Is big bang proven to be solid true? [Archive]

Nasor

06-17-09, 03:15 PM

But the flat earth was not a "theory" as the word is defined in science. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and peer-reviewed intensively without being falsified. Every time the flat-earth hypothesis was tested or peer-reviewed with any rigor, even in ancient times, flaws were discovered in it. Didn't both the Greeks and the Egyptians calculate the curvature of the earth with surprising accuracy?

It's not reasonable to call any theory "scientific" that predated the dawn of science halfway through the last millennium. Those are more like the theories of psychologists and economists: handy models until they break down. Or the theories of a police detective: a useful hunch for solving a riddle that has already occurred, not for predicting the future behavior of the universe.

Yes, scientific theories are occasionally falsified, but it happens so rarely that the canon of science never comes crashing down on us. It's more usual for one to just be elaborated, such as the Einsteinian elaboration of Newton's Laws.
I would argue that the flat earth is to the round earth as Newton's classical physics are to Einsteinian relativity. Both a flat earth model and Newtonian physics work great at certain scales. When you move beyond those scales you need a different, more refined model. There are many circumstances under which you can assume that the earth is flat and have things work out just fine.

AlphaNumeric

06-17-09, 04:35 PM

We cannot know for certain that galaxies are flying away from each other. We would have to live millions of years to see that. One take on the red shift suggests that everything is moving away from everything else (local gravity aside).And all other 'takes' thus far put forward have flaws in them. And if you entertain sufficiently tenious 'takes' then even if we observed for a billion years and saw things move apart you could come up with some convoluted non-expansion explaination.

At 10^-32 (that's 0. 31 noughts 1) of a second, matter was created so we have the whole universe in a size smaller than a cricket ball. A density trillions of times that needed for a black hole and black holes don't inflate or expand. Of course, a singularity is magical, so can ignore the laws of gravity.Considering we have no working model of matter at such times and energy scales I'd question the validity of the statements you make. Further more, I'd also repeat something I've told you many times that densities only lead to black holes if the material is in casual contact, something inflation prevents. Hence the BB is not saying a black hole expanded out of its own event horizon.

The big bang may turn out to be true in the end and it may not. We should not have all our eggs in one basket if it is shown to be wrong one day.No one is. But no one has provided a model which can compete with its descriptive power.

Ophiolite

06-17-09, 04:48 PM

in '53 miller-urey conducted their "primordial" experiment and produced a number of compounds in various proportions. this experiment simulated earth as it would have formed from the big bang..
Dear me Leopold. I don't know how you do it. Such incredibly wrong ideas about so much. An encyclopedic cornucopia of incomprehension.

The Miller-Urey experiments simulated a hypothetical primordial atmosphere. We now know its composition to have been wrong. Moreover, at this point the BIg Bang theory was not the favoured hypothesis. The selection of the atmospheric components did not depend in any way on the Big Bang or Steady State theories. The experiment certainly did not deal with the formation of the Earth.

over the next 40 or so years scientists have also found these same compounds in the same proportions in space debris (meteorites).Actually, they have not found the same compounds except in a very general sense. Even if they had it would say nothing especially relevant about the Big Bang.

this, in my opinion would confirm the big bang, at least locally.The Big Bang is not a local event, it is metaphorically and literally universal. Your opinion upon this point is completely wrong.

There are many circumstances under which you can assume that the earth is flat and have things work out just fine.Personally, I have always thought it was uphill all the way.

(Q)

06-17-09, 05:15 PM

Recent discoveries are shedding more light on why a red shift would be seen in all directions form earth.

Such as...???

Asguard

06-17-09, 08:35 PM

Saint

06-17-09, 09:58 PM

1) I can't understand how should I imagine the space-time of this universe? Is it like an expanding baloon? Baloon has an edge, the peripheral, how about the universe? What is beyond the edge of the universe? You call it event horizon? What actually it is?

2) Could there be more than one universe? I remember I read that there are scientists postulated that more than 1 universe is possible.

jmpet

06-18-09, 12:03 AM

Understanding the nature of dark matter and dark energy will determine whether the Big Bang is true or not. Evidence so far indicates it is true.

Asguard

06-18-09, 12:04 AM

jmpet, i doubt it. That its the best aproximation we currently have is probably more accurate.

James R

06-18-09, 01:01 AM

Is big bang proven to be solid true? Just because we observe that the distant galaxies are flying away from us, we postulate that the universe was born from a big bang?

It's logical, wouldn't you say? If everything is flying away from us, then at some point in the past, everything must have been where we are. Right?

So far, how true is big bang according to the latest astronomical observation?
And, any evidence to prove otherwise?

The big bang is a complicated theory. It makes lots of predictions about different things.

The basics of the big bang (that there was one, etc.) have been confirmed beyond any serious doubt. Some of the details of exactly what happened in the first moments after the bang are still being worked out.

The thing to realise is that no single fact proves the big bang theory. Rather, there is an immense amount of evidence of different types that supports the theory. Chances are that knowing down one piece of evidence won't knock down the theory, contrary to what some people think.

The big bang is one particular take on certain evidence and a number of unproven ideas, like singularities and inflation. It has a number of serious problems with it that have not been addressed.

Not according to experts in the field.

We cannot know for certain that galaxies are flying away from each other.

All we need to do is look at red shifts to establish that. So, we can and do know.

At 10^-32 (that's 0. 31 noughts 1) of a second, matter was created so we have the whole universe in a size smaller than a cricket ball. A density trillions of times that needed for a black hole and black holes don't inflate or expand. Of course, a singularity is magical, so can ignore the laws of gravity.

The big bang was not an expansion of matter in a pre-existing spacetime (c.f. black holes as the collapse of matter in a pre-existing spacetime). Therefore, the big bang was not a "time-reversed black hole" or anything like that. The big bang was an expansion of spacetime itself, which is quite a different kettle of fish.

The big bang may turn out to be true in the end and it may not. We should not have all our eggs in one basket if it is shown to be wrong one day.

Are there any other viable baskets around? If so, I haven't heard about them.

1) I can't understand how should I imagine the space-time of this universe? Is it like an expanding baloon? Baloon has an edge, the peripheral, how about the universe? What is beyond the edge of the universe? You call it event horizon? What actually it is?

The balloon analogy commonly used must be understood correctly. The surface of the balloon represents the universe, not the inside and outside of the balloon. The surface of a balloon has no edge, in the same way that the surface of the Earth has no edge. If you walk around the Earth's surface, you never fall off the edge of the world.

2) Could there be more than one universe? I remember I read that there are scientists postulated that more than 1 universe is possible.

Maybe.

jmpet

06-18-09, 01:04 AM

jmpet, i doubt it. That its the best aproximation we currently have is probably more accurate.

Good opinion you have.

Ophiolite

06-18-09, 01:08 AM

The thing to realise is that no single fact proves the big bang theory. Rather, there is an immense amount of evidence of different types that supports the theory. Chances are that knowing down one piece of evidence won't knock down the theory, contrary to what some people think.People who insist a theory should be falsifiable ought to feel slightly uncomfortable about that.

James R

06-18-09, 01:16 AM

People who insist a theory should be falsifiable ought to feel slightly uncomfortable about that.

This is where falsifiability as the sole criterion of the scientific nature of a theory falls down. Scientific theories, especially comprehensive and long-standing ones, are seldom tossed out the moment a new piece of data is suspected not to fit. What happens much more often is that scientists first look for errors in the new data. If they can't find any, then they might consider modifications to the theory. If those aren't possible, then the whole theory might need to be chucked.

Even when theories are occasionally chucked out, it is often not a baby-with-the-bathwater matter. For example, Newton's law of gravity was technically falsified by Einstein's general relativity, but you'll still find Newtonian gravity used by professional physicists and engineers all the time. Why? Because Newtonian gravity is in many (perhaps most) instances an excellent approximation to Einstein's theory, and it's far easier to use than Einstein's theory.

Norsefire

06-18-09, 01:24 AM

nothing can be "proven true" only more correct than it was yesterday based on observable data we have collected today. Look at newton's theories, they were correct enough at the time but we now know they are wrong (though they are right enough we can still use them for most things) and have been replaced with enstine's theories. Something else will come along eventually to replace enstine as well

Unless Einstein is just plain correct. I agree with you, but there are things that are hard facts and many theories which might simply be correct.

Saint

06-18-09, 10:17 AM

If you walk around the Earth's surface, you never fall off the edge of the world.

Maybe.my question, what is above and below the surface?

Norsefire

06-18-09, 08:38 PM

That doesn't mean there isn't an above or below, James. So what's outside the universe?

Asguard

06-18-09, 08:54 PM

Unless Einstein is just plain correct. I agree with you, but there are things that are hard facts and many theories which might simply be correct.

name 1. What i mean is that even things which common sense would say are provable arnt are only falsifiable. Take one example, the tassie tiger, we cant currently prove it exists only that we havent found one yet and so on the surface we could say that you can only prove there existance true but lets look at a senario

A person brings in film of a tassi tiger, that can be proven NOT to be of a TT
they find a live animal, great there are TTs. Nope genetic (or something we havent invented yet) analisis proves its NOT a TT

All things can be disproven but they cant be PROVEN. Even that your responding to my post is only held as correct until evidence arises that its false (for instance that im in a mental hospital and you are all parts of a delusion im having including that computers exist)

D H

06-18-09, 09:31 PM

my question, what is above and below the surface?
That doesn't mean there isn't an above or below, James. So what's outside the universe?

The balloon analogy is just that: an analogy. I think one needs some minimal familiarity with the concept of non-Euclidean geometry to appreciate the analogy.

Reading a book written over a hundred years ago, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions might help. The wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) points to some online versions of the book. In a nutshell, Flatlanders live on a plane. There is no such thing as above or below to the Flatlanders; the plane is their universe. Instead of a plane, suppose their universe is the surface of a balloon. Still two dimensional. There is no above or below; asking that is in a sense a nonsensical question but it is also an indicator that the balloon analogy is not a particularly good analogy.

Ophiolite

06-18-09, 11:55 PM

The balloon analogy is just that: an analogy. I think one needs some minimal familiarity with the concept of non-Euclidean geometry to appreciate the analogy.I disagree. I know nothing of non-Euclidian geometry. If Playfair's postulate came up and slammed me in my Riemann curvature tensor I would just think I had stumbled over a pebble.
What one does need a minimum understanding of is analogies.

In the referenced analogy the universe is likened to the the surface of a balloon. (We shall ignore time and consider only the three conventional spacial dimensions.) So, the universe is three dimensional, the surface of a balloon is two dimensional. We are likening the universe to the surface of the balloon. Therefore anything beyond the surface of the balloon, internal or external, does not exist in the analogy.

Hence to ask a question like, what is inside the balloon means one has not understood how analogies work. The rule is we are likening these aspects of this thing, and only these aspects, with these aspects, and only these aspects, of another thing.

leopold99

06-19-09, 12:31 AM

Dear me Leopold. I don't know how you do it. Such incredibly wrong ideas about so much. An encyclopedic cornucopia of incomprehension.
huh?
The Miller-Urey experiments simulated a hypothetical primordial atmosphere.
isn't that what i said?
We now know its composition to have been wrong.
it was? i never knew that.
Moreover, at this point the BIg Bang theory was not the favoured hypothesis.
yes, i know. i never stated otherwise did i?
The selection of the atmospheric components did not depend in any way on the Big Bang or Steady State theories.
correct.
it was based on the primordial conditions on earth if the solar system was spawned by the big bang
The experiment certainly did not deal with the formation of the Earth.
see above.

Actually, they have not found the same compounds except in a very general sense.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92057

Even if they had it would say nothing especially relevant about the Big Bang.
earth based experiments that simulated an atmosphere on a planet and space debris yielding the same results suggests the assumptions made in the earth based experiment was correct.

The Big Bang is not a local event, it is metaphorically and literally universal. Your opinion upon this point is completely wrong.
there were two possibilities, i named them both.

Ophiolite

06-19-09, 01:22 AM

Dear me Leopold. I don't know how you do it. Such incredibly wrong ideas about so much. An encyclopedic cornucopia of incomprehension. ”
huh?It was a polite way of saying you were talking unmitigated crap.

The Miller-Urey experiments simulated a hypothetical primordial atmosphere.
isn't that what i said?Your claim was that this was not just any primoridial atmosphere, but one that "would have formed from the big bang." That is simply incorrect. Completely incorrect. The basis of the atmosphere used was the consensus view of that time - since largely discarded - that the Earth had a strongly reducing atmosphere.

The selection of the atmospheric components did not depend in any way on the Big Bang or Steady State theories. ” correct.
it was based on the primordial conditions on earth if the solar system was spawned by the big bangThere is so much wrong here.
It was not based on "the primordial conditions if the solar system was spawned by the Big Bang".
Miller and Urey did not sit down and ask themselves, "if there was a Big Bang what would the composition of the early atmosphere have been?"
You claim they did. (Fine, you will have no difficulty finding the passage in their publications that deals with this.:rolleyes:)

But let us pretend that they did base their atmosphere on what the Big Bang would have 'spawned'. In that case why are you agreeing with me (you say correct) that the atmosphere they selected did not depend on the Big Bang? Pure contradiction on your part.

“ Even if they had (found the same specific chemicals in the Miller-Urey experiments as in meteorites) it would say nothing especially relevant about the Big Bang. ” earth based experiments that simulated an atmosphere on a planet and space debris yielding the same results suggests the assumptions made in the earth based experiment was correct. But no assumptions were made in the experiment about the reality or character of the Big Bang. That is the central point you keep misunderstanding.

To repeat, the Miller-Urey experiment offers nothing in support of (or evidence against) the Big Bang. Your claim to the contrary is ill founded.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92057
The issues I have with your interpretation of the work of Higgs and Pudritz I shall deal with elsewhere.

leopold99

06-19-09, 01:52 AM

i was under the impression that miller-urey duplicated the primordial conditions of an earth that was created from stellar dust cloud.

Norsefire

06-19-09, 03:11 AM

The balloon analogy is just that: an analogy. I think one needs some minimal familiarity with the concept of non-Euclidean geometry to appreciate the analogy.

Reading a book written over a hundred years ago, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions might help. The wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) points to some online versions of the book. In a nutshell, Flatlanders live on a plane. There is no such thing as above or below to the Flatlanders; the plane is their universe. Instead of a plane, suppose their universe is the surface of a balloon. Still two dimensional. There is no above or below; asking that is in a sense a nonsensical question but it is also an indicator that the balloon analogy is not a particularly good analogy.

I understand the "flatlanders" concepts however we have to think of everything as a whole; yes, to the flatlanders there is no "outside" and perhaps to us there is no "outside", but technically there is something that exists within the balloon and outside, and so technically there is still something "outside" of the universe, no?

AlphaNumeric

06-19-09, 03:29 AM

but technically there is something that exists within the balloon and outside, and so technically there is still something "outside" of the universe, no?No, you do not need to embed such 'universes' as the ones described by the FRW metric into larger space-times.

Ophiolite

06-19-09, 06:44 PM

i was under the impression that miller-urey duplicated the primordial conditions of an earth that was created from stellar dust cloud.Whose origin did not require, or depend upon the reality of the Big Bang.

Fraggle Rocker

06-19-09, 07:24 PM

I would argue that the flat earth is to the round earth as Newton's classical physics are to Einsteinian relativity. Both a flat earth model and Newtonian physics work great at certain scales. When you move beyond those scales you need a different, more refined model. There are many circumstances under which you can assume that the earth is flat and have things work out just fine.The flat earth model was okay for small distances, but only for making a map or planning a journey. It was an impediment to understanding the motions of the sun, moon, planets and stars, something humans had been wondering about for ages, probably since before the dawn of civilization. The earliest astronomers were able to calculate the paths of the heavenly bodies using mathematics, but no one could turn that purely mathematical model into a physical model of a natural universe. It required belief in a supernatural universe, which is anathema to science.i agree with you to an extent. Everyone knows (or should) that the earth is round but we ALL carry flat earth stuff (ie maps) which work well except close to the polesMy atlas has a very nice, accurate map of Antarctica and a similar one of the arctic region. I think perhaps what you're really referring to is the increasingly obvious distortion of the Mercator Projection as the "stretched balloon" model of the earth is expanded to include areas closer and closer to the poles.

We're happy with Mercator for the tropical and temperate latitudes because we were all raised on it. Everyone thinks Greenland is bigger than Mexico, Alaska is bigger than Brazil, Sweden is bigger than Iran, etc. It's biased to exaggerate the importance of the nations in the upper reaches of the Northern Hemisphere and that's why we all love it.

I'm not sure why you Aussies like it. Does it make Australia look bigger than China?

Asguard

06-19-09, 07:59 PM

i dont know, will check

http://www.mapsofindia.com/worldmap/world-map.gif

i guess they look around the same size

AlphaNumeric

06-20-09, 09:35 AM

Atlases are the name for collections of maps, both in terms of your usual notion of maps and the more technical notion of manifolds. A manifold is a space where you can, in small regions, approximate it to arbitrary accuracy, using flat space, but in different regions you need different maps. You can do a map of the US which is roughly flat and the same for Antarctica, but they are not going to be the same projections from a sphere to a sheet. The important thing is that where the maps overlap (well not for the US and Antartica but say Europe and Russia) is that you can smoothly go from one to the other.

Saint

06-20-09, 10:26 PM

what is non-Euclidian geometry?
let me set a X-Y-Z global coordinate here, are my x-y-z axis extending to infinity? Or does it have an end point?

James R

06-20-09, 10:39 PM

what is non-Euclidian geometry?

Here's one test. Draw a triangle. Measure all three corner angles. If they add up to 180 degrees, then your triangle is in a Euclidean geometry. If not, then your triangle is in a non-Euclidean geometry.

An example: Draw a triangle on the Earth's surface, with one corner at the North pole, the next corner on the equator, and the third corner also on the equator but 90 degrees of latitude around from the second corner.

So, the two of the three sides of the triangle follow lines of longitude, and the third side follows the equator.

The three corner angles are all 90 degrees, adding up to a total of 270 degrees. So, the Earth's surface is a non-Euclidean geometry.

Ophiolite

06-21-09, 01:45 PM

In view of the conceptual problems with the Big Bang theory mentioned above, I have myself suggested an alternative explanation for the redshift on my page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies (http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm)).I stopped reading this before the end of the first paragraph. There you state " However, recessional velocities have by no means been actually measured and the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations."

Since Hubble's Law is not a consequence of the Doppler effect, you will understand if I question anything cosmological written by someone who states that it is.

thinking

06-21-09, 10:06 PM

look , in order for the BB theory to a solid theory it must think in terms of three dimensions at the minimum

and it doesn't

James R

06-21-09, 11:34 PM

Huh?

AlphaNumeric

06-22-09, 06:01 AM

look , in order for the BB theory to a solid theory it must think in terms of three dimensions at the minimum

and it doesn'tFirstly, that's not even coherent. Secondly, the metrics which describe an expanding universe, such as the FRW metric, are 3+1 dimensional and people have done higher dimensional extensions of that, or tried viewing inflation in terms of higher dimensional spaces.

Ophiolite

06-22-09, 06:59 AM

I think thinking thinks the balloon analogy means the Big Bang is a two dimensional theory.
That's one dimensional thinking for you. :)

tsmid

06-22-09, 01:59 PM

I stopped reading this before the end of the first paragraph. There you state " However, recessional velocities have by no means been actually measured and the assumption of the Doppler effect being responsible for the shift is only reached due to the absence of other known physical explanations."

Since Hubble's Law is not a consequence of the Doppler effect, you will understand if I question anything cosmological written by someone who states that it is.

I assume you wanted to say that the Hubble law is not claimed to be a consequence of the Doppler effect (but of space expansion). Note that even hard-core Big-Bang proponents admit that this is merely a question of viewpoint (i.e. of the coordinate system you are using) ( see for instance http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/hubble.html ). So nothing prevents you from seeing it as a Doppler effect (for sufficiently small redshifts anyway).

Moderator comments
Woo-woo concepts and link to woo-woo site deleted.

Thomas, please desist from posting your personal conjectures in this sub forum. Consider this a formal warning.

Thomas

D H

06-22-09, 02:22 PM

I assume you wanted to say that the Hubble law is not claimed to be a consequence of the Doppler effect (but of space expansion). Note that even hard-core Big-Bang proponents admit that this is merely a question of viewpoint (i.e. of the coordinate system you are using) ( see for instance http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/hubble.html ). So nothing prevents you from seeing it as a Doppler effect (for sufficiently small redshifts anyway).
Did you read the link you provided, or just read into it what you wanted to read into it? The link specifically starts with (emphasis mine) "the Doppler shift explanation is a linear approximation to the 'stretched light' explanation" and concludes with "Let me close by emphasizing the word 'approximation' from the first paragraph of this entry. The Doppler explanation fails for very large redshifts, for then we must consider how Hubble's 'constant' changes over the course of the journey."

Your view is that the two viewpoints are equivalent. This is nowhere close to what the linked article says.

Billy T

06-22-09, 02:34 PM

I think thinking thinks the balloon analogy means the Big Bang is a two dimensional theory. That's one dimensional thinking for you. :)That is why I like rasin cake baking analogy more. I.e. as the cake expands all the rasins separate from each other in 3D. If rasins a,b & c were initially at x= 0, 1 & 2 and we live on rasin a at x=0, then later when the rasin (Seen by us) are at 0, 2, 4 we conclude rasin c is moving away from us at twice the speed of rasin b. I.e. Hubble's law is as simple as a baking rasin cake.

Acitnoids

06-22-09, 03:02 PM

In my opinion the big bang is the best expanation for the observational evidence. Dose this mean it is the last word on the subject? Absolutely not. I do have one question though and please correct me if I'm wrong. Has it been assumed that the "origin" of the big bang was destroyed as a result of the big bang or could it be that the "origin" still exists as every point of the universe? Meaning that at a small enough scale any two points will "draw back down" to a single point (except for the fact that this single point would be "falling away" from the two points at a relative velocity equal to the speed of light). This can also be worded as; the distance between any two points is relative to there distance from the "origin" meaning that the distance between the earth and the moon is closer to the "origin" than the distance between the earth and the sun. The reason I ask is because I have discovered a simple numerical pattern which suggests that this may be the case (it is from this that I drew my interpretation of the cosmological red-shift).

tsmid

06-22-09, 03:26 PM

Moderator comments
Woo-woo concepts and link to woo-woo site deleted.

Thomas, please desist from posting your personal conjectures in this sub forum. Consider this a formal warning.

Pardon me? You apparently also took the liberty to delete without warning 1) my first post (on which Ophiolite's comment was based), 2) my first response to Ophiolites comment that I posted yesterday, and 3) the second part of my last post, in which I emphasized that Ophiolites point is merely a semantic one, because in any case the redshift is assumed to be associated with a recession of galaxies. I quote from the Wikipedia entry regarding Hubble's law : "Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the earth is proportional to their distance from us". This is factually an incorrect statement because observationally the velocity as such can not be measured. What is being measured is the redshift and it is assumed that this is related to a recession of galaxies. The point is that such a model leads (as already indicated in my deleted opening post) in my opinion to problems for instance with the mass conservation law, and that therefore one has to look for other redshift mechanism (and I was suggesting here the stretching of light waves in the intergalactic plasma as a possible mechanism).

Clarifying that the Hubble law is in the first place a redshift-distance law and not a velocity-distance law is not woo-woo, but should just rectify a misconception that some people on this forum may have.

Thomas

D H

06-22-09, 03:50 PM

Pardon me? You apparently also took the liberty to delete without warning 1) my first post (on which Ophiolite's comment was based), 2) my first response to Ophiolites comment that I posted yesterday, and 3) the second part of my last post
I did not give you any infraction points, either. I did post a reason for deleting those messages yesterday and when you persisted I asked you to stop, this time with a warning. Please do not make me learn how to use sciforum's infraction system.

I quote from the Wikipedia entry regarding Hubble's law : "Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the earth is proportional to their distance from us". This is factually an incorrect statement because observationally the velocity as such can not be measured.
First off, Wikipedia is not a scientific source. Secondly, where does that statement say anything about how velocity is measured? You are playing semantic games.

No scientific theory can be proven true. They can however be proven false. The same goes for the big bang theory. The big bang theory is not a complete theory, but it is, so far as we can tell, a consistent theory.

Ophiolite

06-22-09, 03:52 PM

I emphasized that Ophiolites point is merely a semantic one, It is a fundamental one. Under Big Bang Theory the redshift is not a Doppler effect. It is a result of the expansion of space. I fully accept that there could be another explanation for the redshift other than BBT. However, that is not what you are saying. You keep saying that the redshift in BBT is a Doppler effect. How often do I need to repeat - that is simply wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

If you can get something so fundamental wrong that even a mathematically deficient, intellectually challenged, spatially dyslexic Earth scientist recognises you have made an error, then it makes it seem extremely unlikely that anything else you are saying is of much value.

tsmid

06-22-09, 04:51 PM

I quote from the Wikipedia entry regarding Hubble's law : "Hubble's law describes the observation in physical cosmology that the velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the earth is proportional to their distance from us". This is factually an incorrect statement because observationally the velocity as such can not be measured.

First off, Wikipedia is not a scientific source. Secondly, where does that statement say anything about how velocity is measured? You are playing semantic games.

There is a fine but important difference between measuring velocities when you know there is actually one (e.g. the police measuring the velocity of your car with a radar speed gun) and inferring a velocity by means of an indirect method when otherwise there is no way to verify that there is actually one in the first place.

Hubble himself was well aware of this problem. I quote from his book "The Realm of the Nebulae (1936)"

This explanation interprets red-shifts as Doppler effects, that is to say, as velocity-shifts, indicating actual motion of recession. It may be stated with some confidence that red-shifts are velocity-shifts or else they represent some hitherto unrecognized principle in physics. [...]
Meanwhile, red-shifts may be expressed on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity-shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used in carefully considered statements, and the adjective always implied where it is omitted in general usage. --pp. 122-123

From these statements it is evident that Hubble used the term 'velocities' lastly only in a semantic sense for the redshifts, leaving open the possibility that the latter could still be due to other physical mechanisms.

Thomas

tsmid

06-22-09, 04:52 PM

I fully accept that there could be another explanation for the redshift other than BBT.

Fine, then we agree at least on that point.

Thomas

Ophiolite

06-22-09, 04:54 PM

From these statements it is evident that Hubble used the term 'velocities' lastly only in a semantic sense for the redshifts, leaving open the possibility that the latter could still be due to other physical mechanisms.You don't think we may have moved forward in our thinking from 1928?

Fraggle Rocker

06-22-09, 11:29 PM

what is non-Euclidian geometry? let me set a X-Y-Z global coordinate here, are my x-y-z axis extending to infinity? Or does it have an end point?The two types of non-Euclidean geometry that I studied fifty years ago were:

Riemannian geometry. On a Euclidean surface or "plane," it's possible to construct two straight lines that do not cross; we call them "parallel." On a Riemannian surface, such as the surface of a sphere, every straight line eventually crosses every other straight line.

Lobachevskian geometry. On a Lobachevskian surface, there is an infinite family of straight lines that do not cross any given line. A saddle, extended to infinity in all directions, is a Lobachevskian surface.

kaneda

06-23-09, 01:47 PM

And all other 'takes' thus far put forward have flaws in them. And if you entertain sufficiently tenious 'takes' then even if we observed for a billion years and saw things move apart you could come up with some convoluted non-expansion explaination.

Haven't been back for a while to answer your inevitable idea that I am wrong because I do not quote the wiki. There are serious flaws in the BB. We do not have final proof of expansion (as in actually seeing it happen) so other ideas should at least be considered. I appreciate this is something alien to you since you are a scientific creationist with every word in a text book true from the first to the last. Don't worry! No one will ever accuse you of having an original thought.

Considering we have no working model of matter at such times and energy scales I'd question the validity of the statements you make. Further more, I'd also repeat something I've told you many times that densities only lead to black holes if the material is in casual contact, something inflation prevents. Hence the BB is not saying a black hole expanded out of its own event horizon.

We have computer simulations like a recent one which said that gravity worked down to 10^92 tons per cubic meter but no further. I don't see why it should not go further but that will do.

It has been said that if black holes were large enough (like the size you said humans could enter alive), then there could be ordinary matter inside them as in the Universe itself might be a black hole. To form a black hole, all it needs is sufficient matter in a small enough area. It does not have to be "in casual contact".

No one is. But no one has provided a model which can compete with its descriptive power.

Who cares? I'm more worried how right it is. A number of very basic problems need to be answered about the BB and until they are, believers are just shouting lalalala ever louder. Whoever they are.

kaneda

06-23-09, 01:51 PM

Understanding the nature of dark matter and dark energy will determine whether the Big Bang is true or not. Evidence so far indicates it is true.

I have an amulet which keeps away green elephants. Proof that it works is that there are no green elephants. DM and DE are an embarrassment.

kaneda

06-23-09, 02:14 PM

It's logical, wouldn't you say? If everything is flying away from us, then at some point in the past, everything must have been where we are. Right?

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.

The big bang is a complicated theory. It makes lots of predictions about different things.

It predicts that basic science is wrong?

The basics of the big bang (that there was one, etc.) have been confirmed beyond any serious doubt. Some of the details of exactly what happened in the first moments after the bang are still being worked out.

Typical! People go on about thousands of scientists working every day to confirm the BB but the truth is that they just accept it as being infallibly true. That is not science.

The thing to realise is that no single fact proves the big bang theory. Rather, there is an immense amount of evidence of different types that supports the theory. Chances are that knowing down one piece of evidence won't knock down the theory, contrary to what some people think.

Part of the problem. Every time a fault is found, believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges.

Not according to experts in the field.

Which of these experts have even considered a possible alternative? Money is short in science and does not pay to go over old ground, so no one checks.

All we need to do is look at red shifts to establish that. So, we can and do know.

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed. So obviously it was a quasar and they were measuring a gravitational red shift. Even now we know of linked quasars with very different redshifts because a gravity redshift looks the same as a recessional redshift. The basic idea of photons stretching sounds like it was worked out by a creationist.

The big bang was not an expansion of matter in a pre-existing spacetime (c.f. black holes as the collapse of matter in a pre-existing spacetime). Therefore, the big bang was not a "time-reversed black hole" or anything like that. The big bang was an expansion of spacetime itself, which is quite a different kettle of fish.

Space is literally nothing so does not expand. What occupies it can move further apart, soi making space seem larger. Spacetime is a mathematical definition. It is no more realistic that spaceheat to describe infra-red radiation moving through space. Time is merely change and not a dimension. Dr Who is just a fictional TV programme!

Are there any other viable baskets around? If so, I haven't heard about them.

BB-ers have smothered them and hid them away, using insults and ridicule rather than explanations. That is their idea of scientific procedure, that they do not even consider them.

The balloon analogy commonly used must be understood correctly. The surface of the balloon represents the universe, not the inside and outside of the balloon. The surface of a balloon has no edge, in the same way that the surface of the Earth has no edge. If you walk around the Earth's surface, you never fall off the edge of the world.

The balloon has four physical dimensions so though the skin may be thought of as having no thickness to 4D beings, it does to us 3D beings. Think of a TV picture where there can be endless depth in a 2D screen.

Maybe.

The scale would be such that we could never know about another universe.

kaneda

06-23-09, 02:21 PM

That doesn't mean there isn't an above or below, James. So what's outside the universe?

I believe space is literally nothing so effectively everything ends at the edge of our universe. However if space is expanding into it, since space is defined by what occupies it, there is "endlessly more space" without it stretching or undergoing any processes.

If the universe is an expanding hypersphere (4D sphere), then if we were somehow able to make a 4D explosion and blow a hole in it, no matter how small, it would lead to the end of the universe as it collapsed in on itself like a punctured balloon.

Billy T

06-23-09, 02:34 PM

.... There are serious flaws in the BB. We do not have final proof of expansion (as in actually seeing it happen) so other ideas should at least be considered. ... A number of very basic problems need to be answered about the BB and until they are, believers are just shouting lalalala ever louder. ...Most of modern / recent physics has been in the area of mathematical modeling. I.e. trying to fit N known facts into one theory with M parameters when M is significantly less than N and, if possible, predict some new possible fact, f, for experimentalist to look for just as was the case with the CBR, which happen to be discovered by two guys who did not know it had been predicted.

I don't think anything is proven so yes, if you (or anyone else) can find a better theory/ model that also describes the N facts using only P adjustable parameters, where P < M , then many will be inclined to this new theory. I.e. of course "other ideas" should be considered. - Have a go at it, but until the "P theory" is found, we are stuck with the "M theory."

As I understand you, you think that some (or more than one) Fact, F, exists related to the big bang, not in the set of N which it explains. If that is your POV, please call this fact to our attention. That would be very useful, if accurate. It is not useful to simply say: I do not like the aspect A of the current M theory. Perhaps because it has not been observed, perhaps because it is "counter intuitive," perhaps because ....?

If your only complaint is you do not like some aspect to the currently best, the M theory, you should either try to find the more parsimonious P theory or get out of the game.

I did the later as I did not like the general trend of physics over the last 30 or so years - building mathematical models. Math was never my strong suit. Hell, I even had difficulties doing boundary value problems with Maxwell's Equations. (Things like calculating the skin depth, dielectric reflection coefficients, or the amount of polarization induced by non-normal, metallic, reflection or Bruster’s angle, etc.) Tensor math I once could follow, but not anymore. (I did, however admire the extremely compact notational conventions, but not like them.)

At present the "M theory" of this field is the "BB theory." - We are waiting for you to either shut up or advance the "P theory" which is more parsimonious than the BB theory and can replace it (but still explains the F, facts). Bitching that you do not like the BB theory is not helpful or even interesting.

Again:
Helpful would be to point out some fact inconsistent with the BB theory, but I for one, don't give dam if you do not like aspect A of it such as the inflation phase.

...Every time a fault is found, {BB} believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges. ...DE (Dark Energy) is not part of the BB theory, but a very recently discovered mystery. Just as is what caused the recent South Atlantic Ocean Air France plane crash is a recent mystery. BB theory does not claim to explain either of these recently discovered mysteries. BB theory was developed years BEFORE either of these recent mysteries was even known to exist. AFAIK, the BB theory covers only the time period up to the formation of matter, or pehaps even less time after t = 0. Some probably limit the BB theory to the interval between t = 0 and t = 1 second as by one second the inflation period is over, (I think simple thermodynamics and quantum theory can descibe what happened after t = 1 sec. but this is not my field of knowledge so I may be wrong about that.).

Again I ask: What fact that BB theory should explain does it not? Or is there some more parsimonious alternative to the BB theory you can suggest?

tsmid

06-23-09, 03:37 PM

The balloon analogy is just that: an analogy. I think one needs some minimal familiarity with the concept of non-Euclidean geometry to appreciate the analogy.

Reading a book written over a hundred years ago, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions might help. The wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) points to some online versions of the book. In a nutshell, Flatlanders live on a plane. There is no such thing as above or below to the Flatlanders;

There is no such thing as Flatlanders. So how can a factually false metaphor serve as an analogy to reinforce the validity of a certain scientific concept?

the plane is their universe. Instead of a plane, suppose their universe is the surface of a balloon. Still two dimensional. There is no above or below; asking that is in a sense a nonsensical question but it is also an indicator that the balloon analogy is not a particularly good analogy.

There is no such thing as a surface of a balloon (or any other object for that matter). The balloon skin consists of atoms that are arranged in our 3D-space in a way that from far it gives the impression of a surface. Just put the balloon skin under an electron microscope and this impression will disappear. All there is is our 3D-space and atoms in it.

Thomas

(Q)

06-23-09, 03:45 PM

There is no such thing as Flatlanders. So how can a factually false metaphor serve as an analogy to reinforce the validity of a certain scientific concept?

There's no such thing as riding atop a beam of light, either, but it helped Einstein win a Nobel Prize.

tsmid

06-23-09, 04:01 PM

There's no such thing as riding atop a beam of light, either, but it helped Einstein win a Nobel Prize.

I don't see how it would helped him to get his Nobel Prize, because he got it for his theory regarding the photoelectric effect.

Thomas

AlphaNumeric

06-23-09, 04:30 PM

Haven't been back for a while to answer your inevitable idea that I am wrong because I do not quote the wiki.No, I consider you often wrong because you create strawmen by saying such things as "The only evidence for the BB is redshift", which is false as there's such things as isotope ratios. I'm not asking you to blindly accept the theory, simply to actually read up on it before making claims or statements about it and given your lack of scientific knowledge Wikipedia is a good place to start.

You seriously have trouble grasping that logic. Is it too much to ask for you to make an informed post rather than an uninformed one?

We do not have final proof of expansion (as in actually seeing it happen)This is not the only bit of evidence, as I just commented, yet your post is making it out to seem it is. See what I mean about being informed and not making strawmen?

so other ideas should at least be considered. They are, as theories are never 'proven', only 'not falsified' (which means we gain confidence in it being at least a good approximation). But no model has come close to being able to explain all the phenomena which the BB can explain.

I appreciate this is something alien to you since you are a scientific creationist with every word in a text book true from the first to the last Nice strawman. I say "Can you please read about the BB because you claim it says thing it doesn't actually say" and you read it as "The BB is undeniably correct". Do you have an English language comprehension issue?

Don't worry! No one will ever accuse you of having an original thought.Correcting you on what the BB does or doesn't say/imply doesn't mean I'm devoid of original thinking. I don't believe in the Bible but if someone, in a discussion, said "In the Bible Jesus was a homosexual" I'd correct them. Can you see the logic here? Irrespective of whether you agree with something or not, actually being informed about it is important.

Besides, I have original work which is published. My name on it, in a scientific journal. The fact you have turned down my numerous offers to discuss it with you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We have computer simulations like a recent one which said that gravity worked down to 10^92 tons per cubic meter but no further. I don't see why it should not go further but that will do.Nuclear densitirs are 10^18 kg/m^3 and then you need the Standard Model. Over smaller distances (ie higher densities), say by 6 orders of magnitude, you go beyond the ability for the Standard Model to describe with any confidence (ie beyond experimental checks) and beyond 30 orders of magnitude you hit Planck scale physics and all of our quantum field theory descriptions (other than string theory) fall apart due to gravitational corrections so I'd question your numbers. At densities you talk about you cannot ignore quantum gravity.

It has been said that if black holes were large enough (like the size you said humans could enter alive), then there could be ordinary matter inside them as in the Universe itself might be a black hole. To form a black hole, all it needs is sufficient matter in a small enough area. It does not have to be "in casual contact".So now you accept it is possible to have a sufficiently large black hole that tidal forces don't kill a person as they approach the event horizon. My my, that is a change of tune, after you so often proclaimed you'd proven Rpenner and I wrong over on PhysOrg so many times. As for the universe being in a black hole while it might be true that all matter is within it's Schwarzchild radius, the event horizon hasn't yet formed as the dynamics of all matter we can see is as if there is no event horizon. Inside a black hole event horizon you see part of the sky as black (the side closest the singularity) and the other side brighter, as no light comes up from the singularity to you. We do not see this in the sky above us and so there has not been sufficient time for the gravitational effects to propogate through the universe to create this effect. We are out of causal contact with enough matter to know we're within the Schwarzchild radius. If we were within causal contact at least half the sky would be black and the orbits of all planets and stars would be distrupted as we'd be unable to move away, at all from the centre of mass of the universal black hole. So my point about causal contact is perfectly valid.

Who cares? I'm more worried how right it is. A number of very basic problems need to be answered about the BB and until they are, believers are just shouting lalalala ever louder. Whoever they are.Care to outline those problems a bit more specifically? It's just that I've seen you post threads "What's the evidence for the BB?" and then gone on to list a bunch of strawmen, ignore things any school kid will know and then whine when people say "Wow, did you even bother to check Wikipedia because you missed out most of the evidence it lists, never mind what you get in journals!".

DM and DE are an embarrassment. .You do realise DE and DM are two entirely unrelated phenomena, they just happen to be 'dark' because they are not visible via electromagnetic radiation. While I can see why people might be uncomfortable with dark energy, to me dark matter, at least the principle, seems not only acceptable but also entirely probably. Dark matter is matter in the universe which doesn't interact with light. It's a bit silly to think all matter should interact with light and unless its distribution was entirely unlike that of normal matter it would only be detectable when you do quite specific and detailed analysis of gravitationally governed systems, which is something we've only been able to do with time and plenty of observations. You can see a supernova just by using a telescope (if you time it right) but to detect matter which isn't optically vislble you'd need to do measurements and calculations. Simply working out the mass of galaxies takes a lot of work and theory so the discovery of dark matter much later than other astronomical phenomena isn't entirely unsurprising.

Tell me Kaneda, are you appalled by the entire concept of dark matter or the fact it seems to be a lot more plentiful than normal, visible, matter?

Ophiolite

06-23-09, 04:40 PM

If your only complaint is you do not like some aspect to the currently best, the M theory, you should either try to find the more parsimonious P theory of get out of the game.Hear, hear. I dislike BBT on philosophical grounds, but because I can offer no better (or even equal) alternative I support it and question those who snipe at it because they have nothing better to do.

Billy T

06-23-09, 06:03 PM

Hear, hear. I dislike BBT on philosophical grounds, but because I can offer no better (or even equal) alternative I support it and question those who snipe at it because they have nothing better to do.My POV exactly. I liked Hoyle's Steady State cosmology more philosophically and am not sure that the CBR should have been taken as the disproof of it.

Why could there not be CBR in the SS cosmology? I seriously doubt there is any evidence for any change in the CBR – let’s just add it to the SS universe. Having zero low energy microwave energy would appear much stranger to me than some low level microwaves.

For example, the Earth is not highly charged, but solar UV ejecting electrons from the high atmosphere, I bet has it with some net positive charge. If true, very accepted physics state that the accelerated Earth is radiating. - Probably very long wavelength EM waves with period of ~8550 hours a lot more with 24 hours due to rotation of the Van Allen belt charges and more still with the electrons in them bouncing back and forth between near polar regions, plus lightening from most planet atmospheres etc. etc.

In the steady state, the positive charge makes those UV electrons return to the Earth, accelerated by gravity. The charged particle flowing along magnetic loops at the solar surface are radiating too. When two inter galactic protons scatter of each other they surely make radiation with typical wave lengths even shorter than the 4 degree CBR spectrum peak.

Just because the universe is expanding doesn’t mean it was once a singularity! I’ll grant the evidence is strong that it is space itself that is expanding – probably due the spontaneous appearance of new hydrogen atoms.* :cool:

-------------
* I always liked Holye’s reply when asked: “and where does this new hydrogen come from?” Holye said: “From the same place you BB guys get it all at once.” :D

Quote below from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_steady.html

“… Because the vast majority of quasars lie exceedingly far away, their existence proves that the perfect cosmological principle cannot be true**—the distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby. The death knell for the theory sounded when radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. The steady-staters had no reasonable way to explain this radiation,*** and their theory slowly faded away as so many of its predecessors had. …”
------------------------
**So where did God carve this man-made principle in stone? Of course more will be found in every spherical shell 1000 light years thick, the farther away from Earth that shell is – The volume in that shell is directly proportional to its distance from Earth! Of course the very distant universe has much higher ratio of quasars to galaxies - hard to see any but the very biggest galaxies that far away. Also that is back when that chunk of space was smaller - of course it looks different - the universe has been expanding as more hydrogen is stuffed into it. - simple thermodynamics.

*** I outlined how the CBR might come to be in the SS cosmology above. And add now that I think one can show that Compton scattering will bring that mix of long wavelength radiation into a black body distribution with the same temperature as the inter-galactic hydrogen, most of which is ionized.

Want to join me in the "Gold/Hoyle were right fan club”? Our motto is:

“ To Hell with BB! ” (That’s not a reference to Bridget Bardot. – She is heavenly.) ;)

AlphaNumeric

06-23-09, 06:14 PM

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.I don't follow this, what do you mean?

It predicts that basic science is wrong?Can't you do something other than make vague, yet incorrect, statements? At least try to back up what you just said.

Typical! People go on about thousands of scientists working every day to confirm the BB but the truth is that they just accept it as being infallibly true. That is not science.No, thousands of scientists work everyday to test, develop and refine the theory. If it should fail a test in a way which cannot be reconciled, then it'll be replaced. James's point is that it's like evolution, yes it's conceivable that it's wrong on even the conceptual level but all the time we find more and more evidence to the contrary and we refine our understanding further than further.

Part of the problem. Every time a fault is found, believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges.Science has always advanced by trying small changes before trying big ones. This isn't some fault of cosmology, it's the scientific method. And when you say 'overview' what you really mean is your uninformed bias opinion. There's nothing wrong with the fact the BB theory of today looks different to the BB theory of a few decades ago, it's evolved and developed as new evidence, new understanding and new methods are obtained. You can't find a single area of science which doesn't display this behaviour. It'd be naive to think a first attempt at a description of a poorly observed/measured phenomena is going to stand up perfectly to future scrutiny, such attitudes are the realms of cranks (see PhysOrg and numerous people's pet theory). By your logic our understanding of quantum field theory is just a bunch of fudges, as we went from classical electromagnetism to electrodynamics to quantum mechanics to quantum electrodynamics to electroweak theory. Each one is developed once a problem arises with the previous one, each time encompassing more and more phenomena.

Which of these experts have even considered a possible alternative? Money is short in science and does not pay to go over old ground, so no one checks.
Actually a huge quantity of time, effort and money is put into verifying things. For instance, the CMB was first measured in the 60s, giving evidence to the BB. Yet the satellite COBE was used to measure it more, to check if the spectrum was as the BB predicted. Then WMAP went further, testing more accurately, looking for deviations and now there's Planck. Millions of dollars and thousands of man years of work to keep testing, searching for errors. People do check, it's just not a glamorous thing to do and so you don't see headlines in newpapers like "Team of physicists confirm calculation to 8 decimal places, up from 6!". Tell me, do you read cosmology journals?

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed. So obviously it was a quasar and they were measuring a gravitational red shift. Even now we know of linked quasars with very different redshifts because a gravity redshift looks the same as a recessional redshift. The basic idea of photons stretching sounds like it was worked out by a creationist.
Except that redshift due to recession at the speed of light is infinite, no light at all reaches the observer. Can you cite your source? And can you cite a source for connected quasars of different redshift other than the well known crank whose name begins with A?

Space is literally nothing so does not expand. What occupies it can move further apart, soi making space seem larger. Spacetime is a mathematical definition. It is no more realistic that spaceheat to describe infra-red radiation moving through space. Time is merely change and not a dimension. Dr Who is just a fictional TV programme!Ah, the "I refuse to accept physics I don't understand and so it is wrong. How dare the universe do something outside my everyday experience!" line of logic.

BB-ers have smothered them and hid them away, using insults and ridicule rather than explanations. That is their idea of scientific procedure, that they do not even consider them.And the "There's a conspiracy afoot!" logic. Anyone of decent scientific aptitude who has something contrary to the mainstream but is a rational stab at a new idea can get their work on ArXiv. Just last year a rival to general relativity was put on ArXiv and it became the hot topic of theoretical physics, huge numbers of papers were published on it. It went so far as to say special relativity's tenant of Lorentz invariant was not true, yet it got a lot of attention.

New, interesting and rational ideas get more attention than just those which are 'more of the same'. Not that you'd know, not being in the scientific community and having no wish to actually check your facts before whining.

If the universe is an expanding hypersphere (4D sphere), then if we were somehow able to make a 4D explosion and blow a hole in it, no matter how small, it would lead to the end of the universe as it collapsed in on itself like a punctured balloon.Another excellent display of your grasp of higher dimensional geometry. Perhaps next time you'd talking about the balloon analogy you could mention balloon animals or something?

James R

06-24-09, 01:25 AM

kaneda:

The main sense I get from your reply to my post is that you have a large amount of anger over this issue. Why are you angry? And are you aware that anger can cloud your judgement?

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.

I don't believe I mentioned singularities not being stable etc. etc. What are you talking about?

The big bang is a complicated theory. It makes lots of predictions about different things.

It predicts that basic science is wrong?

Obviously not, since it relies on basic science being right.

The basics of the big bang (that there was one, etc.) have been confirmed beyond any serious doubt. Some of the details of exactly what happened in the first moments after the bang are still being worked out.

Typical! People go on about thousands of scientists working every day to confirm the BB but the truth is that they just accept it as being infallibly true. That is not science.

Please stop foaming at the mouth and read what I wrote again. I said that the basic fact of the big bang is beyond dispute in scientific circles. People aren't working to confirm the big bang. They are working to test the theory - to try to find faults in it, to see where it needs refining or changing. And trying to find fault is the exact opposite of accepting the theory as infallibly true.

Part of the problem. Every time a fault is found, believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges.

Perhaps. The question is: does anybody have an viable alternative to dark energy? Sure, you can throw out the entire big bang theory if you have a better theory to replace it with. Do you?

Which of these experts have even considered a possible alternative?

Possible alternatives are being considered all the time. The person who disproves the big bang theory will win a Nobel Prize.

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed.

Got a link?

The basic idea of photons stretching sounds like it was worked out by a creationist.

I've never heard of this photon stretching idea. Got a link?

Space is literally nothing so does not expand. What occupies it can move further apart, soi making space seem larger. Spacetime is a mathematical definition. It is no more realistic that spaceheat to describe infra-red radiation moving through space. Time is merely change and not a dimension. Dr Who is just a fictional TV programme!

Sounds like you know all about space and time. Where did you study?

The scale would be such that we could never know about another universe.

It's not just a problem of scale. Alternate universes are supposed to be causally separate from our universe.

MikeBeer

06-24-09, 01:45 AM

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed.
Got a link?

He may be talking about superluminal motion observed in quasars, radio galaxies, blazars, etc. Those are widely understood to be optical illusions though, so I'm missing the point.

Dr Mabuse

06-24-09, 02:27 PM

There's no such thing as riding atop a beam of light, either, but it helped Einstein win a Nobel Prize.

Surfing on a wave of light actually wasn't it?

Dr Mabuse

06-24-09, 02:29 PM

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.

Exactly.

Billy T

06-24-09, 02:58 PM

Hi James:
Rather than waste your time on Kaneda, why not shoot down arguments in post 69 (or join the fan club)?

tuberculatious

06-24-09, 03:06 PM

MikeBeer

06-24-09, 06:29 PM

No. it will only be proven when they recreate the big bang in the lab. And as far as I know they haven't because we still exist.

There is research currently going on into creating a universe in the lab; however, they aren't close to accomplishing it. If they were to succeed though, I believe the common consensus is that the created universe would instantly splice from ours and expand, without displacing any space that we currently lay claim to, so we wouldn't be affected.

James R

06-24-09, 08:13 PM

Billy T:

Why could there not be CBR in the SS cosmology?

Why should there be? What would produce it? And why would it have a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, with just the kind of fluctuations that we would expect from a big bang?

And add now that I think one can show that Compton scattering will bring that mix of long wavelength radiation into a black body distribution with the same temperature as the inter-galactic hydrogen, most of which is ionized.

Can you show this?

Your theory shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, Billy T, but somebody (you?) really needs to do the physics properly. Otherwise, it's just idle speculation.

Billy T

06-25-09, 07:12 PM

I have already answered your questions in post 69, but here are the answers again: Billy T: Why should there be? {CBR} What would produce it? In post 69 I gave a more than half a dozen examples of natural accelerated charges - all of which would make EM waves. The first example was the positively charged Earth (making a tiny amount of ~8550 hour period waves) up to the collision of two electrons in inter galactic space (making much shorter wavelengths than the peak of the 4 degree CBR) with examples of intermediate wavelengths. I.e. there are many dozens of natural long-wave length EM wave sources. And why would it have a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, with just the kind of fluctuations that we would expect from a big bang?For exactly the same reason that the CBR is black body. I.e. CBR's EM waves were (and still are) in thermal contact with charged particles (mainly electrons & protons). You do know that most of the universe is hydrogen, don't you? Much more as atomic H than H2 because space is so empty*. I.e. once H2 is separated into two atoms they rarely get back together. This is even more true of H atoms being separated in to proton and electron. The separation is, in both cases caused by stellar radiation being absorbed in most cases.

Space is highly ionized extremely low density plasma. This Plasma scatters EM waves and thereby the EM waves have the thermal black body distribution with the same temperature as the protons and electrons of space. Thermodynamics requires this. These space particles have been adiabatically cooling with the expansion of space - currently their temperature is about 4K. Can you show this?No, not by detailed analysis, but yes by the above argument from thermodynamics. Note that the radiation inside any closed box with isothermal walls is also in thermal equilibrium to have the black body radiation distribution with the wall temperature and it is very hard to show this with detailed analysis, which probably would erroneously make you conclude what the walls were made of was important. That is thermodynamics strength - when it applies - details are not needed.

The steady state universe is not my idea. I only think there has been sort of Band Wagon effect that caused the Big Bang model to displace the Steady State model when the predicted CBR was accidently found. Also nuclear synthesis does NOT require, or even naturally use, the Big Bang model. Some here have been sighting it as "support" of the Big Bang. Only Thermodynamics and quantum physic are required to explain nuclear synthesis. For example Hans Bethe did not use any part of the big bang to explain nuclear syntheses in the sun and in other hotter denser stars up iron. (Some of the higher than iron atomic number atoms are also produced in stars too by endothermic "cooking" and more are produced in the supernova shock waves.) Is Thermodynamics, QM, and shock wave theory part of the big bang theory? :rolleyes:

The Hydrogen / Helium ratio is not AFAIK "explained" by the big bang model. The big bang model is adjusted to give it, and some other observables, I think. Prior to "inflation" being added, the Big Bang had an extremely improbable set of initial conditions to even work (result in our universe). It has been rescued to fit, did not predict, our universe.

IMHO, it is easier to assume that time had no beginning than to have t = 0 fall out of the Big Bang to better hide the "first cause" problem. Your theory shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, Billy T, but somebody (you?) really needs to do the physics properly. Otherwise, it's just idle speculation.I have done all I plan to, with simple thermodynamics above, but I think the Steady State model is not out of the running yet. For me the CBR fits equally well in either model and looking back in time is looking at a less expanded part of the steady state universe - when the total mass of hydrogen of that then smaller universe was less could make a difference, even in the Steady State, if anything does (like the strength of Dark Energy?) does depend on the total mass of the universe. Perhaps it should be called the Quasi Steady State model? (If anything like size or DE etc does depend on the total mass of the universe.) It would not be the first time a physics model has needed a slight refinement. :D

-------------
*Look at the Saha equation to see mathematicaly that near 100% ionization is a result of extermely low density, even at very cold temperatures, if there is any photo-ionization flux. It is highly unlikely that the separated electron "finds" an ion and nearly impossible for it to combine if a third body is required as it is for non-radiative capture.

BTW the radiative capture is usually into an extremely high principle quantum number "n" with subsequent cascade down thru many small delta n states - I.e. lots of more long wave length radiation come from radiative recombination de-ionization of ions in space.

PS I see you asked about the slight variation in the CBR too. I do not know much about this, but the rate at which the EM radiation comes into thermal equilibrium with the charged particles does depend on the density of the charged particles - I.e. where the density is lower then the adbatatic cooling may not be complete and the ions and electrons may have slightly different temperatures (Collsion between grossly different mass do not share their energy as well as if between link masses.) This fine variations probably too can be fit into either model - Perhaps easier into the SS model than the BB model as BB's CBR is, I think, the expaned photons from when the universe was much denser an not ionized. (Stars had not yet formed to "re-ionize" it.)

I ask again: Want to join the SS club? ;)

kaneda

06-28-09, 02:39 PM

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

06-28-09, 03:11 PM

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

06-28-09, 03:30 PM

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

06-28-09, 03:47 PM

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

06-29-09, 12:02 AM

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

06-29-09, 03:57 AM

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

06-29-09, 04:12 AM

James R

06-29-09, 04:22 AM

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

06-29-09, 04:36 AM

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

06-29-09, 04:52 AM

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

06-29-09, 05:03 AM

“ 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

06-29-09, 06:16 AM

that is an old and quite inadequate analogy

whats more important is what is happening INSIDE the balloonIn the analogy there is no inside to the balloon. What do you find difficult about that concept?

Acitnoids

06-30-09, 12:28 AM

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

06-30-09, 12:41 AM

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

06-30-09, 12:14 PM

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

06-30-09, 04:13 PM

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

06-30-09, 04:17 PM

Great circle distance.

James R

06-30-09, 09:48 PM

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

06-30-09, 11:48 PM

“ 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

06-30-09, 11:59 PM

thinking

07-01-09, 12:21 AM

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

James R

07-01-09, 12:24 AM

And so...?

thinking

07-01-09, 12:29 AM

And so...?

the particles would for ever expand further away and never coalesce

James R

07-01-09, 12:42 AM

But the expansion of space doesn't happen on the level of galaxies. Local gravity in that case is a stronger influence that overcomes the tendency to expansion.

thinking

07-01-09, 12:46 AM

But the expansion of space doesn't happen on the level of galaxies.

to you it does

Local gravity in that case is a stronger influence that overcomes the tendency to expansion.

what does that tell you ?

D H

07-01-09, 05:06 AM

to you it does

what does that tell you ?
It tells me you are trying not to live up to your user name. You are not thinking.

The expansion of space at short intervals (short meaning galactic scale) is small compared to the gravitational attraction due to the local concentration of matter.

Another analogy: Since gravity pulls you toward the center of the Earth, why doesn't gravity pull you through the floor? The answer is because the electrons in the atoms at the surface of your feet and the surface of the floor repel one another. Because matter is electrically neutral, this repulsive force drops off much, much quicker than does the Coulomb inverse square law. Jump off the floor by even a few millimeters off the floor and this repulsive force becomes vanishingly small until you land from your jump. Gravity and this repulsive force follow different power laws.

The same goes for gravity and the expansion of space. The follow different power laws. The metric expansion of space can be viewed as having the effect of a repulsive force that is proportional to the distance between objects. Gravity on the other hand is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between objects. At close distances, the gravitational force dominates over the expansion of space. At larger distances, the gravitational force between objects becomes vanishingly small while the expansion of space, viewed as a force, becomes very, very large.

James R

07-01-09, 05:15 AM

thinking:

to you it does

...

what does that tell you ?

First you try to tell me that I think the opposite of what I wrote, then you ask me to explain a statement that stands on its own without needing further explanation.

You seem to be trying to waste my time. If that is the case, I won't bother replying to you in future. Are you intending to waste my time?

kaneda

07-01-09, 10:36 AM

kaneda

07-01-09, 10:52 AM

James R. I would not insult someone by hinting they are wrong because they must be angry with me (as though that would make a difference to their answers).

Explain how a singularity can inflate while sticking to acceptable science and without using fairy tale terms.

If someone tries to win an argument by claiming intellect, they have already lost the argument.

If you agree, answer some questions then.

Euler is a friend of AlphaNumeric who also tried the "I'm smarter than you are" gambit, while being unable to answer even simple questions. His field was maths (hence the alias) and he seemed lost outside of it.

I believe the redshift is down to a sea of gravity rather than nothing somehow expanding.

If the universe is expanding, it is doing so despite the attractive force (gravity) of everything in the universe. As things get further apart, so the attractive force is weaker so doesn't slow down expansion as much. If this was true, then expansion would get ever faster till it reached a maximum speed where it is not slowed down by gravity.

I think a steady state universe possible but if someone could come up with firm evidence for something I else would drop the idea, since it is just an idea.

If nothing could change into something, there would be limitations as in one universe is not going to form inside another (though we might detect something on a quantum scale, like virtual particles). It would be like two puddles of water linking up. Distances would be such that unless we could detect them in some way (ie: it was happening within sight of our telescopes), we would never know. What we would see is a lot of blue shifted galaxies and clusters at the "edge of our universe".

kaneda

07-01-09, 11:05 AM

In the analogy there is no inside to the balloon.

But there is. In a 3D balloon-type expansion, everything would move away from everything else, but from a centre and effectively over long enough time, there would be nothing left in the centre. The sultanas in the pudding explanation still means everything moving away from a definite centre.

kaneda

07-01-09, 11:13 AM

But the expansion of space doesn't happen on the level of galaxies. Local gravity in that case is a stronger influence that overcomes the tendency to expansion.

Of course in a galaxy, local gravity could just ignore expansion but outside, at what point could it not with very distant dwarf clusters, like these four, millions of light years from our galaxy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group

.

kaneda

07-01-09, 11:24 AM

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

That is a problem. You have the expansion of every single hydrogen atom away from every other hydrogen atom and none with sufficient mass to attract anything.

You have two possibilities here. That everything is so close it clumps but then again, why not just the lot clump a little earlier? Or clumping only occurs on the smallest scales so that a star would take many billions of years to form and there would be very few of them.

Far from being virtually uniform as the CMB tells us, the universe is anything but, all supposedly from the most minor perturbations on a quantum scale. We have huge voids upto a billion light years across. We have walls of hundreds of galaxies. The record holder for black holes is 18 billion solar masses but far bigger ones may exist. All this in less than 14 billion years.

Our galaxy is supposed to be about ten billion years old but one of the oldest stars in the universe is in our local neighbourhood, at 13.2 billion years old:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901

.

Billy T

07-01-09, 01:54 PM

... BB started out with light and particles did it not ? at least thats my understanding and the particle coalesced into the macroLike James R, I am not well versed in either BB or Steady State models, but AFAIK intitally at t = 0+ in the BB model there was only energy, which would be EM waves of very exteme energy - far beyound the harshest gamma rays we can imagine. Then to maintain charge neutrality, electons and positive quarks formed for the energy sea as it expanded (with the universe) and cooled. Neutral quarks were created the same way an I known no reason why they had to be in the same number as the charged ones. Later, with more cooling, protons and neutrons formed three quarks each. Probably some electrons briefly joined to the protons but the uinverse was so hot still that it was essentailly (> 99.9999%) a fully ionized plasma. The process of recombination and immediate reionization plus the Columb scatering assured that the electon and ion temperatures remained nearly the same as the colling continued. Also there were strong interaction between the EM waves and the charged particles that keep the EN waves with the black body temperature of the particles as the cooling continued.

Surely gravity, the electical forces and both the nuclear forces were separate when protons existed.* As the expansion and cooling continued, the electrons and the protons joined to make neutral atomic hydrogen (perhaps also some H2 but that union of two neutrals is not aid by Coulumb attraction and I think requires a "third body" to carry away the binding energy of at least capture into an excited state of the H2 molecule.)

Eventually allmost all the electrons had joined with protons so the interaqction with the EM waves which keep the Black Body EM spectrum temperature tied to the charged particle tempeature terminated. Then only the "stretching of space" with the expansion of the universe caused the EM field temperature to drop, to the current ~4K. which is called the CBR or (other names). Eventually the stars began to form under the influence of their masses mutual gravity (and quite possibly some locally denser region of "dark matter") They were trypically sevaral hundred times more massive than our puny sun. burned their fuel all the way to iron and exploded in powerful supernovas. Before they did this, they sent enormous energy as harsh UV mainly it space. This striped the electons from the neutral H and H2 and He to begin the "re-ionization" of space era, we still live in. (Space is so empty that even with the help of Coulumb attraction, electrons rarely find and recombine with the positive ions. (The Saha equation tells this "cold space is ionized" story mathematically. I happen to know of it as my experimental Ph.D. used plasma and Saha tells how much is ionized as fct of T and densities.)

--------------------------
*If not always - I think the std. POV is that initially these four "forces" were one and not distinguishable, or perhaps just too weak wrt the average thermal energy to have any significant effect. I like colorful analogies so perhaps they were always separate but:
No more effective than a flea's fart in a huricane.

tsmid

07-01-09, 02:40 PM

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.)

But the tape measure (and the distance markings on it) is not part of the universe either. The only tape measure that would qualify here is one that is consistently integrated into the balloon surface, and here you have two options: a) either it is an elastic tape measure that expands together with the balloon (in which case the indicated distance would not change), or b) it is a rigid structure unaffected by the balloon expansion in which case it would drop out of the universe as the latter expands.

Thomas

Billy T

07-01-09, 03:11 PM

Billy T: ... 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.... 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. ...I specifically avoided comparing anything to the BB singularity as I agree; "singularity" is just a nice way to say: extrapolating from the region we think we understand everything seems to condense into a single point. Clearly then our mathematical models do not apply so we indicate this by saying: it is a "singularity." (I.e. nice way to wrap all our ingorance into one word.)

I asked you why the universe when NOT a singularity, but with volume 0.000,000,1 mm^3 did not collapse into a black hole? Perhaps you have the correct answer (Gravity did not yet exist OR a "negative gravity" did and was stronger) I was glad to note that you did not reverse yourself and say that thermal energy does not make a gravity field. I think it very unproductive to postulate the laws of physics were different back when the universe was very tiny, but not a singularity - that is an open path for any speculation one wishes.

I just pulled my 0.000,000,1 mm^3 out of thin air. I bet the entire mass of the universe (energy included) contained in a much larger volume (a cubic meter?) should collapse in to a black hole. Let’s call the max volume which should have collapsed into black hole "V” - Was physics different when the universe had volume V? - I think not. If physic then was same as now, then this failure to collapse is yet another flaw in the BB model which surely is not removed by some hand waving about "singularities." Time to drag out the "negative gravity" was stronger idea? The BB model seems to me to have more ad hoc patches than a hobo's discarded pants but, like you I do not know much (really nothing) about the math that is used to describe the early universe evolution.

"Inflation" is admitted to be a clever later postulated to rescue the BB theory. The absence of BB's predicted magnetic monopoles and the dominance of matter over anti-matter I think are still awaiting rescue. There is another serious problem called the "boundary problem" which I do not understand also in the BB model, I think, which conflicts with observations.

The BB model is reported to have predicted the observed abundances of the initial matter (H, D, He and Li) by selection of the ratio of photons to Baryons but that ratio can be adjusted to match ANY pair you want exactly and only gets a reasonable accurate value for one of the other two and misses by more than a factor of two on the final one, so I am not much impressed by this "light element fit." Also how do they know what the original ratios were and how accurately is it known? (Stars have been making many elements and transforming many into other, the light elements at least as much as the heavy ones.)

AFAIK the Steady State model does NOT have any of these inconsistencies but does not explain the abundance of the light elements. Perhaps there is some circular thought in the BB if, for example, initially ONLY protons appear suddenly in space and then very energetic collisions freed their three + three quarks? (I doubt that is what happened, perhaps not even possible, but bet some alternatives to the BB's light element generation do exist as only need to explain three (or four if Li is included) atoms. I also do not know why or how it is known that there was any Li made or that even within the BB model's very dense high energy of the matter formation era, there were no collisional events that reassembled quarks.

For me there is just too much that seems to be self contradictory (especially the absence of predicted anti-matter and magnetic monopoles) but I am probably just too ignorant. None the less, there should be at least some "dumbed down" story* I could understand or something in the Steady State equally self contradictory to make me not prefer it. I do not like just taking the word of the "experts" when they themselves admit to some of these contradictions still remaining, even after the addition of "inflation" kept the BB from being totally wrong in everything.

I thought the scientific method REJECTED theories with both internal contradictions AND predictions contary to observations.

---------------
*For example Hawking Radiation has two, mutually contradictory "dumbed down" stories. One has Black Body radiation carrying away the mass/energy the Black hole is losing. The other has one member of a vacuum polarization pair falling inside the Event Horizon and the other escaping to be new energy/ mass in our observable universe. The BB supporter have not been able to come up with even one "dumbed down" story for even one of the several internal conflicts, probably as they remain internal conflicts.

Again I note that I have given in post 69 & 79 about a dozen natural sources of radiation from accelerated charges that produce EM waves both shorter and longer than the peak of the CBR. (There are many more.) I also mentioned some of the various inter actions these EM waves have with charged matter (the same as the BB has) which cause the EM wave temperature to track the inter galactic particle temperatures. (EM field and particles remain in thermal equilibrium). Thus, the CBR does NOT, as most seem to think, support only the BB and not the Steady State model. - It fits naturally into either model requiring only a mechanism of EM to particle thermal coupling and even the same mechanism are applied to both!)

The steady state model also has the philosophical advantage of not needing a "first cause", such as a God.

James R

07-01-09, 10:13 PM

kaneda:

Explain how a singularity can inflate while sticking to acceptable science and without using fairy tale terms.

You'll need to read up on the big bang theory for yourself, I'm afraid. I can't do all the work for you.

I believe the redshift is down to a sea of gravity rather than nothing somehow expanding.

I have no idea what a "sea of gravity" is. It sounds like a term you just made up.

If the universe is expanding, it is doing so despite the attractive force (gravity) of everything in the universe. As things get further apart, so the attractive force is weaker so doesn't slow down expansion as much.

Yes, but it still slows it.

If this was true, then expansion would get ever faster till it reached a maximum speed where it is not slowed down by gravity.

No. How could the expansion get faster, with gravity always pulling it back? Even if gravity gets weaker as the distances increase, gravity remains always an attractive force.

I think a steady state universe possible but if someone could come up with firm evidence for something I else would drop the idea, since it is just an idea.

There's firm evidence for the big bang theory. Lots of it.

tsmid:

But the tape measure (and the distance markings on it) is not part of the universe either. The only tape measure that would qualify here is one that is consistently integrated into the balloon surface, and here you have two options: a) either it is an elastic tape measure that expands together with the balloon (in which case the indicated distance would not change), or b) it is a rigid structure unaffected by the balloon expansion in which case it would drop out of the universe as the latter expands.

The closest thing in the analogy would be a rigid tape measure. Just like the tape measures in our real universe, electromagnetic forces keep the tape measure from expanding with the space around it. The possibility of "dropping out of the universe" is just pushing the analogy further than it needs to go.

D H

07-01-09, 11:15 PM

thinking. The idea of science is that something is not just accepted because it looks right or because a certain set of circumstances make it seem right. Everything should always be under question.
What makes you think it isn't?

However when it comes to the BB, it is deemed infallibly right by most and not to be questioned, so it isn't.
The big bang theory, like any other significant theory in science, has some unknowns to it. It is not deemed infallible.

The biggest problem with the big bang theory is that it somehow attracts attacks filled with hatred and lies -- i.e., yours.

This, for example, is a lie:
Our galaxy is supposed to be about ten billion years old but one of the oldest stars in the universe is in our local neighbourhood, at 13.2 billion years old

Since you are most like mouthing lies from some wacko site, I'll give you some slack this time. This is a lie in many ways.

Let's take for granted that these age of the Milky Way is indeed just 10 billion years. These ages do not contradict one another. Galaxies capture stars that were not originally part of the galaxy. Galaxies even capture other galaxies.

The Milky Way is not "supposed to be about ten billion years old." It is deemed to be one of the original galaxies formed soon after the Big Bang (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_040817.html).

tsmid

07-03-09, 03:11 PM

But the tape measure (and the distance markings on it) is not part of the universe either. The only tape measure that would qualify here is one that is consistently integrated into the balloon surface, and here you have two options: a) either it is an elastic tape measure that expands together with the balloon (in which case the indicated distance would not change), or b) it is a rigid structure unaffected by the balloon expansion in which case it would drop out of the universe as the latter expands.

The closest thing in the analogy would be a rigid tape measure. Just like the tape measures in our real universe, electromagnetic forces keep the tape measure from expanding with the space around it. The possibility of "dropping out of the universe" is just pushing the analogy further than it needs to go.

If you define the distances in our universe through some rigid (non-expanding) lattice system, then the balloon analogy (assuming some rigid lattice structure initially coinciding with the balloon surface) tells you that at the slightest amount of 'space expansion' all galaxies would immediately drop out of the lattice system (i.e. out of our physical universe). So in this sense you can't really say that this argument would be pushing the analogy too far. It just shows that the analogy doesn't demonstrate what it is supposed to do (because obviously galaxies are not dropping out of our universe).

Thomas

D H

07-03-09, 04:29 PM

thinking

07-04-09, 12:54 AM

“ Originally Posted by kaneda
Our galaxy is supposed to be about ten billion years old but one of the oldest stars in the universe is in our local neighbourhood, at 13.2 billion years old ”

Let's take for granted that these age of the Milky Way is indeed just 10 billion years. These ages do not contradict one another. Galaxies capture stars that were not originally part of the galaxy. Galaxies even capture other galaxies.

oh...please

what other ad-hoc's will BB do in which to survive as a theory

The Milky Way is not "supposed to be about ten billion years old." It is deemed to be one of the original galaxies formed soon after the Big Bang.

so we are know considered the center of the Universe then ?:rolleyes:

thinking

07-04-09, 01:16 AM

the micrwave radiation can only eliminate just a few local galaxies as the source of CMBs , CMBs are a local thing , the whole of the Universe and the galaxies within it are not eliminated as a sourse of CMBs because we just don't have the technology to do so

so using CMBs as any type of support to any theory should not be used to explain the Universe as a whole, unless the theory is a very local theory and the rest of the Universe is not necessary in any said theory and this includes the BB theory

D H

07-04-09, 01:46 AM

oh...please

what other ad-hoc's will BB do in which to survive as a theory

kaneda's implied that a ten billion year age for the Milky Way is inconsistent with finding stars in the Milky Way that are considerably older than ten billion years. That argument ignores that galaxies didn't interact gravitationally. They steal stars and gas from each other. There is nothing ad hoc about these colliding galaxies:

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-45-a-large_web.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0503/ngc1532_gemini.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0606/NGC4038_4039_verschatse_c52.jpg

so we are know considered the center of the Universe then
Every point in the universe can be viewed as the center of the universe. Even better, there is no such thing as the center of the universe. Look at the balloon analogy. Where on the surface of the balloon is the center of the balloon universe?

Billy T

07-04-09, 11:20 AM

the micrwave radiation can only eliminate just a few local galaxies as the source of CMBs , CMBs are a local thing , ...complete nonsense. In any direction you look, it is coming towards Earth with such ammazing uinformatity that only recently with extremely high resoultion measusurement hasw it been possible to detect the tiny difference in intensity that looking in different directions measures. I forget how small the variation is but am sure it the strongest is only 1.00001 times more intense than the weakest.

tsmid

07-04-09, 12:15 PM

Stop with the fallacious reasoning, Thomas. In the balloon analogy, the surface of the balloon is (represents) the universe. There is no place for the galaxies to "drop out of". There is no "rigid (non-expanding) lattice system" in the balloon analogy -- and there is no rigid (non-expanding) lattice system in our universe, either.

There is no fallacious reasoning involved: ask any cosmologist, and they'll tell you that not only physical objects but also systems held together by gravity (e.g. the solar system) do not participate in the expansion of the universe (not to a significant degree at least). In the balloon analogy this would mean that a little rigid rod originally perfectly embedded in the balloon surface can not adapt its shape such as to stay perfectly embedded as the balloon expands (the radius of curvature of the latter changes, but that of the rod can't change). This means that the rod effectively would drop out of the universe.

Thomas

Ophiolite

07-04-09, 12:48 PM

You still don't understand what an analogy is. Here is a heirarchy for you to consider. It gets simpler as it goes down.

Reality.

A theory of reality expressed in mathematical terms.

An analogy that focuses on one or two key aspects of this theory in a highly simplified way to help non-experts gain some understanding of concept.

Stubborn stupidity that conflates the grossly simplified analogy with reality mainly because the proponents of this view would defecate in their underwear if presented with the mathematical expression of the theory.

It is quite clear where you have chosen to place yourself on this structure.

tsmid

07-04-09, 01:29 PM

You still don't understand what an analogy is. Here is a heirarchy for you to consider. It gets simpler as it goes down.

Reality.

A theory of reality expressed in mathematical terms.

An analogy that focuses on one or two key aspects of this theory in a highly simplified way to help non-experts gain some understanding of concept.

Stubborn stupidity that conflates the grossly simplified analogy with reality mainly because the proponents of this view would defecate in their underwear if presented with the mathematical expression of the theory.

If you haven't realized yet that the analogy exactly fails to illustrate the key aspects of the theory, then I can only ask you to think about my arguments again. Or just try to refute them if you can.

Thomas

D H

07-04-09, 01:45 PM

The balloon analogy illustrates in two spatial dimensions how a finite universe can lack a center and it illustrates in two spatial dimensions plus time the concept of expansion. These are key aspects of the theory.

Your arguments are downright ridiculous, Thomas.

Ophiolite

07-04-09, 05:16 PM

I think DH that the central problem really is that he does not understand the difference between an analogy and a mapping of reality. He does not understand that analogies are limited in their application. I've tried various hypotheses, but the only one that can consistently explain this lack on his part is that he is thick.

thinking

07-05-09, 12:01 AM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
the micrwave radiation can only eliminate just a few local galaxies as the source of CMBs , CMBs are a local thing , ... ”

complete nonsense. In any direction you look, it is coming towards Earth with such ammazing uinformatity that only recently with extremely high resoultion measusurement hasw it been possible to detect the tiny difference in intensity that looking in different directions measures. I forget how small the variation is but am sure it the strongest is only 1.00001 times more intense than the weakest.

actually there is nothing nonsensical about what said above

I know because I E-mailed NASA about 2 yrs ago about just this , about the galaxies they can eliminate as a sourse of CMBs and they E-mailed me back saying just what I said above

thinking

07-05-09, 12:08 AM

kaneda's implied that a ten billion year age for the Milky Way is inconsistent with finding stars in the Milky Way that are considerably older than ten billion years. That argument ignores that galaxies didn't interact gravitationally. They steal stars and gas from each other. There is nothing ad hoc about these colliding galaxies:

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2004-45-a-large_web.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0503/ngc1532_gemini.jpg

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0606/NGC4038_4039_verschatse_c52.jpg

Every point in the universe can be viewed as the center of the universe. Even better, there is no such thing as the center of the universe. Look at the balloon analogy. Where on the surface of the balloon is the center of the balloon universe?

still don't buy it DH

it doesn't prove that our galaxy had the same consequence of collision with another

there is nothing distorted about our galaxy form

D H

07-05-09, 01:22 AM

still don't buy it DH

it doesn't prove that our galaxy had the same consequence of collision with another

there is nothing distorted about our galaxy form

Do you understand the concept of a two-pronged argument? In the first prong I showed that kaneda's conclusion does not follow from the premises, even if the premises are correct. In the second prong I showed that one of kaneda's premises is incorrect.

Regarding "there is nothing distorted about our galaxy form": There is. The Milky Way bears evidence of having gobbled up other galaxies. The Sagitarius Dwarf Galaxy, for example.

Steven R. Majewski, M. F. Skrutskie, Martin D. Weinberg, and James C. Ostheimer, "A 2MASS All-Sky View of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy: I. Morphology of the Sagittarius Core and Tidal Arms", ApJ preprint doi:10.1086/379504 http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~mfs4n/sgr/preprint.pdf
The Sagittarius (Sgr) dwarf galaxy is a striking example of the process of satellite disruption and assimilation long presumed responsible for populating the Galactic halo (e.g., Searle & Zinn 1978).

http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2003/18/milky_way.html
“After slow, continuous gnawing by the Milky Way, Sagittarius has been whittled down to the point that it cannot hold itself together much longer,” said 2MASS Science Team member and study co-author Martin Weinberg of the University of Massachusetts. “We are seeing Sagittarius at the very end of its life as an intact system.”

Does this mean we are at a unique moment in the life of our galaxy? Yes and no.
“Whenever possible, astronomers appeal to the principle that we are not at a special time or place in the universe,” Majewski said. “Because over the 14 billion-year history of the Milky Way it is unlikely that we would just happen to catch a brief event like the death of Sagittarius, we infer that such events must be common in the life of big spiral galaxies like our own. The Milky Way probably dined on a number of dwarf galaxy snacks in the past.”

http://info.anu.edu.au/ovc/Media/Media_Releases/2008/April/20080407_keller
A stream of debris across the sky is the result of intergalactic cannibalism, researchers from The Australian National University conclude, and it is the not the first time our galaxy has had one of its neighbours for breakfast.

Astronomers from the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at ANU have identified a huge swathe of debris that has been wrenched from a neighbouring galaxy to our Milky Way. Their findings are published in the April issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Ophiolite

07-05-09, 03:14 AM

Come on DH! That's unfair. You are countering thinking's incredulity and baseless speculation with validated hypotheses by bona fide investigators who publish their results in peer reviewed journals. Couldn't you just have made a couple of unfalsifiable contentions, thrown in a few ad hominems and insulted his cat? That would have beenn the normal way to do it. You're just not catching the spirit of the place.

D H

07-05-09, 11:37 AM

Yeah, quoting published works by people working in the field is unfair. My use of logic as opposed to emotion is unfair.

thinking

07-05-09, 10:26 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
oh...please

what other ad-hoc's will BB do in which to survive as a theory ”

kaneda's implied that a ten billion year age for the Milky Way is inconsistent with finding stars in the Milky Way that are considerably older than ten billion years. That argument ignores that galaxies didn't interact gravitationally. They steal stars and gas from each other. There is nothing ad hoc about these colliding galaxies:

so then these galaxies and earlier you mentioned sagittarious as being swallowed up by the Milky Way and therefore are suggesting that the stars being swallowed is the reason then that we find stars older than our own galaxy

however since these galaxies are local , close to our own galaxy , why would sagittarious stars be any older than the stars in our own galaxy ?

D H

07-06-09, 02:12 AM

so then these galaxies and earlier you mentioned sagittarious as being swallowed up by the Milky Way and therefore are suggesting that the stars being swallowed is the reason then that we find stars older than our own galaxy

however since these galaxies are local , close to our own galaxy , why would sagittarious stars be any older than the stars in our own galaxy ?
You are continuing to ignore the second prong of my argument: The Milky Way is one of the original galaxies in the universe.

So, back to the first prong. The oldest stars in our galaxy that we have observed are in the galactic halo. HE 1523-0901 (see post #111), for example, is a halo star. Up until around 10 years ago, astronomers thought the halo stars formed with the galaxy. Per this model stars in the galactic halo will be small and have low metallicity (to an cosmologist, anything above lithium is a metal). There isn't much stuff from which to form stars far from the galactic core: Stars that form in the halo will tend to be small. Metallicity decreases with increased distance from the galactic core. Small stars live a lot longer than do larger stars. Metals help stars burn fuel. Small stars with low metallicity will live a long, long time.

In the last decade, astronomers have seen more and more evidence accumulate that indicates that many of the halo stars are of extragalactic origin. Marsakov and Borkova have gone so far as to claim that the majority "of metal-poor stellar objects in the Galaxy have an extragalactic origin." Some of the dwarf galaxies from which the Milky Way stole the halo stars are (were) of lower density and metallicity than the Milky Way. The stars in these dwarf galaxies will inherently be very old. The stars of corresponding age in the Milky Way died a violent death a long time ago.

References -- lay articles:

Kate Wong, "Milky Way's Oldest Stars May Be Galactic Intruders", Scientific American, July 2002.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=milky-ways-oldest-stars-m

Robert Roy Britt, "Puzzling Ring of Stars Discovered Circling the Milky Way", SPACE.com, January 2003.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/milkyway_ring_030106.html

Technical preprints and reprints:

T.V. Borkova, V.A. Marsakov, "Stars of extragalactic origin in the solar neighborhood", arXiv:astro-ph/0403148v1, 2004.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403148

T.V. Borkova (Rostov University), V.A. Marsakov (Rostov University)
G. S. Da Costa, "The Star Cluster Systems of the Magellanic Clouds", arXiv:astro-ph/0106122v1, 2001.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0106122v1

V.A. Marsakov, T.V. Borkova, "Stellar Objects of Extragalactic Origin in the Galactic Halo", arXiv:astro-ph/0710.4364v1, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4364
Originally published in Odessa Astronomical Publications, vol. 20 (2007) in Russian. The arXiv reprint is an admittedly rough translation from Russian by the authors.

Julio F. Navarro, Amina Helmi, Kenneth C. Freeman, "The Extragalactic Origin of the Arcturus Group", arXiv:astro-ph/0311107v2, 2003.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311107

Andres Meza, Julio F. Navarro, Mario G. Abadi, Matthias Steinmetz, "Accretion relicts in the solar neighbourhood: debris from omegaCen's parent galaxy", arXiv:astro-ph/0408567, 2005.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0408567

CapsOwn

07-06-09, 12:42 PM

Well, there really aren't any other theories that make any more sense. But think about it. Any time we can't explain something, the answer is "a rock hit it" or "it exploded for no good reason."

AlphaNumeric

07-06-09, 01:56 PM

Explain how a singularity can inflate while sticking to acceptable science and without using fairy tale terms.Except that noone thinks the BB involved a literal singularity as GR says, as GR is only an effective theory, it breaks down over short distances and high energies. The BB theory says the universe was very small and very hot in a finite amount of time in the past and using that premise we find that if we start off with a small, but non-zero, size universe we can wind time forwards using current models and we find it explains the universe we see in observations. But that 'start off' isn't at the proverbial t=0 but some small amount of time after 'the big bang' itself. Earlier than about 10^{-9} seconds and we can't say too much. Plenty of people, including Hawking, have considered the universe expanding from something which isn't a singularity, allowing for GR to remain a little more appropriate as a description. Hawking has considered such things as a previous universe collapsing in towards a small region but not going singular and then reexpanding. That's consistent with a big bang model but hasn't got a singularity in it. Infact, when you dig deep enough (ie actually go beyond Wikipedia and pop science books) you find very few, if any, physicists consider the notion of a singularity (in black holes or the BB) to be simply an artifact of our lack of a quantum theory of gravity.

So all you're doing, Kaneda, is making a bunch of ill thought out strawmen. As usual.

Euler is a friend of AlphaNumeric who also tried the "I'm smarter than you are" gambit, while being unable to answer even simple questions. His field was maths (hence the alias) and he seemed lost outside of it.Euler moped te flaw with you. You have a very revisionist memory. How many times did you claim you schooled Rpenner and myself on how black hole surface gravity behaves when you were wrong and have since (though it took a long time) done a U turn and now don't make the same mistake?

I believe the redshift is down to a sea of gravity rather than nothing somehow expanding.'Nothing'? Weasel words are hardly a good line of logic.

If the universe is expanding, it is doing so despite the attractive force (gravity) of everything in the universe. As things get further apart, so the attractive force is weaker so doesn't slow down expansion as much. If this was true, then expansion would get ever faster till it reached a maximum speed where it is not slowed down by gravity.
No, it would do something akin to objects above escape velocity.

Our galaxy is supposed to be about ten billion years old but one of the oldest stars in the universe is in our local neighbourhood, at 13.2 billion years old:er faster till it reached a maximum speed where it is not slowed down by gravity.
There are components older than the structures they form? That's hardly evidence against the BB.

Personal attack removed. Keep the discussion civil, please.

thinking

07-06-09, 08:57 PM

DH

can all thats being discovered about our galaxy be transferred to other galaxies ?

if not why not ?

thinking

07-06-09, 09:57 PM

DH

can all thats being discovered about our galaxy be transferred to other galaxies ?

if not why not ?

I would think so

D H

07-06-09, 09:58 PM

DH

can all thats being discovered about our galaxy be transferred to other galaxies ?

if not why not ?
I have never beaten my wife.

Stop asking sophomoric trick questions and I'll give you a straight answer.

I would think not since we don't have the technology to think otherwise
Oh, so that's what you're up to: Ask a silly question, get a silly answer. Even sillier is holding a silly conversation with yourself.

thinking

07-06-09, 10:07 PM

I have never beaten my wife.

Stop asking sophomoric trick questions and I'll give you a straight answer.

its not trick question , its about , if we can think and give evidence to the way the Milky Way is with sagittarius , then why not any other similar galactic situations

are there simular situations as there are between the Milky Way and sagittarius in the Universe ?

D H

07-06-09, 10:39 PM

its not trick question , its about , if we can think and give evidence to the way the Milky Way is with sagittarius , then why not any other similar galactic situations

are there simular situations as there are between the Milky Way and sagittarius in the Universe ?
Yes. The first article cited below discusses evidence that some of M31's globular clusters are remnants of past galactic cannibalism events. The latter article looks even further away and finds signs of an entire class of dwarf galaxies that have been torn apart by some larger galaxy.

K. M. Perrett, D. A. Stiff, D. A. Hanes, T. J. Bridges, "Substructure in the Andromeda Galaxy Globular Cluster System", The Astrophysical Journal, 589:790-797, 2003
Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302531

M. J. Drinkwater et al, "A class of compact dwarf galaxies from disruptive processes in galaxy clusters", Nature 423, 519-521 (29 May 2003)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/full/nature01666.html

thinking

07-06-09, 10:59 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
its not trick question , its about , if we can think and give evidence to the way the Milky Way is with sagittarius , then why not any other similar galactic situations

are there simular situations as there are between the Milky Way and sagittarius in the Universe ?

Yes. The first article cited below discusses evidence that some of M31's globular clusters are remnants of past galactic cannibalism events. The latter article looks even further away and finds signs of an entire class of dwarf galaxies that have been torn apart by some larger galaxy.

K. M. Perrett, D. A. Stiff, D. A. Hanes, T. J. Bridges, "Substructure in the Andromeda Galaxy Globular Cluster System", The Astrophysical Journal, 589:790-797, 2003
Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302531

M. J. Drinkwater et al, "A class of compact dwarf galaxies from disruptive processes in galaxy clusters", Nature 423, 519-521 (29 May 2003)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/full/nature01666.html

okay , so why though would we make the Milky Way the center of the Universe if the relationship between a larger galaxy and a dwarf galaxy is common throughout the Universe ?

D H

07-06-09, 11:29 PM

One last time, the universe has no center (alternatively, every point can be viewed as the center of the universe).

Stop with the straw man arguments.

thinking

07-08-09, 01:02 PM

thinking

07-08-09, 03:04 PM

my post #144 is open to anyone that can tell me how the big-bang theory is supported by the findings of the galactic relationship between the Milky-Way and sagittarious

thinking

07-08-09, 03:42 PM

no thoughts yet , hmmm...

its kind of ironic that the research of the Milky-Way - sagittarius galactic relationship is actually proving that the big-bang theory is quite wrong

and that a steady-state and Cosmic-Plasma Universe could make more sense

spidergoat

07-08-09, 04:06 PM

Why

D H

07-08-09, 04:42 PM

DH

perhaps I've missed it , but how does the showing the relationship between sagittarius and the Milky Way and the older stars ( which if I remeber right is at least 10 billion yrs old ) which are caputured by the Milky Way give any support to the big-bang theory ?

since we are use to thinking that the further away you observe into the Universe the older it is , 15 billon yrs

no thoughts yet , hmmm...

its kind of ironic that the research of the Milky-Way - sagittarius galactic relationship is actually proving that the big-bang theory is quite wrong

and that a steady-state and Cosmic-Plasma Universe could make more sense

You are verging on trolling, thinking.

The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111. You've given up on defending that false claim and are now raising another.

We are not seeing 14 billion years into the past in the Milky Way. We are seeing signs that stars as old as 14 billion years exist within the Milky Way. You're argument (to the extent that you have an argument) is a straw man.

thinking

07-08-09, 05:34 PM

[QUOTE=D H;2303987]You are verging on trolling, thinking.

trolling I think not

The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111. You've given up on defending that false claim and are now raising another.

of course I've given up , you have given me the facts and I took them into account

now these facts lead to thinking upon

hence new questions

We are not seeing 14 billion years into the past in the Milky Way.

thats not what I meant to imply

We are seeing signs that stars as old as 14 billion years exist within the Milky Way.

this is what I mentioned , only I said 10 billion

hence the question of how does this new knowledge support big-bang theory ?

You're argument (to the extent that you have an argument) is a straw man.

yet you don't address the question of how the big-bang is supported by this new knowledge gained

so rather than attacking me and saying I'm a troll which is nonsense

get on with answering the question I proposed ,' how does this new knowledge gained from the study of the relationship between the Milky-Way and sagittarius support the big-bang theory? ', please

thinking

thinking

07-08-09, 07:01 PM

seems that the big-bang theory no longer makes sense

D H

07-08-09, 09:43 PM

this is what I mentioned , only I said 10 billion

hence the question of how does this new knowledge support big-bang theory ?
One more time, since you didn't read it the first time around. The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111.

Does this information support the big bang theory? Indirectly, yes. The ages of these very old second generation star are consistent with the age of the universe as a whole and are consistent with models of star formation based on the big bang theory. This information of course does not show that the universe is expanding; gravitation overwhelms the Hubble expansion at galactic scales or less.

AlphaNumeric

07-09-09, 04:39 AM

no thoughts yet , hmmm...One general rule which most people manage to learn pretty quick on forums is that simply waiting an hour for a reply and then going "Hmm, noone has replied, come on!" isn't the way to go about discussing things. Yes, sometimes discussions will flow quickly with posts every few minutes but other times they will fall into a lull, as people's timezones hit lunch or nighttime or people just have things to do. The fact noone with an answer to your question posted in the thread for 2 hours doesn't back up your claims, it just makes you appear impatient.

seems that the big-bang theory no longer makes senseYou have not unearthed some amazing revelation about the BBT, you are just constructing strawmen or ignoring evidence.

And even if the BBT were wrong, why would a plasma cosmology theory be superior? Plasma cosmology thinks that mainstream cosmology is wrong in a different way, that electromagnetics, not gravity, are the dominating effects in the universe. The BBT and plasma cosmology are not competing, they can be compatible.

thinking

07-09-09, 09:14 PM

One more time, since you didn't read it the first time around. The reason for the discussion on the relation between the Milky Way and the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy was to counter a false claim made in post #111.

and now wev'e gone beyond post #111

to other new questions

there is something wrong with this ?

Does this information support the big bang theory? Indirectly, yes. The ages of these very old second generation star are consistent with the age of the universe as a whole and are consistent with models of star formation based on the big bang theory.

but not being so close to us , our galaxy

these very old stars were suppose to be at a much further distance from us

but here we find them right on our door step , not what the big-bang theory predicted

This information of course does not show that the universe is expanding; gravitation overwhelms the Hubble expansion at galactic scales or less.

but the Universe is suppose to be expanding though

according to mainstream theory

thinking

07-09-09, 09:30 PM

One general rule which most people manage to learn pretty quick on forums is that simply waiting an hour for a reply and then going "Hmm, noone has replied, come on!" isn't the way to go about discussing things. Yes, sometimes discussions will flow quickly with posts every few minutes but other times they will fall into a lull, as people's timezones hit lunch or nighttime or people just have things to do. The fact noone with an answer to your question posted in the thread for 2 hours doesn't back up your claims, it just makes you appear impatient.

it may seem as though I'm impatient

but at the same time what was brought forward was to show that BB was a solid theory

but the slowness of a response to the question of how this supports BB was telling ( and it was much more than 2 hours )

since one would think that the question should already been asked by yourselves , at least I would have thought so

You have not unearthed some amazing revelation about the BBT, you are just constructing strawmen or ignoring evidence.

I disagree

I looked at the evidence and saw an implication of the evidence

[QUOTE]And even if the BBT were wrong, why would a plasma cosmology theory be superior? Plasma cosmology thinks that mainstream cosmology is wrong in a different way, that electromagnetics, not gravity, are the dominating effects in the universe.

its not about being superior persay but it is about being a more complete theory

a melding of theories

The BBT and plasma cosmology are not competing, they can be compatible.

perhaps they can

we shall see , if we have the will to see the truth

D H

07-09-09, 09:43 PM

but not being so close to us , our galaxy

these very old stars were suppose to be at a much further distance from us

but here we find them right on our door step , not what the big-bang theory predicted
The big bang theory predicts we will find old stars very far away -- as well as right next door. You seem to be stuck on the idea that the universe has a center. It doesn't.

but the Universe is suppose to be expanding though

according to mainstream theory
Reread post #105.

thinking

07-09-09, 10:09 PM

The big bang theory predicts we will find old stars very far away -- as well as right next door. You seem to be stuck on the idea that the universe has a center. It doesn't.

Reread post #105.

“ Originally Posted by thinking
to you it does

what does that tell you ? ”

It tells me you are trying not to live up to your user name. You are not thinking.

The expansion of space at short intervals (short meaning galactic scale) is small compared to the gravitational attraction due to the local concentration of matter.

perhaps but the mainstream theory doesn't see this way

Another analogy: Since gravity pulls you toward the center of the Earth, why doesn't gravity pull you through the floor? The answer is because the electrons in the atoms at the surface of your feet and the surface of the floor repel one another. Because matter is electrically neutral, this repulsive force drops off much, much quicker than does the Coulomb inverse square law. Jump off the floor by even a few millimeters off the floor and this repulsive force becomes vanishingly small until you land from your jump. Gravity and this repulsive force follow different power laws.

or that there is the spin of Earth to consider

The same goes for gravity and the expansion of space. They follow different power laws. The metric expansion of space can be viewed as having the effect of a repulsive force that is proportional to the distance between objects. Gravity on the other hand is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between objects. At close distances, the gravitational force dominates over the expansion of space. At larger distances, the gravitational force between objects becomes vanishingly small while the expansion of space, viewed as a force, becomes very, very large.

okay

but I don't follow , how does this explain that a galactic object , locally , is as old as the further reaches of space galaxies ?

D H

07-09-09, 10:57 PM

The expansion of space at short intervals (short meaning galactic scale) is small compared to the gravitational attraction due to the local concentration of matter.perhaps but the mainstream theory doesn't see this way
No, you are the one that don't see it this way. That is exactly what the mainstream theory (i.e., big bang) says.

but I don't follow , how does this explain that a galactic object , locally , is as old as the further reaches of space galaxies
I don't understand what your objection is. I think it is somehow connected to your perception that the universe has a center. Perhaps your misconception can be cleared up if you tell why you think seeing old stars right here in the Milky Way somehow contradicts the big bang theory.

thinking

07-09-09, 11:08 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking

“ Originally Posted by D H
The expansion of space at short intervals (short meaning galactic scale) is small compared to the gravitational attraction due to the local concentration of matter.perhaps but the mainstream theory doesn't see this way ”
”

No, you are the one that don't see it this way. That is exactly what the mainstream theory (i.e., big bang) says.

you said this not me , in the first quote

D H

07-09-09, 11:13 PM

you said this not me , in the first quote
I put a close quote in the wrong place. Fixed.

thinking

07-09-09, 11:15 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
but I don't follow , how does this explain that a galactic object , locally , is as old as the further reaches of space galaxies ”

I don't understand what your objection is. I think it is somehow connected to your perception that the universe has a center.

you keep focusing on this center thing , I don't

Perhaps your misconception can be cleared up if you tell why you think seeing old stars right here in the Milky Way somehow contradicts the big bang theory.

because they aren't suppose to be there are they ?

there is nothing in the big-bang theory that suggests that , stars as almost as old as the Universe its self should be found locally , in our galaxy

Billy T

07-09-09, 11:31 PM

... there is nothing in the big-bang theory that suggests that , stars as almost as old as the Universe its self should be found locally , in our galaxyIt is clear you do not have a clue of understanding what DH and other have repeatedly explained to you, so I will be blut:

Yes the old stars are from the early stages of the universe and formed at and near the center of the universe. That center happens to be also in our local galaxy and in the most distant from Earth galaxy known; even exactly where the earth is now, yet you protest you are not concerned about the center.

What is your basis for thinking they should not be in and near our galaxy if not that you do not think our galaxy is at the center of the universe?

thinking

07-09-09, 11:46 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
... there is nothing in the big-bang theory that suggests that , stars as almost as old as the Universe its self should be found locally , in our galaxy

It is clear you do not have a clue of understanding what DH and other have repeatedly explained to you, so I will be blut:

[QUOTE]Yes the old stars are from the early stages of the universe and formed at and near the center of the universe.

I see

That center happens to be also in our local galaxy and in the most distant from Earth galaxy known; even exactly where the earth is now, yet you protest you are not concerned about the center.

decode this statement will you

What is your basis for thinking they should not be in and near our galaxy if not that you do not think our galaxy is at the center of the universe?

why would not any thinking being think that they are at the center of the Universe as well ?

to add UT wanted to get off this " center of the Universe thinking " any way

D H

07-09-09, 11:49 PM

there is nothing in the big-bang theory that suggests that , stars as almost as old as the Universe its self should be found locally , in our galaxy
First off, there is nothing to preclude it. Secondly, yes, there is.

We see old stars in the Milky Way because the Milky Way was apparently among the many ("billions and billions") galaxies that formed shortly after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form. We see old stars in galaxies far, far away because those galaxies were also among the billions and billions of galaxies that formed soon after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form.

There is no contradiction here. What makes you think there is?

thinking

07-10-09, 12:07 AM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
... there is nothing in the big-bang theory that suggests that , stars as almost as old as the Universe its self should be found locally , in our galaxy

First off, there is nothing to preclude it. Secondly, yes, there is.

We see old stars in the Milky Way because the Milky Way was apparently among the many ("billions and billions") galaxies that formed shortly after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form. We see old stars in galaxies far, far away because those galaxies were also among the billions and billions of galaxies that formed soon after the universe had cooled to the point that galaxies could form.

There is no contradiction here. What makes you think there is?

because it wasn't predicted in the BB theory that old stars would be in our galaxy

and when they are discovered it is a revelation rather than an expected discovery

and then the implications are this ;

there was never a " big-bang " in the first place since the further out we observe into the Universe the more the same it is , as it is locally

D H

07-10-09, 12:23 AM

because it wasn't predicted in the BB theory that old stars would be in our galaxy
So what?

The big bang theory did not predict that I would be stuck in meetings for 7+ hours yesterday. Nor did it predict that, miracles of miracles, the final company that came by this morning to give a bid on foundation repairs to my house said I didn't really need to do any foundation repairs at all (previous bids: $7,000, $15,000, and $16,000). That it failed to predict either does not in any way falsify the big bang.

You do not understand how science works.

What would falsify the big bang would be for it to make a prediction of something we should see if the theory is correct, but then we see something completely different. In other words, the only way seeing old, old stars in our own galaxy would falsify the big bang theory is if the big bang theory says that we should not see such stars in our galaxy.

The big bang theory says nothing of the sort.

thinking

07-10-09, 12:53 AM

So what?

[QUOTE]The big bang theory did not predict that I would be stuck in meetings for 7+ hours yesterday. Nor did it predict that, miracles of miracles, the final company that came by this morning to give a bid on foundation repairs to my house said I didn't really need to do any foundation repairs at all (previous bids: $7,000, $15,000, and $16,000). That it failed to predict either does not in any way falsify the big bang.

I see your point , but a poor point

irrelevant

You do not understand how science works.

yes actually I do

What would falsify the big bang would be for it to make a prediction of something we should see if the theory is correct, but then we see something completely different. In other words, the only way seeing old, old stars in our own galaxy would falsify the big bang theory is if the big bang theory says that we should not see such stars in our galaxy.

and BB does say just that

does BB not say that the further one observes into the Universe the older the galaxies and stars should be ?

yes it does

The big bang theory says nothing of the sort.

of course not because the theory expected every galactic body to be older the further out one observes

now all of a sudden we find that throughout the Universe all observations have no significance as far as distance goes

and that contradicts BB , which fundamentally says that the further you observe out into the Universe the older the galaxies and therefore stars are

that puts BB into question in my mind

if the Universe is generally homogeneous in its age , then there is no point of expansion , meaning that , if the Universe was brought to a single point , no matter the size , then there is no point within that single point which is older or younger than any other point

which is not possible

the closer you get to the center of the point , the younger the matter is , as compared to the outer point

D H

07-10-09, 04:20 AM

and BB does say just that

does BB not say that the further one observes into the Universe the older the galaxies and stars should be ?

yes it does
No, it does not. It says just the opposite.

The finite speed of light, not the big bang theory, says that the further one observes into the universe the further back in time we are seeing. The big bang theory says that we should only be seeing very young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters of galaxies if we look far enough afield.

Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.

Billy T

07-10-09, 08:55 AM

because it wasn't predicted in the BB theory that old stars would be in our galaxy...I doubt that is even true, but even if it were, it is irrelivant. Theories do evolve.

For most of man's intellectual history, most who though at all about it thought the "naked eye" planets were stuck on moving chrystal spheres, that were centered on Earth. (Chrystal so you could see thru them to the more distant fixed sphere of stars.) This was the "Celestial Sphere" theory and the term in quotes has not yet completely disapeared from languages.

The way you "think" we should reject planets in orbits as that was not part of the prior version explainations / theory.

Again, for people who can think (you are obviously excluded): Theories do change; However, I again note that from the very begining of the BB theory, it was recognized that any and all points in the universe have equal claim to being the center - that is why there is no center. That is why old stars are found in every part of the universe. I.e. No matter where you are in the universe it looks the same in all direction. There is no galaxy or even an isolated star which is just at the "edge of the universe."

There is no center & there is no edge. - A concept to difficult for you?

thinking

07-11-09, 10:50 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
and BB does say just that

does BB not say that the further one observes into the Universe the older the galaxies and stars should be ?

yes it does

No, it does not. It says just the opposite.

The finite speed of light, not the big bang theory, says that the further one observes into the universe the further back in time we are seeing. The big bang theory says that we should only be seeing very young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters of galaxies if we look far enough afield.

yet it is the finite speed of light that is suppose to give support to the big-bang

so your saying now the this is not true ?

so is it that my questions have forced you to rethink the big-bang theory?

really

tell me where in the big-bang theory it says that the further afield we observe , young cluster of galaxies , young galaxies , and very young stars ?

Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.[/QUOTE]

Billy T

07-11-09, 10:53 PM

yet it is the finite speed of light that is suppose to give support to the big-bang...You just make this stuff up as we alone, right?

thinking

07-11-09, 10:57 PM

Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.

it is though the young stars , young galaxies and young clusters that is far more of a problem for BB than anything else

when we look at the deepest extent of observation capacities

how does BB account for these revelations then ?

Oli

07-11-09, 11:09 PM

it is though the young stars , young galaxies and young clusters that is far more of a problem for BB than anything else
No they aren't.
Re-read DH's post:

Supposed we looked 10 billion years away and saw an old star such as a low mass red giant, an old galaxy such as a spiral galaxy replete with third generation stars in the spiral arms, or a mature galactic cluster. That would be a big problem for the big bang theory. So far, that is not what we see. We see young stars, young galaxies, and young clusters.

BB says we should have young stars, and that's what we see.

thinking

07-11-09, 11:31 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
it is though the young stars , young galaxies and young clusters that is far more of a problem for BB than anything else

No they aren't.
Re-read DH's post:

not convinced

show where in the BB theory that this is true

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars

BB says we should have young stars, and that's what we see.

above

James R

07-11-09, 11:41 PM

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars

That's what we do see. What are you talking about?

thinking

07-11-09, 11:50 PM

That's what we do see. What are you talking about?

show where in the BB theory that this is true

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars

I ask again , again and again

no answer

James R

07-12-09, 02:39 AM

Ophiolite

07-12-09, 05:17 AM

Thinking,
to put James's remarks in other words. When we see a distant galaxy we see it as was billions of years ago, not as it is today. Today it will be an old galaxy, but that light will take more billions of years to reach us. So everything that is distant is necessarily seen as it was when it was young.

(It does seem as if you have never grasped this simple, but fundamental concept. If this is true, you really should ask yourself by what right you contest current theory.)

D H

07-12-09, 08:55 AM

yet it is the finite speed of light that is suppose to give support to the big-bang
Where did you get this idea? The finite speed of light is a fact and is independent of the big bang theory. Any theory of cosmology has to be consistent with this fact. If this were not the case, the well-observed finite speed of light would immediately falsify the theory.

Just because a theory of cosmology is consistent with the fact that light travels at a finite speed does not mean that the finite speed of light lends credence to that theory. That is a logical fallacy.

Where the finite speed of light does come into play is that the finite speed of light means that astronomers are looking further and further into the past as they look at increasingly distant objects. Different theories say different things about what the universe looked like in the past as opposed to what it looks like now. The steady state theory says correlations between structure and distance (age) shouldn't exist. The big bang theory says they should -- and that is exactly what is observed.

Billy T

07-12-09, 09:34 AM

Where did you get this idea? The finite speed of light is a fact and is independent of the big bang theory. ...As I said in post 170, he just makes things up as we go along. :mad:

“Thinking” either can’t think or does not want to learn if just ignorant.

I think the “Don’t wrestle with a pig” rule applies – all get dirty and it enjoys it.

thinking

07-13-09, 04:58 PM

Since the speed of light is constant, it takes longer for light from things that are far away to reach us than from things that are close. It follows that light from far away is also from older objects. In other words, when we look at light at the furthest distance of observation we see the oldest observable things. Those things will be things that had existed for a shorter time after the big bang - i.e. young galaxies and stars.

Does that make sense to you?

yes and no

since

that at the furthest distance of observation , we should expect to see young galactic clusters , galaxies and stars and we do today

doesn't this suggest something else is going on ?

I mean there aren't suppose to be young , galactic clusters , galaxies and stars the further afield we go , just remnants of what was once young

Oli

07-13-09, 05:05 PM

doesn't this suggest something else is going on ?
It does.
It suggests you haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.

I mean there aren't suppose to be young , galactic clusters , galaxies and stars the further afield we go , just remnants of what was once young
No, the further you look the further "back in time" you're seeing: therefore the furthest away ones are being seen as they were just after formation.
Remnants don't come into it.

thinking

07-13-09, 05:08 PM

It does.
It suggests you haven't got a clue as to what you're talking about.

No, the further you look the further "back in time" you're seeing: therefore the furthest away ones are being seen as they were just after formation.
Remnants don't come into it.

so you disagree then that new galactic clusters , galaxies and stars are not being observed the further afield we look

Oli

07-13-09, 05:17 PM

so you disagree then that new galactic clusters , galaxies and stars are not being observed the further afield we look

The further afield we look the newer they appear to be.
Because we're seeing them at an earlier time in their formation sequence.

thinking

07-13-09, 05:45 PM

The further afield we look the newer they appear to be.
Because we're seeing them at an earlier time in their formation sequence.

I get that

but apparently it has been observered much further afield that there are new galaxy clusters , galaxies and stars being made , further afield

which suggests something else is going on

Oli

07-13-09, 06:03 PM

I get that
but apparently it has been observered much further afield that there are new galaxy clusters , galaxies and stars being made , further afield
which suggests something else is going on
No, you obviously don't get it.
The ones that "are being made" were made millions and billions of years ago.
They aren't new any more, it's simply that the light from their formation is only just arriving.
They could all be dead and cold by now.

If there truly are any new ones in the process of creation then we won't know for a very very long time: we have to wait for the light that's there NOW to reach us.

thinking

07-13-09, 06:35 PM

No, you obviously don't get it.
The ones that "are being made" were made millions and billions of years ago.
They aren't new any more, it's simply that the light from their formation is only just arriving.
They could all be dead and cold by now.

If there truly are any new ones in the process of creation then we won't know for a very very long time: we have to wait for the light that's there NOW to reach us.

so nothing NEW is being made in the further reaches of the observable Universe

with respect to galactic clusters , galaxies and stars then ?

Oli

07-13-09, 06:39 PM

so nothing NEW is being made in the further reaches of the observable Universe
with respect to galactic clusters , galaxies and stars then ?
We don't know, there's no way of telling.
There could be theories that say it should be happening (I don't know if there are or not), but we can't verify by observation.

thinking

07-13-09, 06:48 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
so nothing NEW is being made in the further reaches of the observable Universe
with respect to galactic clusters , galaxies and stars then ?

We don't know, there's no way of telling.
There could be theories that say it should be happening (I don't know if there are or not), but we can't verify by observation.

okay

just wanted to make sure we're on the same page here

thinking

07-13-09, 07:52 PM

lets go back to post # 100 to 105

where we discuss that the Universe started out as light and particles

and the coalescing of these particles

are any of you willing to do so ?

Billy T

07-13-09, 09:24 PM

lets go back to post # 100 to 105

where we discuss that the Universe started out as light and particles

... I did not go back but recall telling you that the universe statred out as only energy, then energy and a "soup of quarks" Finally later came "particles" like electrons and protons.

thinking

07-15-09, 04:19 PM

“ Originally Posted by thinking
lets go back to post # 100 to 105

where we discuss that the Universe started out as light and particles

I did not go back but recall telling you that the universe statred out as only energy, then energy and a "soup of quarks" Finally later came "particles" like electrons and protons.

but isn't light that came first ?

thinking

07-15-09, 04:32 PM

inotherwords does quarks , protons and electrons produce light with there formation ?

Billy T

07-15-09, 05:10 PM

but isn't light that came first ?In the Bibical version, I think that is correct, but light is a very small part of the EM specturm.

Prior to the quarks being formed from the energy only universe, I think it would be more correct to say (if you need to give a name to the "energy") call it mainly "very harsh gamma rays," not light. (I am not well versed in this field -for all I know, perhaps the "energy" was in some "distortion of space" form also, but do not understand that as the big bang pushing on already existing space. The big bang was making space. It did not exist prior to the BB. You can not put any of this into words that you can understand, any more that the writers of the Bible could understand. - It is in the math, which few can understand.)

thinking

07-15-09, 05:34 PM

In the Bibical version, I think that is correct, but light is a very small part of the EM specturm.

Prior to the quarks being formed from the energy only universe, I think it would be more correct to say (if you need to give a name to the "energy") call it mainly "very harsh gamma rays," not light. (I am not well versed in this field -for all I know, perhaps the "energy" was in some "distortion of space" form also, but do not understand that as the big bang pushing on already existing space. The big bang was making space. It did not exist prior to the BB. You can not put any of this into words that you can understand, any more that the writers of the Bible could understand. - It is in the math, which few can understand.)

I see

but I see space as a consequence of energy/particles and energy/particles as a consequence of space

inotherwords

both space and energy/particles exist at the sametime and at the same moment

both are in harmony with each other , a symbiotic realtionship , so to speak

thinking

07-15-09, 06:23 PM

whats interesting if light came first out of the big-bang

is that the electromagnetics came first

kaneda

07-17-09, 08:29 AM

DH. Post 121. Late again! Sure galaxies collide and it makes a right mess of them too. Our spiral galaxy looks fine. The Andromeda galaxy which is two million light years away will collide with us in several billion years. Where do you think the galaxy that put that star there is now? Surely still in our local group over such a relatively short time? I believe the star concerned is some 20,000 light years from the rim of our galaxy so not exactly picked up in passing.

kaneda

07-17-09, 08:42 AM

[QUOTE]You'll need to read up on the big bang theory for yourself, I'm afraid. I can't do all the work for you.

When do the answers start?

I have no idea what a "sea of gravity" is. It sounds like a term you just made up.

Yep! Like photons, gravity does not suddenly vanish at X distance from an object. What it does seem to do is become mixed so non-directional below a certain value. We can detect single photons but have no method for detecting single "units" of gravity on the same scale, so it's like detecting where waves come from in a stormy sea. We can only detect the tsunamis in mid-ocean.

Yes, but it still slows it.

But not really a need for dark energy as the universe would automatically expand faster as it got bigger.

No. How could the expansion get faster, with gravity always pulling it back? Even if gravity gets weaker as the distances increase, gravity remains always an attractive force.

Gravity is pulling over ever greater distances, so weaker. It is also hampered by light speed.

There's firm evidence for the big bang theory. Lots of it.

There are set interpretations of certain evidence. There is strong evidence against the BB too which is usually blatantly ignored and pooh-poohed.

kaneda

07-17-09, 09:17 AM

What makes you think it isn't?

Research money is often hard to come by and who is going to pay to check on what is mostly accepted as true?

The big bang theory, like any other significant theory in science, has some unknowns to it. It is not deemed infallible.

That's like a creationist saying God made the universe. We're not quite sure how he did it but we believe it is true.

The biggest problem with the big bang theory is that it somehow attracts attacks filled with hatred and lies -- i.e., yours.

Hatred, as in what follows from you?

This, for example, is a lie:

Since you are most like mouthing lies from some wacko site, I'll give you some slack this time. This is a lie in many ways.

Let's take for granted that these age of the Milky Way is indeed just 10 billion years. These ages do not contradict one another. Galaxies capture stars that were not originally part of the galaxy. Galaxies even capture other galaxies.

The Milky Way is not "supposed to be about ten billion years old." It is deemed to be one of the original galaxies formed soon after the Big Bang (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_040817.html).

I do not use "wacko sites" but do my own thinking. You on the other hand seem to have some difficulty with the concept of "own thinking". Any child can quote the accepted science from endless sources.

Our galaxy is "deemed" to be one of the earliest galaxies? Did someone wake up one day and decide this? It sounds like it. You have an area with lots of free hydrogen about. A supernova goes off nearby and stars form. Now, lets see. What would their make-up be if they formed in an area of mostly hydrogen? They still haven't learned their lesson from the type 1A supernovae fiasco in fitting all stars into straight-jackets.

The average age of stars in our galaxy is 6.5 billion years old:

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=93

This is considering that the rim has lots of much older stars. Where are the wealth of black holes from dead stars? The oldest galaxies are dwarves which sometimes unite to form large galaxies.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=astronomers-strain-to-glimpse-oldest-galaxies-yet

I can understand a globular cluster forming that way, so a bit of a mess but how would several dwarf galaxies turn into a perfect spiral galaxy?

I have gone into your casual fallacy about our galaxy picking up stars elsewhere.

kaneda

07-17-09, 09:22 AM

Stop with the fallacious reasoning, Thomas. In the balloon analogy, the surface of the balloon is (represents) the universe. There is no place for the galaxies to "drop out of". There is no "rigid (non-expanding) lattice system" in the balloon analogy -- and there is no rigid (non-expanding) lattice system in our universe, either.

The balloon analogy is nonsense. It requires a four physical dimension expansion which is fairy tales. The sultana pudding analogy means that with enough information and enough computing power, we could trace back to the origin place of the BB. Except long before that point, we get to where density would be beyond where a black hole would form so showing the BB up for the idiot idea it is.

D H

07-17-09, 10:18 AM

Where do you think the galaxy that put that star there is now? Surely still in our local group over such a relatively short time? I believe the star concerned is some 20,000 light years from the rim of our galaxy so not exactly picked up in passing.
I gave several examples of satellite galaxies being gobbled up by their parent galaxy. Now what makes you think the star was captured a relatively short time ago? The star is 13.2 billion years old. If it was captured a long time ago, the galaxy in which the star formed in might well have been completely disrupted.

There is strong evidence against the BB too which is usually blatantly ignored and pooh-poohed.
Name some. The purported evidence against the big bang is for the most part crackpot garbage: pooh-pooh. Dark matter and dark energy are a bit problematic, and many cosmologists are trying to find alternatives that either explain these phenomena or do not require them. Note well: These alternatives are refinements to the big bang, not wholesale replacements.

Research money is often hard to come by and who is going to pay to check on what is mostly accepted as true?
The cry of the crackpot.

Our galaxy is "deemed" to be one of the earliest galaxies? Did someone wake up one day and decide this? It sounds like it. You have an area with lots of free hydrogen about. A supernova goes off nearby and stars form. Now, lets see. What would their make-up be if they formed in an area of mostly hydrogen? They still haven't learned their lesson from the type 1A supernovae fiasco in fitting all stars into straight-jackets.
This is pretty much nonsense. What is this type 1A supernova fiasco to which you are referring? What exactly are you trying to say here?

The average age of stars in our galaxy is 6.5 billion years old
This has nothing to do with the age of the galaxy other than setting a lower bound on that age.

The rest of your post comprises random, unconnected thoughts. Try sticking to one topic for once.

kaneda

07-17-09, 10:37 AM

The biggest problem with the big bang theory is that it somehow attracts attacks filled with hatred and lies -- i.e., yours.

This, for example, is a lie:

Since you are most like mouthing lies from some wacko site, I'll give you some slack this time.

The person who attacked me like this has given me a warning on courtesy because I called his balloon analogy "nonsense".

In the previous post to this, he says my writings are "the cry of a crackpot", that I write nonsense, and that much of my post is random unconnected thoughts. It is all there for all to see.

DH. Why don't you just admit that you have no answers so abuse your authority by trying to censor people who show you wrong?

D H

07-17-09, 10:45 AM

kaneda

07-17-09, 10:56 AM

I gave several examples of satellite galaxies being gobbled up by their parent galaxy. Now what makes you think the star was captured a relatively short time ago? The star is 13.2 billion years old. If it was captured a long time ago, the galaxy in which the star formed in might well have been completely disrupted.

You say our galaxy is old enough to have such stars and you say our galaxy may have caught such a star. Make up your mind. Old stars are normally in the rim and not half way in to the centre. While a small galaxy may have disrupted, there would surely be some "damage" to our galaxy and not one but a fair number of such stars in the area.

Name some. The purported evidence against the big bang is for the most part crackpot garbage: pooh-pooh. Dark matter and dark energy are a bit problematic, and many cosmologists are trying to find alternatives that either explain these phenomena or do not require them. Note well: These alternatives are refinements to the big bang, not wholesale replacements.

Some first second problems. Where did the singularity come from? Why a singularity? Singularities if they exist (and there is no evidence. Even Hawking gave up on them) would be ultimately stable. Then we have unproven inflation, solely to explain away the homogeneity of the CMB. At around 10^32 second we have matter appear and so gravity at which point that would be the end of the universe since there can be no more inflation. Then inflation slows down to expansion somehow.

The cry of the crackpot.

Are you going to give yourself a warning for being discourteous so many times to me in just a few posts?

This is pretty much nonsense. What is this type 1A supernova fiasco to which you are referring? What exactly are you trying to say here?

A dwarf star rotates a bit faster, it can hold twice as much material before going supernova (old news), so making a larger explosion, so appearing much nearer. Hardly a standard candle. Rotating slower would have the opposite effect. Supernovae in gas and dust areas can appear far brighter or duller. The make-up of the material taken from another star can affect the brightness of the explosion, etc. Many possible factors involved.

This has nothing to do with the age of the galaxy other than setting a lower bound on that age.

We have a very old rim, an increasingly young inner circle and a supermassive black hole at the centre. I think we need to understand galaxy formation before we can set a definite age. However in the very oldest galaxies formed by merging minor galaxies, such traumatic events would surely make stars of just about all the material around, leaving almost nothing for star formation several billion years later.

The rest of your post comprises random, unconnected thoughts. Try sticking to one topic for once.

The rest of my post was pointing out that I had gone into your point of picking up stars from other galaxies elsewhere, so I don't know where you got this from?

kaneda

07-17-09, 11:07 AM

kaneda, you made four consecutive nonsense posts. Rather than citing you for each and every one, I picked the last. Regarding the "cry of the crackpot", this was specific to your claim "Research money is often hard to come by and who is going to pay to check on what is mostly accepted as true?" That is the cry of a crackpot, and it is false. Scientists do check on "what is mostly accepted as true" all the time. To name just a few: Multiple experiments to measure the speed of light. Multiple experiments to verify the equivalence principle. Multiple experiments to assess the rest mass of a photon. WMAP. Gravity Probe B.

Regarding your complaints regarding moderation, keep them to private messages or raise them with an administrator. Future violations will result in another citation.

Nonsense posts as in disagreeing with you. Would you rather this site was full of wiki-quoters who asked no hard questions and where every answer is only a click away to save thinking?

The exact speed of light is important for a number of reasons so ever more exact measurements are made. The equivalence principle still needs work done on it and is not set in stone. Were they looking for the rest mass of a photon? It has no mass and is never at rest. Considering what little detail we have on the CMB, there will undoubtedly be more missions to find new stuff. Gravity Probe B is hardly going over old stuff. So all new stuff. Anything to do with cosmology, which was the subject under discussion?

prometheus

07-17-09, 11:26 AM

Some first second problems. Where did the singularity come from? Why a singularity? Singularities if they exist (and there is no evidence. Even Hawking gave up on them) would be ultimately stable. Then we have unproven inflation, solely to explain away the homogeneity of the CMB. At around 10^32 second we have matter appear and so gravity at which point that would be the end of the universe since there can be no more inflation. Then inflation slows down to expansion somehow.

I don't think anyone believes that singularities are actual points of zero volume and infinite density. They are a signpost that the theory of general relativity is incomplete and we need a theory of quantum gravity to properly describe them. The reason we have inflation and a big bang starting at a small point is precisely because it lines up with what we observe - a redshifted afterglow (the CMB) that is very homogeneous. Maybe the inflationary BB is not the only way it can be explained but I've never come across an explanation that worked as well.

D H

07-17-09, 12:02 PM

You say our galaxy is old enough to have such stars and you say our galaxy may have caught such a star. Make up your mind. Old stars are normally in the rim and not half way in to the centre.
You are creating a logical fallacy. A galaxy can be older than the oldest star in it. The median age in the US is about 36, and the oldest living person in the US is 115. That doesn't mean the US is at most 115 years old, and that is essentially what you are implying.

You are also conveniently ignoring the galactic bulge, which comprises another collection of old stars.

While a small galaxy may have disrupted, there would surely be some "damage" to our galaxy and not one but a fair number of such stars in the area.
Read some of the references cited earlier. Posts #130, #134, #141 a good place to start.

James R

07-18-09, 04:35 AM

kaneda:

How could the expansion get faster, with gravity always pulling it back? Even if gravity gets weaker as the distances increase, gravity remains always an attractive force.

Gravity is pulling over ever greater distances, so weaker. It is also hampered by light speed.

You missed the point again.

Suppose there's a rope tied around your waist and I'm holding the other end. By pulling on the rope I exert a force that pulls you towards me. Now, we simulate the expansion of the universe by you running away from me. I pull on the rope all the time as you run, only I pull on it more and more weakly as you get further away from me.

Do you agree that the force of my pull, no matter how weak, will always tend to slow you down? Yes or no?

thinking

07-20-09, 01:51 PM

just asking , does space , at the moment of the big-bang , have any friction associated with it ?

mike47

07-20-09, 01:55 PM

Montec

07-20-09, 02:05 PM

Hello James R

Just remember there are two ways for gravity reduction to occur. You can increase the distance or you can reduce the mass. Both will produce a reduction in the force of gravity (and increase the time rates).

:)

thinking

07-25-09, 12:20 AM

just asking , does space , at the moment of the big-bang , have any friction associated with it ?

does space its self provide any form of expansion friction ?

James R

07-25-09, 12:22 AM

does space , at the moment of the big-bang , have any friction associated with it ?

Friction is a contact force between two objects. Space is not an object, so I don't see how it could have any friction.

thinking

07-25-09, 12:39 AM

“ does space " , at the moment of the big-bang , have any friction associated with it ?

Friction is a contact force between two objects. Space is not an object, so I don't see how it could have any friction.

agreed

so what would slow down the BB explosion in a frictionless space ?

James R

07-25-09, 01:03 AM

so what would slow down the BB explosion in a frictionless space ?

Gravity?

(Of course, as a matter of fact the expansion is not slowing down but accelerating.)

thinking

07-25-09, 01:31 AM

“ so what would slow down the BB explosion in a frictionless space ?

Gravity?

no

since gravity is such a very extremely, weak force

(Of course, as a matter of fact the expansion is not slowing down but accelerating.)

yes

but expansion of the Universe is more about the expanding space between objects though

so that the objects stay still

but the space between them increases

so how does an explosion and just the space between objects increase reconcile with one another ?

James R

07-25-09, 02:14 AM

since gravity is such a very extremely, weak force

Compared to what?

so how does an explosion and just the space between objects increase reconcile with one another ?

The big bang was not an explosion in space. It was an explosion of space.

D H

07-25-09, 02:14 AM

no

since gravity is such a very extremely, weak force
Yes, gravity. Do some reading and thinking instead of spouting nonsense. Live up to your user name.

Whether gravity has stopped or ever will stop the expansion is a different question. Right now, the evidence is equivocal; the universe appears to be very, very close to flat.

kaneda

07-28-09, 03:35 PM

I don't think anyone believes that singularities are actual points of zero volume and infinite density. They are a signpost that the theory of general relativity is incomplete and we need a theory of quantum gravity to properly describe them. The reason we have inflation and a big bang starting at a small point is precisely because it lines up with what we observe - a redshifted afterglow (the CMB) that is very homogeneous. Maybe the inflationary BB is not the only way it can be explained but I've never come across an explanation that worked as well.

The definition of singularity changes as needed. The real problem with the BB is the singularity. Better idea is that energy and matter appeared over a large area (ie: maybe leaked from "elsewhere") of billions of cubic light years and then expanded from that.

I have in the past thought of gravity as falling in an unknown direction. You have a planet in 3D space trying to stabilise itself in a "zero" (as in below the already numbered 1,2 and 3) physical dimension, so falling towards it's own centre but in such a direction that in 3D it causes the planet to rotate as it tries to spiral into itself. I know this is poorly explained, but I know what I mean.

kaneda

07-28-09, 03:44 PM

You are creating a logical fallacy. A galaxy can be older than the oldest star in it. The median age in the US is about 36, and the oldest living person in the US is 115. That doesn't mean the US is at most 115 years old, and that is essentially what you are implying.

You are also conveniently ignoring the galactic bulge, which comprises another collection of old stars.

But not much older since star formation would begin very quickly. Galaxies I think are believed to form starting with an SMBH which would mean that the oldest stars should be in that vicinity. And yet the oldest stars are said to be mainly in the rim.

Could galaxies start as very compact and spread out over time with the rim area being the first to have a low enough density to form stars as it moves away from a dense central medium/area which also forms the SMBH?

kaneda

07-28-09, 03:51 PM

kaneda:

You missed the point again.

Suppose there's a rope tied around your waist and I'm holding the other end. By pulling on the rope I exert a force that pulls you towards me. Now, we simulate the expansion of the universe by you running away from me. I pull on the rope all the time as you run, only I pull on it more and more weakly as you get further away from me.

Do you agree that the force of my pull, no matter how weak, will always tend to slow you down? Yes or no?

I must have explained it badly because you seem to be saying the same as what I intended.

kaneda

07-28-09, 03:58 PM

agreed

so what would slow down the BB explosion in a frictionless space ?

As the BB expansion is expanding into literally nothing and has come from a perfect sphere of whatever size, there should be no bias of any kind as far as I can see. There should not even be any perturbations till matter starts forming at 380,000 years.

mike47

07-28-09, 05:49 PM

Big Bang theory lacks the scientific evidence and it is a mere theory su[pported by over zealous scientists .

Dywyddyr

07-28-09, 07:12 PM

Big Bang theory lacks the scientific evidence and it is a mere theory su[pported by over zealous scientists .

Aw, and you were this close to coming across as smart...
Wrong, wrong and wrong.

D H

07-28-09, 08:36 PM

But not much older since star formation would begin very quickly. Galaxies I think are believed to form starting with an SMBH which would mean that the oldest stars should be in that vicinity. And yet the oldest stars are said to be mainly in the rim.
While it is a bit of an open issue, galaxies are currently thought to have formed before the formation of the super massive black holes that reside at the centers of those galaxies.

You are correct in that the first stars in a protogalaxy most likely formed near the protogalaxy's center. Where your thought process goes awry is in thinking that this means we should see the oldest stars in a galaxy near the galactic center. Those stars formed in a region dense with interstellar gas, which means those stars were big. Big stars live fast and die hard. The stars that formed near the center of our galaxy when the galaxy was young died long, long ago.

Living stars that are about the same age as our galaxy will necessarily be small and of low metallicity. Where to find them? Not anywhere close to the center of the galaxy. The oldest living nearby stars will be found in the boundary of the Milky Way and in its low star formation rate companion dwarf galaxies.

geistkiesel

08-02-09, 02:00 PM

Is big bang proven to be solid true?
Just because we observe that the distant galaxies are flying away from us, we postulate that the universe was born from a big bang?
So far, how true is big bang according to the latest astronomical observation?
And, any evidence to prove otherwise?

From the link

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

we are told by reason and by observation that the speed of gravitational forces is instantaneous or as the more conservative observers note the speed of gravity Vg > 10^10*c. This being the case inflationary expansion is not a necessary element of BB and in fact if it occured we wouldn't be here now talking about it. In such an expansion the universe allegedly expanded many orders of magnitude in 10^-34 second or so to fix the problem with the need to insure a perfect mass state for a certain length of time - otherwise the ubiverse collapses, that if not satisfied by the relative slow communication in mass to mass coordination limited by th e speed of light no BB. The rapid expansion happened so rapidly that the perfect state was preserved untill a critical universe size was reached before perfection started to deteriorate. Hence, inflationary expansion, where gravity allegedly pushed instead of sucked for a short spell.

The instantaneous speed of gravity fixes the horizon and sgtate perfection problem hence we need not toy with a drastic and very supicious overhaul of gravity or the conservation of angular momentum in order to justify BB publications fantasies. Read the link. In any event suppsoing the truth of the Flandern paper BB goes down the tubes of historical ideosyncratic (sic) La La landfalls (that's Los Angeles, Los Angeles, get it?):shrug:

Dywyddyr

08-02-09, 02:15 PM

From the link
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
we are told by reason and by observation that the speed of gravitational forces is instantaneous or as the more conservative observers note the speed of gravity Vg > 10^10*c.
That's old data.
AFAIK the jury is still out isn't it?
Pending confirmation/ refutation of the 2003 experiment that gave a speed of C.

Pipes75

08-02-09, 02:55 PM

Yes scientists can look back through super telescopes and see our universe once was one symetrical superforce. My issue is more to do with where the superforce came from. (check out my Black Hole Theory thread if you are interested in thinking outside the box ;))
Furthermore since not everything is known, no theory is complete.

Dywyddyr

08-02-09, 02:57 PM

Yes scientists can look back through super telescopes and see our universe once was one symetrical superforce.
Wrong.

D H

08-02-09, 06:54 PM

From the link

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

we are told by reason and by observation that the speed of gravitational forces is instantaneous or as the more conservative observers note the speed of gravity Vg > 10^10*c. ...
Van Flandern was told immediately after publishing this tripe that it was, well, tripe. Van Flandern did not disprove general relativity. He proved that his straw man of general relativity was false. His straw man was tacking a finite transmission speed onto Newton's law of gravity. What Van Flandern proved was that Newtonian gravity must have an infinite (or nearly infinite) transmission speed. Well, duh. This result was known to Newton.

The problem with Van Flandern's argument: General relativity is not Newton's law of gravity plus a finite transmission speed. Van Flandern ignored other aspects of general relativity such as frame dragging that nearly cancels out the effects of the finite speed of transmission. Note that I said nearly. The cancellation is not exact; if it were general relativity would be indistinguishable from Newtonian gravity. General relativity is of course distinguishable from Newtonian gravity.

geistkiesel

08-02-09, 11:01 PM

That's old data.
AFAIK the jury is still out isn't it?
Pending confirmation/ refutation of the 2003 experiment that gave a speed of C.

Are you referring to the speed of 'gravity waves' or 'speed of gravity forces' ?

mike47

08-02-09, 11:12 PM

Dywyddyr

08-02-09, 11:15 PM

The biggest issue for me is how something started
from nothing......etc .
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2243005&postcount=1
Check the links.

Ophiolite

08-03-09, 07:02 AM

The biggest issue for me is how something started from nothing......etc .As an alternative to Dywyddyr's suggestion, note that the Big Bang does not postulate something starting from nothing. It simply postulates the condition of the present universe a short time after it began. I 'began' some sixty years ago, but I did not start from nothing. There is no requirement in BB theory that the universe start from nothing.

Pipes75

08-04-09, 05:33 PM

Some of Big Bang has been proven. Singularity turned into everything.
However, it doesn't make sense of the singularity that came 'outta nothing' (that's why I like the Black hole stuff - I have a Black hole thread :D).
Other parts are also incomplete. What we have observed and/or measured about gravitational force appears to be much weaker than what it should be. New theories in conjunction with the Big Bang have been in the works for a long time. A snag happened though, the theories meant to explain gravitational forces within our universe have went multi dimensional!
These theories are complicated, incomplete, and untested - but I love certain aspects of String Theory, and other multi dimensional theories. There are many possibilities that appear to fit with Big Bang, but until we can test some of these possibilities, we won't have any facts to support them.
The collider is suppose to help try to explain some things that are still unknown. Although some out there are afraid of possible disaster playing with forces we don't yet understand.
I like to keep more than 1 door open to what is possible, that way I can be wrong plenty of times, and not be upset ;) - People that resort to only 1 possible explaination when dealing with unknowns, will never give up that belief, even if it were to be proven wrong!
The only restrictions on what is possible are the boundaries we create within our own mind! There aren't too many absolute facts in our situational experiences. As long as your possibilities don't contradict the constants that we know about, then it is possible. :)
So sure Big Bang is true, but it isn't enough by itself, and some parts might be wrong, lol.

Saint

08-05-09, 08:27 AM

what is the "edge" of the expanding universe?
is it space beyond space?

Billy T

08-05-09, 01:19 PM

what is the "edge" of the expanding universe?
is it space beyond space?That edge is hidding at the same place the other side of the mobus strip is. (Inside the Kline bottle many think.)

kaneda

08-09-09, 04:08 PM

what is the "edge" of the expanding universe?
is it space beyond space?

Space is literally nothing and is only defined by what occupies it. What is beyond the edge of the universe? Nothing. Literally nothing.

kaneda

08-09-09, 04:13 PM

Some of Big Bang has been proven. Singularity turned into everything.

The only restrictions on what is possible are the boundaries we create within our own mind! There aren't too many absolute facts in our situational experiences. As long as your possibilities don't contradict the constants that we know about, then it is possible. :)
So sure Big Bang is true, but it isn't enough by itself, and some parts might be wrong, lol.

The big bang is one explanation for some facts and some beliefs.

Singularities if they exist (there is no evidence) are ultimately stable so do not inflate or expand.

Cosmology does have a lot of speculation in it, so as you say, an open mind in case it is proved wrong. Too many people treat it as a religion and have minds locked tightly shut.

Billy T

08-09-09, 04:16 PM

Space is literally nothing and is only defined by what occupies it. What is beyond the edge of the universe? Nothing. Literally nothing.I do not think that POV is correct. For example if space were "nothing" then why is there a definite value for the vacuum dielectric constant and for the permability of the vacuum? In addition to these specific properties the vacuum is also briely making from the "nothing" electrons and positrons etc. for other particles and their anti-particles. This "vacuum polarization" has a real effect, measurable in the lab. (Casimir force between two closely spaced plates, usually conducting plates.)

Also if the most remote from the universe's center of the mass were to shine laser away from that center*, does your POV expand the universe as now there are photons out where there was "nothing"?

----------
*Wiggeling laser beam around to cover all of the "outward half hemisphere"

PS: But I do agree that there is nothing, no "outside," not even empty space -the universe is all there is and it has a finite but expanding volume.

kaneda

08-09-09, 04:19 PM

There is no requirement in BB theory that the universe start from nothing.

Why should the universe not start from nothing? Plus one trillion and minus one trillion equals nothing. The Casimir effect gets particles from nothing. Maybe the universe started when one particle appeared and instead of disappearing, remained stable. A negative effect (gravity?) tries to neutralise it, and over does it so more particles appear to neutralise that, etc.

mike47

08-09-09, 04:26 PM

Why should the universe not start from nothing? Plus one trillion and minus one trillion equals nothing. The Casimir effect gets particles from nothing. Maybe the universe started when one particle appeared and instead of disappearing, remained stable. A negative effect (gravity?) tries to neutralise it, and over does it so more particles appear to neutralise that, etc.
Are you saying particles are self created.....they create themselves by themselves ?.

kaneda

08-09-09, 04:42 PM

Billy T. Electric constant? As I have already said, nothing is just a total rather than literally nothing. Particles can appear and disappear from literally nothing and returning to literally nothing again. We then have gravity which is different on the surface of a planet to maybe 30,000 miles from the surface, and we know gravity affects photons.

If space is defined by what occupies it (gravity, photons, atomic material, etc), gravity will occupy quite a long area beyond where we consider the boundary of the universe is, so not the real boundary. You would have to go to the edge of that and shine your laser to make the area of the universe "expand further".

kaneda

08-09-09, 04:45 PM

Are you saying particles are self created.....they create themselves by themselves ?.

I think energy and gravity are opposite sides of the same coin.

kaneda

08-09-09, 05:01 PM

I got into trouble the other day by replying to a thread about evolution . The mod in his wisdom gave me a warning for expressing my honest and sincere knowledge . I do NOT believe in both Big bang and the evolution theories because they failed to convince me . It is a long debate but to make things short....they just do not add up . The biggest issue for me is how something started from nothing......etc .

I got a warning too because I dared to criticise the sacred cow aka the big bang idea. I was told I had gone against the rules of the board, which is wrong since the rules are only not to insult others (like the mod did to me). Nothing about having a degree in nuclear physics or even being able to add 1+1. Nothing about you must agree with accepted science. I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum but it does seem that certain things are censored here, which is not what science is about.

Evolution is lined with facts. Check out the talkorigins site. Cosmology has hard facts at one end and speculative ideas at the other end. They may be 100% right and they may be 100% wrong but I doubt that we can ever obtain ultimate proof, for various reasons.

Pipes75

08-09-09, 05:36 PM

The big bang is one explanation for some facts and some beliefs.

Singularities if they exist (there is no evidence) are ultimately stable so do not inflate or expand.

Cosmology does have a lot of speculation in it, so as you say, an open mind in case it is proved wrong. Too many people treat it as a religion and have minds locked tightly shut.

I'd say it is more like, the proven parts of Big Bang are true, but there could be much more, and not all of it is proven.

We have the ability to observe the moment after singularity becomes everything, but that everything onl;y includes everything we can see and observe (ie: our universe only, and our dimensions only).
What most call the beginning in their search, starts with the beginning of our universe. What we call singularity might be just a small part of an even bigger beginning, and that bigger beginning may or maynot be an even bigger singularity.
We don't understand what limits there are, but most scientist do expect that their is a limit to how much 'singularity' can be held. But if there are more then one form of what we call singularity (ie: the center of a black hole), than their might be different quanities of forces, and therefor the limits we don't understand would likely be variable anyway!
Many possibilities can still also exist within the proven parts of Big Bang, just as many possibilities can also exist within the proven parts of evolution. I keep many doors open, and my 'beliefs' change with knoweledge. Directly contradicting science won't work, but finding the holes and exploring possibilities can help open doors. Just don't put too much belief in the possibilities, that way opening and closing doors can become much easier to do as information available changes. ;)
You might enjoy my 'Beginning of Man' thread in pseudoscience. This is an old dream of mine that has been modified many times. It is probably my most absurd possible solution I could think of, while using the information I have available. ;) - I don't 'believe' this fantasy of mans beginning is true, I 'believe' it is possible, and that is how all my beliefs work - some of my beliefs contradict themselves because I just don't know!!!!
I am a dreamer, but if I were to test things, I would look for the most rational explaination first. My posts in forums are oppisite of that, I'm ussually posting the most absurd explainations I can think of, lmao.