Holes in Big Bang

[Piggy]

If it doesn't predict it, it shouldn't have it. Hence, the hot debate to the big bangs validity. What is the point of the big bang, if it cannot confirm observation?

Earlier Big Bang theories predicted a slowing expansion.

Yet discovery of an accelerating expansion didn't overturn the theory.

This is not as an important discovery as that was.

Why does this overturn the theory?

I mean, the theory didn't predict Obama winning the election, either, but he did. Doesn't overturn the theory.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Is that with different hands, or just the one?

*counts*

*recounts*

*...stares at one hand, then the other, then both*

*counts again*

 

[Piggy]

Okay, fair enough.

Any supporting evidence to back up your claim that I am a crank? Or you just going to post un-substantiantiated pejoratives?

I dont think your a crank. But If I did I would outline clearly why.

I could be wrong, but it's your religious/philosophical postings that caused me to lump you.

Maybe I was too hasty, tho.

 

[Singularitarian]

Earlier Big Bang theories predicted a slowing expansion.

Yet discovery of an accelerating expansion didn't overturn the theory.

This is not as an important discovery as that was.

Why does this overturn the theory?

I mean, the theory didn't predict Obama winning the election, either, but he did. Doesn't overturn the theory.

A slowing expansion happens around a trillion trillion trillion years after big bang, though, the big crunch calculations have varied, so it has very little impact on the past light cone history of the universe, more specifically the early stages of big bang.

This will overturn the theory eventually, because it would imply inflation never happened at all. The problem with the CBM will be in question as to why it i very smooth and the rest is not.

 

[Audible Click]

OK Sing and Magnifico lets be nice now, between the Big Bang, Dimension of Particles, and the VfF Kidney thread my right eye is beginning to twitch. This is never a good sign.
BTW Sing, VfF claims to be a physics student too.

 

[Wowbagger]

Can we please keep the personal comments aside? Don't make name names! And, don't make me call a moderator, here!

Well, it means that spacetime has always peristed, so the formation of the universe is the result of many epochs everytime a brane comes and smashes into us. We may have been frozen for many eons.

Any way we can tell? (This sounds like it would give us some direction in discovering what the Initial Condition "before" the Big Bang was like. If it is works out, that is.)

What does the Ekpyrotic say about the red-shift effect, and the CMB? And other aspects of cosmology already worked out by accepted models?

 

[Piggy]

A slowing expansion happens around a trillion trillion trillion years after big bang, though, the big crunch calculations have varied, so it has very little impact on the past light cone history of the universe, more specifically the early stages of big bang.

This will overturn the theory eventually, because it would imply inflation never happened at all. The problem with the CBM will be in question as to why it i very smooth and the rest is not.

Ok, suppose the current inflationary models don't pan out.

Does that kill all possible scenarios involving a Big Bang?

 

[Twiler]

Happens all the time. It's an experiment in progress.

Can I see the data you've gathered and the criteria used for identifying posters who have their opinions dictated to them by others?

 

[Singularitarian]

OK Sing and Magnifico lets be nice now, between the Big Bang, Dimension of Particles, and the VfF Kidney thread my right eye is beginning to twitch. This is never a good sign.
BTW Sing, VfF claims to be a physics student too.

Be nice? What have i said?

And i know he or she claims to be a physics student. What do you want me to do? Do the hoola or something like that?

It's not a big deal. Today i showed how a resident PhD can be wrong. People get things all the time wrong.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I could be wrong, but it's your religious

Whoa! Hold your horses mate.

Please, if you can find anything I have ever posted that adds any credence to any sort of religion in any way shape or form, post it. And if you can find one post, I will eat my leg.

I'm an atheist/agnostic. I dont like being accused of supporting any sort of religion. Could you retract that? Or either address some of the scientific journal publications (not in the slightest bit religous) and material that I cited previously ?

 

[Singularitarian]

Can I see the data you've gathered and the criteria used for identifying posters who have their opinions dictated to them by others?

It's a mesh of variables. We are still going over the data.

 

[Zeuzzz]

wow this threads going on at a fair rate compared to most.

 

[Twiler]

It's a mesh of variables. We are still going over the data.

Then why did you state an unconfirmed conclusion?

 

[Raze]

If it doesn't predict it, it shouldn't have it. Hence, the hot debate to the big bangs validity. What is the point of the big bang, if it cannot confirm observation?

It does confirm observation on many things. But because it may fail in one or two things, should we then throw it out? Or merely modify it?

The point is that every theory is a work in progress. A light beam observed by someone at rest looking at another person in an accelerating frame will appear to have a parabolic path across the accelerated frame. But this means that light doesn't have a constant velocity according to all frames (because it is changing direction)! But special relativity says that light must have a constant velocity! Therefore special relativity is wrong. Except no. No it isn't. It is a limiting condition within general relativity. Theories should be being modified as new evidence presents itself. This has happened with the big bang theory, and continues to happen as new data is found.



As far as people ridiculing you, well sir, you haven't really given them good reasons not to. You are making huge claims and consistently showing that you have no business making them. There are people who have graduate degrees in physics on this forum. All of them (to my knowledge) are generally in disagreement with you and many of them have pointed out elementary errors in some of your posts.

What do you expect?


As far as me, all I want is proof that you really know what you're talking about. Proof that you're not just an armchair physicist who really isn't qualified to talk about technical physics.

Don't be silly. Half the people here make their minds up based on other peoples opinions. Not their own.

And some form their opinions out of ignorance because they refuse to take the time and effort to trace all of logical and mathematical steps that have led to the currently accepted theories, and instead want an ego boost so they seek out articles that contradict mainstream science and then post what they have found on internet forums.

Instead of getting published in a peer reviewed publication and truly realizing their dream of being relevant in the world of science, they are content to gain erroneous half-understandings of science so they can trick people who simply do not know any better.

How do I know you do not fit the above description? You could get published, right? Why can't you formulate a theory and then get it published in a peer reviewed periodical and then prove everyone wrong? You will predictably say that there is a bias against you.

So then I try a different approach: solve an obscure physics problem that you'd only see if you actually have taken more than a course or two in physics.

But you refuse.


What choice do I have but to believe that you are a crank?

 

[Audible Click]

Be nice? What have i said?

And i know he or she claims to be a physics student. What do you want me to do? Do the hoola or something like that?

It's not a big deal. Today i showed how a resident PhD can be wrong. People get things all the time wrong.

It was just a joke to lighten the mood. I'll go back to reading the thread, quietly.

ETA It's spelled "hula".

 

[Singularitarian]

Ok, suppose the current inflationary models don't pan out.

Does that kill all possible scenarios involving a Big Bang?

Yes. Big bang requires the inflationary period so badly, that if it where found in error, it would be hard to substantiate a big bang model without having Einstein turn in his grave.

 

[Singularitarian]

It does confirm observation on many things. But because it may fail in one or two things, should we then throw it out? Or merely modify it?

The point is that every theory is a work in progress. A light beam observed by someone at rest looking at another person in an accelerating frame will appear to have a parabolic path across the accelerated frame. But this means that light doesn't have a constant velocity according to all frames (because it is changing direction)! But special relativity says that light must have a constant velocity! Therefore special relativity is wrong. Except no. No it isn't. It is a limiting condition within general relativity. Theories should be being modified as new evidence presents itself. This has happened with the big bang theory, and continues to happen as new data is found.



As far as people ridiculing you, well sir, you haven't really given them good reasons not to. You are making huge claims and consistently showing that you have no business making them. There are people who have graduate degrees in physics on this forum. All of them (to my knowledge) are generally in disagreement with you and many of them have pointed out elementary errors in some of your posts.

What do you expect?


As far as me, all I want is proof that you really know what you're talking about. Proof that you're not just an armchair physicist who really isn't qualified to talk about technical physics.




And some form their opinions out of ignorance because they refuse to take the time and effort to trace all of logical and mathematical steps that have led to the currently accepted theories, and instead want an ego boost so they seek out articles that contradict mainstream science and then post what they have found on internet forums.

Instead of getting published in a peer reviewed publication and truly realizing their dream of being relevant in the world of science, they are content to gain erroneous half-understandings of science so they can trick people who simply do not know any better.

How do I know you do not fit the above description? You could get published, right? Why can't you formulate a theory and then get it published in a peer reviewed periodical and then prove everyone wrong? You will predictably say that there is a bias against you.

So then I try a different approach: solve an obscure physics problem that you'd only see if you actually have taken more than a course or two in physics.

But you refuse.


What choice do I have but to believe that you are a crank?

And how would our meritable science student suggest modifying it? I mean, there are only few choices to have, and the big bang is practically holding onto one with its dear life.

 

[Piggy]

Yes. Big bang requires the inflationary period so badly, that if it where found in error, it would be hard to substantiate a big bang model without having Einstein turn in his grave.

Are you saying there's no inflationary model that could explain this?

If so, why hasn't this discovery caused the same sort of stir that accelerated expansion caused?

 

[Piggy]

Full disclosure, in all seriousness, I'm rooting for the soda pop model of the universe. In that model, events outside of our universe pulled it into existence, like the top coming off a pop bottle causing bubbles to appear and expand.

But that's just me.

Hey Zeuzzz, you can call me a crank now.

 

[Piggy]

Whoa! Hold your horses mate.

Please, if you can find anything I have ever posted that adds any credence to any sort of religion in any way shape or form, post it. And if you can find one post, I will eat my leg.

I'm an atheist/agnostic. I dont like being accused of supporting any sort of religion. Could you retract that? Or either address some of the scientific journal publications (not in the slightest bit religous) and material that I cited previously ?

Oh, sorry. I must have you confused with another forum member.

My mistake!