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
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Big Bang theory lacks the scientific evidence and it is a mere theory su[pported by over zealous scientists .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,640
    Aw, and you were this close to coming across as smart...
    Wrong, wrong and wrong.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,257
    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.
     
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    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:
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,640
    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.
     
  10. Pipes75 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
    Furthermore since not everything is known, no theory is complete.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,640
    Wrong.
     
  12. D H Some other guy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,257
    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.
     
  13. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Are you referring to the speed of 'gravity waves' or 'speed of gravity forces' ?
     
  14. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    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 .
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,640
  16. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    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.
     
  17. Pipes75 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    - 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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So sure Big Bang is true, but it isn't enough by itself, and some parts might be wrong, lol.
     
  18. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,379
    what is the "edge" of the expanding universe?
    is it space beyond space?
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That edge is hidding at the same place the other side of the mobus strip is. (Inside the Kline bottle many think.)
     
  20. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Space is literally nothing and is only defined by what occupies it. What is beyond the edge of the universe? Nothing. Literally nothing.
     
  21. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    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.
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2009
  23. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page