree that gravity existed in the first stage of the universe, prior to any matter existing? I think it is the case and the stadard POV.

All four fundamental forces were fused into a single "superforce" at the moment of the big bang. It was only some time later that this symmetry was broken to give the four familiar fundamental forces. So, to speak of gravity as if it was the same at the big bang as it is now is probably incorrect.

Also you asked me some questions about the Steady State theory in post 78, which I have twice answered (see posts 69 &79) but you have not even commented on my answers. I honestly do not have the ability to follow the math of the BB model but do not either see any answer to this question keneda is asking nor any reason to reject the at least self consistent Steady State universe model.

For me, there is not enough detail in your explanation of your steady state theory for it to be readily testable. I suspect there are actually flaws in your proposal, too, but as I said I am at the limit of my knowledge here. I have not studied steady state theories in any depth, and I do not have at my fingertips the reasons why such theories are rejected by most cosmologists today. Since this is not a major interest of mine, I'm happy to trust the experts on this and assume that there are good reasons why steady state theories are not considered viable. Lots of smart people have spent lots of time looking at such alternatives. Contrary to kaneda's conspiracy theories, I do not believe there is a secret cabal of black hole theorists controlling knowledge about cosmological theories and rejecting anything that isn't the big bang theory out of hand.

BTW in your post 89, you use the very common 2D “spots on an expanding balloon” analogy to help understand the expansion of the universe. I have in prior post recommended the use of the 3D “raisins in a baking cake rising” analogy.* This avoids the reply Thinking gave you in his post 90.
(and also makes posts 91,92,& 93 un-needed.) It is always best to give a 3D analogy for a 3D problem.

The raisins in a cake analogy has its own problems. For example, the finite size of the cake and the fact that it has edges.

---

How do you define the distance of the dots on the 'surface' then?

Get a flexible tape measure, lay it out along the surface between two dots, and it measures the distance between them. (Note: this is not the same as the "straight line" distance through the middle of the balloon. But we can't measure that distance, since the inside of the balloon is not part of the universe. The distance on the curve is the closest we can come to the straight line distance in the curved space of the balloon's surface.)

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
that is an old and quite inadequate analogy

whats more important is what is happening INSIDE the balloon

In the analogy there is no inside to the balloon. What do you find difficult about that concept?

the lack of full three dimensionality

if all space between objects is increasing , then why are some not getting closer to each other ?

 

[James R]

thinking:

Ok. Let's try analogy number 2, then, as suggested by Billy T.

Picture the universe as a loaf of raisin bread. The raisins in the bread represent galaxies. As the bread is baked, the whole loaf expands. Every single raisin in the bread moves away from all the other raisins. The distance between any two raisins increases as the loaf expands. None of them get closer to each other.

Do you understand that analogy, then?

 

[thinking]

thinking:

Ok. Let's try analogy number 2, then, as suggested by Billy T.

Picture the universe as a loaf of raisin bread. The raisins in the bread represent galaxies. As the bread is baked, the whole loaf expands. Every single raisin in the bread moves away from all the other raisins. The distance between any two raisins increases as the loaf expands. None of them get closer to each other.

Do you understand that analogy, then?

good point

but the BB didn't start out with galaxies did it

BB started out with light and particles did it not ? at least thats my understanding and the particle coalesced into the macro