Is big bang proven to be solid true?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    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?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,334
    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.


    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.



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


    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.


    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 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?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,334


    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?
     
  8. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    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.
     
  9. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    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.

    Read some of the references cited earlier. Posts #130, #134, #141 a good place to start.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2009
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    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?
     
  11. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    just asking , does space , at the moment of the big-bang , have any friction associated with it ?
     
  12. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Big Bang is just another mere theory . Scientists come with all kind of weird theories with no proof at all . The scientific tragedy is that those scientists get away with everything they say because they are famous and their words are heavy everywhere .
     
  13. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    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).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    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 ?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Friction is a contact force between two objects. Space is not an object, so I don't see how it could have any friction.
     
  16. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504


    agreed

    so what would slow down the BB explosion in a frictionless space ?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Gravity?

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

    Messages:
    1,504
    no

    since gravity is such a very extremely, weak force

    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 ?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Compared to what?

    The big bang was not an explosion in space. It was an explosion of space.
     
  20. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    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.
     
  21. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    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.
     
  22. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    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?
     
  23. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334

    I must have explained it badly because you seem to be saying the same as what I intended.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page