Cause of the Big Bang

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by machiaventa, Jun 11, 2008.

  1. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Expansion slowed down a lot you know. Inflation was rapid expansion. Then inflation stopped.

    Infact, if you had sat an introductory cosmology course you'd know there are various ways of solving the equations of motion for the scale factor of the universe in the FRW metric. One of them is exponential growth, ie inflation, the others are more mundane things like \(a(t) = \sqrt{t}\). It tends to a levelling out, but it still always growing.

    Would you like to be shown a bit more of the details or are you going to be able to find the information online yourself?
    And despite having had it explained to you many times and it being explained online in many places, you continue to fail to understand.

    Only objects moving within space-time cannot move relative to one another faster than light. Objects being carried by space-time can move relative to one another as fast as you like. That's what the cosmological horizon at the edge of our visible universe is. Objects are being carried away from us, by space-time expansioon, almost as fast as light. Then, due to more expansion, they reach relative light speed and disappear from our view.

    Neither they, nor us, are moving at light speed. It's space-time expansion doing it all.

    So space-time expansion isn't limited at all because relativity constraints are on objects moving through space-time nor space-time itself.
    You should know, you never prove anything is true in physics, you only validity your claims or falsify them. I can never prove that letting go of a brick will cause it to fall but I doubt you'd jump off a building to prove me wrong.

    Besides, you've just demonstrated you don't even understand mainstream models of inflation anyway.
    Such is the life of a student. I guess you never did a PhD from your lack of understanding.
    I have offered to talk with you on my work, you ignored the request.

    How am I able to discuss anything new with you when you won't discuss anything new with me, even when I offer? You're blaming me for your unwillingness to talk.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I don't debate online any of my research because I find the internet isn't a good medium for it other than to ask a few particular questions. Here and on PhysicsForums.com I have asked questions which are over the heads of almost everyone. Infact, if you look on physicsforums.com the majority of my recent posts (I had to reregister as 'AlphaNumeric2' due to a password screw up and my uni email account) go unanswered (ie the one about Lie algebras). I worked out by about 2 weeks later, it's an open question in linear algebra! And then a week later I worked out the solution! It'll be published this summer.
    I apparently run PhysOrg. I apparently banned you, Nick and anyone else who got in my way. I apparently maintain numerous independent websites all for the purpose of fooling you into thinking I'm someone I'm not. I have multiple accounts on multiple forums, all for the purpose of fooling you. You are the only reason I posted outside of the main 'New Theories' forum on PhysOrg.

    Those are just some of the "AlphaNumeric is involved in a large conspiracy for the purposes of fooling me!" claims you've made about me.
    As I said, it's "Damned if I do, damned if I don't". I research an area of string theory, so if I'm published you can just say "It's wrong!". If I don't get published, you can say "You've never done anything original!".

    The only way you'd accept any work of mine is if I published something you already agreed with.

    So it's catch 22.

    Tell me Kaneda, where have you been published?
    And we're back to the conspiracies.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Still waiting for your quantitative calculations Kaneda. Why didn't you quote that part of my post?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    this statement is hilarious...

    you're serious aren't you?...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RussT Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    You mean "Easier"....BUT, I will say again...Schwarzschild "Non-Rotating" SMBH's DO NOT EXIST!!! SO, until you can show me a Non-rotating Black Hole, ALL of the maths pertaining to any solutions for "Static Non-rotating Black Holes is "Meaningless"...ie; modeling nothing that exists in our universe. Do you get that? Or Not?

    http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05/29/supermassive-black-holes-spin-at-the-limits-of-relativity/

    More on the other stuff later...Got things to cover on BAUT...like this...

    http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/76731-what-if-cdm-ruled-out-observations.html

    By the Way, the poster of that OP is "Published"!!!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RussT Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    Thanks for going back and finding that "quote" Dr Mabuse!

    I was going to do the same, with this as the punchline...

    Can You Say...........WIMPS... (CDM)...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Don't get the wrong idea here though...I just mean Weakly Interacting "Massive" Particles.

    Non-baryonic Dark Matter is "Needed" to answer the galaxy rotation problem!!!

    They first modeled "Neutrinos", which IS the answer, but of course, they did not fit the Big Bang model, so they HAD to come up with something "ELSE"/WIMPS.
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Do you know what an 'effective theory' is?

    An 'effective theory' is a simplification which makes computation of physical phenomena easier but is sufficiently close to be viable as a description of said phenomena.

    For instance, Newtonian dynamics is wrong. If you're being as accurate as possible, you must include things like relativistic corrections. But if you're modelling a ball thrown into the air or a car driving along a road or even a rocket going to the Moon, do you need relativity? Nope, Newton does just fine and it's MUCH easier to do calculations using Newtonian physics than relativity.

    Similarly, Schwarzchild black holes are a valid effective theory if you're modelling say the effect the SMBH at the centre of our galaxy has on our solar system. The rotation and charge effects on our Sun are too tiny to be worth considering and the Schwarzchild metric is much easier to work with than the Kerr-Newman one. Heck, at this distance you can approximate the SMBH with just Newtonian theory!

    So I ask again, do you understand what an 'effective theory' is?
     
  9. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    The edges of any area is limited by the speed of light, so inflation was limited by light speed overall.

    I don't agree with you so I must be wrong. Pompous as usual.

    Space-time is limited by light speed which is why EMR and gravity travels at the speed it does. There is no known force which is going to carry anything faster. That is just part of a wish list for the BB idea.

    Expansion requires a 4 (physical) dimension hypersphere as Nick told you many times. Like waves moving through water, there are obvious limits.

    Your pomposity is showing.

    I give you new things and you tell me that they cannot be because (effectively) they are not in your text books.

    Maths on unknown quantities often just proves maths. I am sure you can work out what you want about superstrings, etc but when it comes to proving that they actually exist, that is where it all falls flat.

    You are ranting. I never claimed any of that. What I did claim: I find it strange that shortly after debating with you on Physorg for the first time, I suddenly get 3 warnings (out of 5) within 2 weeks whereas I had none in the several months before or for about a year after.

    I originally did not believe in the big bang in it's early days, then I accepted it, then I found out lots of problems with it and finally rejected it. I can change but I need something logical to work with.

    No interest. Why should I go through all the hassle of publishing?


    It was said about a decade ago that the calculations needed for defining what happens to a steel girder when it was heated took a certain computer 20 years to work them out. A new chip cut that down to mere months. Now you probably do not know those calculations needed for knowing what happens to a steel girder when you heat it, but regardless you probably know what happens to a steel girder when you heat it. You can't see the forest for the trees and are straight jacketed by maths. A number of others I have come across on forums are EXACTLY like you are.
     
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    No, what is showing is his respect for the scientific method. One of its cornerstones is the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. When a student or a layman makes an assertion that contradicts a textbook, that is a classic case of an extraordinary assertion. Do you supply the extraordinary evidence with it?
     
  11. RussT Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    Finally I see something that You consider an "answer".

    You are correct in most of the things you are saying about the Big Bang Being Wrong!

    It never happened............However, you or Nick (And yes I have seen much of Nick
    s postings on PhysOrg) do NOT have a clue as to what "Replaces" the Naked Singularity!

    You see, You need to truely understand what singularities are and ARE NOT to solve the mystery of how "Our Space is Getting Here" and where the High Energy gamma Radiation is creating the electrons/protons to form galaxies!

    Alpha is very knowledgable on mainstream Physics!

    SO, your continual asking...'show me something New" is Moot!
     
  12. RussT Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    Yes, I do. And I now understand that this mistake has being made for far far too long!

    Yep, it sure is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yep again. In an arena where the maths were developed around a system where 99% of the mass is at the center of the system. The "approximation" has worked awesomely for most of NASA's tremondously successful and exciting missions...I love it...However...

    Let me introduce you to a new term that I have coined that is VERY pertinent to soo many scenarios...."Domain Of Applicability".

    Why did you chose the solar system...why not the galaxy rotation curve dynamics?

    The entire problem all along has been extending Newton to "Global Domains".

    The "Approximation" that Newton developed has been 'useful', but has absolutely nothing to do with how our universe is working.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    You do realise that relativity is superior to Newtonian dynamics, right?
     
  14. Cannon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    207
    So if gravity can pull faster than the speed of light, couldn't a gravity well stop this all? You can distort gravity through super magnets and rotation around a center point. This goes back to the solar scale. Make one to model with magnets and make a few vacuumes to put some nifty energy converting orbs traveling in a circular direction, the same as the earth and the sun. Then go ahead and dumb a few hundred thousand kilovolts of electrecty into a 1 ton ball of plutonium and use another magnet to get those nifty litter orbs spinning. Oh to make it all work you would need it at 100% effency. Wait, carbon wire, only 6 inches long but it runs at 0 ohms. Want the math behind it?
     
  15. RussT Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    "Domain(s) Of Applicabilty"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Where?,,,The precession of Mercury/Close Binaries.

    Alpha, I realize that I am throwing this at you somewhat piecemeal, BUT in my earlier posts, I have gone into enough detail, that IF you really understand what NO Naked Singularity(s) exist=No Big Bang (Cosmic Censorship), and NO "Point Singularities" Exist (There are NO Non-rotating BH's)...

    That leaves ONLY 'Ring Singularities'=SMBH's in the Universe level "Above Ours"=E-R Bridges to Our Voids netween galaxy clusters, for "Quantum Gravity" to "Come Through"=Lisa Randall's "Gravity Leaking"....That is "Point Particles"=Neutrinos/Strings.

    Those Neutrinos/Strings are "Leaking" Continually/spewing the Cosmic Microwave background 2.73k lowest energy state of Neutrinos....From Each of Our Voids, In Straight line Motion.

    Those Strings/Neutrinos make up ALL of Our "Space" and are traveling at "c" In ALL/Every direction. Yes, Space is Absolute!

    The Biggest problem in phyics is that the theoretical Energy according to the standard model, and "inflationary "Vacuum Energy" + Hubble Flow "Vacumm Energy + Dark Vacuum Energy (Cosmological Constant/variable/Lambda), is that it is 10^122 OOM above what the "Observed" energy state is!

    Baryonic Matter is ~4 %, which leaves 96%...~23% of that is supposed to be CDM, which leaves ~73% as "Vacuum Energy"...Which is completely "Undefined" and CDM WIMPS do NOT even exist...SO, all 96% is "Undefined"...with NO Hope of ever defining it!!! Why, because Naked Singularities do NOT Exist....read my lips....taking a singularity out of a Black Hole was the Biggest Blunder ever (Well, actually there is a bigger blunder, but more later once you understand what I am showing here!)

    Try this...and hopefully you will understand more...

    Tim is by far the most knowledgable on BAUT!

    http://www.bautforum.com/648294-post66.html

     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2008
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Neutrinos don't leak the CMB.
    Neutrinos don't move at c. Strings don't move at c (other than their ends).
    Naked singularities are not part of the big bang model.
    So you don't actually know what 'background independent' means then?
    So you don't actually know what branes are then?
    Given your slew of errors, you obviously don't know anthing about string theory either. Do you?
     
  17. RussT Registered Member

    Messages:
    65
    “ Originally Posted by RussT
    Those Neutrinos/Strings are "Leaking" Continually/spewing "AS" the Cosmic Microwave background 2.73k lowest energy state of Neutrinos....From Each of Our Voids, In Straight line Motion. ”

    Alpha
    Neutrinos don't leak the CMB.

    If you would have read it correctly...............Neutrinos "ARE" the CMB...the lowest energy state...2.73k


    “ Originally Posted by RussT
    Those Strings/Neutrinos make up ALL of Our "Space" and are traveling at "c" In ALL/Every direction. Yes, Space is Absolute! ”

    Alpha
    Neutrinos don't move at c.

    Don't tell that to SN1987A...I'll look up the reference for it if you like...better yet...you're so knowledgable....do the work yourself...unless of course you are Nit-picking because it is .9999997c.

    “ Originally Posted by RussT
    Baryonic Matter is ~4 %, which leaves 96%...~23% of that is supposed to be CDM, which leaves ~73% as "Vacuum Energy"...Which is completely "Undefined" and CDM WIMPS do NOT even exist...SO, all 96% is "Undefined"...with NO Hope of ever defining it!!! Why, because Naked Singularities do NOT Exist....read my lips....taking a singularity out of a Black Hole was the Biggest Blunder ever (Well, actually there is a bigger blunder, but more later once you understand what I am showing here!) ”

    Alpha
    Naked singularities are not part of the big bang model.

    I tell you I have been on BAUT with the "Big Boys" for 3 years and you come up with that lame and tired denial (Is more than just a river in Egypt!)

    http://www.bautforum.com/against-ma...nsorship-show-inside-solution-impossible.html

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml


    Gee, Don't you feel silly!

    When are you going to realize that mainstream has been fooling itself, Because it absolutely refuses to 'Falsify' itself...they even switched to a 'generic naked singularity'...But the answer to quantum Gravity "Before 0" is NOT Inflation or any other Ekryptic nonesense...The Universe was NEVER shrunk down to any 'small size'....period!!!

    None of the expanding or contracting horizons ever existed!!! The "Sperical Cow" is dead.

    “ Originally Posted by RussT
    Alpha...Note the word "Background" In the CMBR....that is Strings and makes String/"M" Theory "Background Independent"!!! ”

    Alpha
    So you don't actually know what 'background independent' means then?

    mainstream's Vacuum Energy is 100% 'undefined', as I showed above.


    The astonishing conclusion "SHOULD" have been...NOT one whole universe as a membrane.................BUT, that Strings, going to infinity made up our universe and became Strings/Branes inside our universe!!!

    When Einstein introduced Lambda, it was his biggest blunder, because that got everyone thinking of the universe as One single entity, either 'static', expanding, or contracting.

    NONE of those is even a possibilty!!!

    BUT, you and mainstream just ignore perfectly valid evidence against that!!!

    http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/56088-fractal-universe.html

     
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    The CMB is made up of photons. Do you understand the difference? And you definitely can get colder states,
    You've failed to understand the physics there.

    The neutrinos from that supernova reached Earth before the photons because they interact with the dust in space less than photons. Photons travel through water at about 0.7c. Any particle travelling faster than 0.7c creates Cernekov radiation, an optical sonic boom. That doesn't mean that electrons moving through reactor moderators like water are photons. The dust in space has a very very slight optical index and so over 50,000 light years, light is slowed enough to arrive later than it should by about 20 minutes. Neutrinos travel VERY close to the speed of light, so close that we cannot actually measure the difference, but because they don't interact with the dust, they aren't slowed.

    But they have mass and thus travel slower than light. How do we know? Their mass differences have been measured through neutrino oscillations. It's been the biggest thing in particle physics in the last decades, neutrinos have mass and thus the right handed neutrinos have HUGE mass, which the Standard Model cannot explain. I should know, a friend of mine researches it and a professor in my department is one of the most prolific publishers on the 'see-saw mechanism' in the UK.

    So we have experimental evidence they don't travel at c. But you don't know this because you don't know mainstream physics. Try to keep up.
    And Zephir was here and on PhysOrg for years and learnt nothing. And I've been with 'the big boys' too. Except the people I work with or learnt from have 'Professor' before their name and got their PhDs from people with 'Hawking' as their surname....
    So you have a quote where Hawking agrees with me and a second quote which doesn't actually support you. Wow.
    The mainstream admits errors all the time. The neutrinos having mass being just a recent example. Only cranks with a private agenda think there's some conspiracy going on.
    That isn't 'background independent'. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independent The section on diffeomorphisms is a relevent part.

    If you're going to use terminology, know what it means.
    Do you know the difference between a brane and a string? For instance, what's the difference between a d-string and an f-string? You only need a 1 or 2 line answer for that.
    The distribution of matter within the universe is different from coming up with a model to describe the space-time of the universe. One tells you how to understand the interplay between matter, energy and gravity, the other tells you how matter itself is distributed, within which you make use of the former theory to work out the specific dynamics.

    So someone working out how to turn string theory into a working description of the universe isn't trying to address the distribution of matter, he's trying to just understand the behaviour of matter on even the simplest levels. Once that theory is working you then turn to the issue of galaxies. And people have done that with GR. We have very good models of galaxy and solar system formation.

    And it's funny you accuse me of ignoring things when you flat out ignored my question about wether you know string theory. You talk a lot about it but you don't display any understanding of it. Afraid to answer? And don't say "I've been on BAUT for 3 years!". If you think that makes you competant at physics then you really are naive.
     
  19. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    RussT. A singularity is like god. While it answers many awkward questions, it does not exist.

    AlphaNumeric is knowledgeable like an internet site is knowledgeable. However, who wants to debate with an internet site?

    AN is unable to speculate or extrapolate on a subject.
     
  20. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    Science at one time was easily provable to anyone with the right equipment but it moved outside the lab into speculation and extrapolation. Parts of astronomy concerning the big bang, black holes, etc are not provable. The "extraordinary evidence" is not there. Theories may be 100% true or 100% false but probably somewhere in between. It is wrong to point to a text book on an increasing number of subjects in science as though they are infallibly true because that cannot be proved.

    I am sure that if you asked AlphaNumeric to talk on superstrings, he could do so for hours, talking about what is in text books on them but if you asked him for proof that they exist, then he could show you none because there is no proof. They are a speculation. So should they be denounced because their is no "extraordinary evidence"?
     
  21. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    As to the CMB, we have billions of trillions of stars giving out all sorts of EMR for billions of years and we have to look through this to see the "edge of the universe". Do all those photons just vanish or....?

    I overlook fields and mornings like this morning, there is a mist about a mile away. Of course, the mist is where I am too but is too nebulous to see close up. Distance where I am looking through so much of it, makes it look "solid".
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    You keep saying this but you also keep demonstrating you don't know what is on so many websites. If all the things I say are so easy to find, why can't you find them?

    For instance, solutions to the FRW metric. You'll find them talked about in any course in cosmology and yet you don't know about them. Why is that?
    And your evidence for that is? The fact you don't know about topics you claim are all over the net and so I have to waste time correcting you on?

    If you were able to understand relativity, we could have a more meaningful discussion but you don't want to try. Instead, if you don't understand it you say it's wrong and you'll be damned if you're going to change your mind.

    I can speculate and extrapolate, it's just I do that on topics which you could never understand. Come on, if you think you're right, go over to the Physics and Maths forum and let's have a discussion about my research. I've now finished writing my paper and I'm just waiting for two guys in Spain to finish their paper on the same topic (I generalised their result!) and then we'll publish together. Should be mid August. I'll remember to bring it to your attention.
    So we should denounce every single prediction made by science? Because 'prediction' means someone predicts something before it's seen. Einstein's prediction of the curvature of light rays was seen as crazy. By your logic, we should have told him to shut up and go back to his office. And yet a few years later, there was the evidence. Dirac predicted a doubling of the number of particles due to 'antimatter'. Crazy! Then a year later we saw the positron for the first time. Someone (I forget who) predicted a third family to the Standard Model to explain the symmetries in the 2 families we'd already seen. Then a few years later, we saw the bottom quark.

    Science is the process of taking what we've seen, creating a model and predicting things we haven't seen. By definition, the things we haven't seen don't have evidence yet and by your logic, therefore are nonsense.
    No, but just like we can see photons of a visible wavelength without seeing infra red, we can measure photons of 'temperature' 2.7K without having to see all the starlight photons (which are in the IR to UV range mostly).

    Don't you know anything about light?

    I'm still waiting for your quantitative calculations to support your claims. What's the matter, can't you do any physics?
     
  23. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,543
    AN:

    I believe the better explanation is that the neutrinos originate from the interior of the SN during its implosion, and then pass through the churning mass at nearly c. The electromagnetic signature being issued concurrently with the neutrino release, however, has to make its way through a huge overburden of material that retards that signal by about 1/2 hour. Thus, the neutrinos have about a half-hour 'head-start' on their journey compared to the visible-light photons that we see as a SN here on Earth, which are eventually liberated from the surface of the SN [and not from the interior where the neutrinos are liberated] about 1/2 hour after the neutrinos had already departed.

    That is why, if we had a good neutrino detector, it is believed we could see a CB of neutrinos that originate even farther away than the CMB.

    Where did you hear the "outer-space has an index-of-refraction explanation"?
     

Share This Page