Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

Let's say Einstein denounced his CC around 1925. He lived more than another 30 years and still he did nothing but denounce his Cosmological Constant. Making up Repulsive Forces off the top of your head is poor Science and I don't care who knows it. Of course, like Poles repell each other. But this, the repulsive force of electro-magnetism is real in other words, nobody made it up. I know you went to a lot of trouble to explain GR to me, and I can only, if reluctantly, thank you for your valued contribution to my thread. But really, if you believe the entire Universe was contained in the size of less than an atom, and it exploded, then slowed down, then sped up again - all dreamed up on the news that the Observable Universe was expanding (of course Lemaitre couldn't have realised that simple Universal Gravity could do the same thing, he was after all a mathematician) then all I can say is you must be as dense as he was. He wasn't dense? Einstein himself complained about Lemaitre, stating that he (Lemaitre) had a woeful lack of Physics. Oh yes, sorry for saying Einstein married a Physician, I fully realise my error - he married a Physicist. How can you state categorically that she didn't set him right about his CC (Lambda)? Models? Your raisin cake, warming in the oven, completely fails to show... But you're not listening. You've been juiced in this Big Bang since you were a kid, and it's all you know, and (like Steven Hawkings) you've become something of a mathematical expert on it, having devoted most of your career to the study of it. Did you ever think maybe there was another explanation, that things are not always as they appear, that all matter and energy must be conserved, that Science prefers the simple answers ( Lex Parsimoniae 'The Law of Succinctness') of which mathematicians seem blissfully unaware. Einstein knew there was another explanation - he hoped it would be simple, and it is. I don't need your Big Bang, your Dark Energy, your CC, your complicated formulae, your Outward Expansion that Speeds Up ad infinitum. I'm not totally convinced your anti-gravity, that you say drives the Cosmos (please) even exists. You can't show me some, or tell me where I can find it. That's because it's a figment of human imagination. My models all show the Speeding Up Expansion, maybe not quantitatively, but actually. Why won't you accept my models? Your raisin cake is acceptable to you, isn't it? I would like to know your thoughts on this raisin cake model.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have taught me some things about Big Stars versus Small Stars, Principia not In Principia, and if you're apologising then I should too. I always believe you can learn from anyone, I'm learning from Alpha N. all the time. He's a mathematician. Are you? What you call Science Zealots, I call Modern Scientists. Once they (Modern Scientists) taught that Man arrived instantly, and people believed them - that the Sun went around the Earth, when the exact opposite was really true. They were Modern Scientists for their day. Darwin and Copernicus faced much opposition, mainly, I think from Religious Fundamentalists (RFs). The trouble is, the Big Bang agrees with the Bible, and RFs can't have a Cosmology that differs from this 'Poof,' there it is kind of Cosmology. Tese Rfs, of course, are from every religion. You have Christian RFs, Jewish Rfs, Muslim RFs and no doubt Hindu and Shinto RFs. In their book, whatever it is, it says the Cosmos arrived suddenly. They are totally unprepared to see things any other way and get angry if you try to tell them man evolved only slowly over the years. These RFs, from whatever religion, are powerful even today or should I say 'especially today.' There are people going around talking about the Big Wheeze, and that's because they simple are too savvy to realise the Speeding Up expansion of the Observable Univerese started only now. I could go on ...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An arrogant prat! I don't think I've ever been called thatthat before.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have repeatedly asked you to explain why you think you know what is or isn't 'poor science'. Why do you think you know what is or isn't science when you don't even have a high school level understanding of it?

So you admit that repulsive forces are not inherently 'poor science'. So now the issue is why this particular repulsive force is, according to you, 'poor science'. EM repulsion is okay from your PoV because it is 'real'. So what are you defining to be 'real'? Something we can measure, observe and test? We can do that with dark energy, we can observe and measure its effects.

And your choice of phrase, 'made up', illustrates you don't understand how science is done or how hypotheses play a part in it. Einstein developed a model of things we already knew about, gravitational behaviours of the solar system. Armed with that new model he worked out implications such a model would have and used them to make predictions. That is how science works, you say "I have a working model of this system which I know is accurate and I think it also applies to that system. If it does then we should see it do X, Y and Z.". Such a prediction is then tested and the model evaluated. Einstein made predictions about orbital precession, time dilation, photon red shifting and the nature of the time development of the universe as a whole. That is good science because he made predictions, something your 'work' is incapable of doing. He didn't just make up "Hey, how about a cosmic repulsive force!" one day, it was part and parcel of the model he'd developed to explain other phenomena. Its a sign of a good model when you develop it to explain 1 thing and it then turns out to explain 10 things.

Dirac developed quantum field theory to explain things like the Lamb shift and in doing so he found the solutions always came in pairs, implying the electron must have a partner of opposite charge. He had predicted the positron, years before its discovery.

If you can't see the difference between just making something random up (which is how you come to your 'theories') and applying a pre-existing and verified model to new domains then you have a fundamental gap in your understanding of science.

I gave you little more than the quickest of summaries of a particular point of it. You should have already known everything I said if you'd been honest and bothered to do some reading before making your mind up. I shouldn't be having to walk you through basic concepts or correcting such simple misconceptions you have, you should have done some reading yourself.

Why is it dense? We have a quantitative model which makes numerous predictions about a wide range of phenomena which have been tested and validated. That is the very essence of science, following the scientific method.

I see you're either still just trolling or you've not bothered to read things said to you. Newton, the original developer of 'universal gravitation', was a mathematician by profession. In fact I went to the same college and did the same degree as him. Dirac was a mathematician (he went to the college next door). Stokes was a mathematician (same college as Newton). Maxwell was a mathematician (same college again!). Hawking is a mathematician (held the same professorship chair as Newton did). Penrose is a mathematician. Witten got a Fields medal. The governing action of GR is the Einstein-Hilbert action and Hilbert is considered to be one of, if not the best mathematicians ever. Your naive black and white "Mathematicians don't know about the real world" view point is either you trolling or a sign of just how thick and out of touch from actual science you are. Even a short time on Google searching for information on famous people who've contributed to physics will bring up a lot of mathematicians.

So because Lemaitre might not have been a good physicist then no mathematician is?

Because he developed GR alongside other people, such as Hilbert. He didn't just turn up one day and say "I've got this thing called general relativity and it predicts....", he developed it over the course of years, all the time talking and working with other physicists. That's the whole 'research community' thing, people develop ideas by discussing them with others and Einstein's wife wasn't always at his side.

If you want to seriously put forth the claim that Einstein didn't understand his own work and it was due to his wife you're going to have to provide some evidence. Otherwise it looks like you're use clutching at straws.

This is (at least) the third time I've pointed out your analogy is wrong. If you continue to simply ignore things people say and just repeat things you've been corrected on then I'll start reporting your posts because it is little more than trolling.

I can't help but feel you're projecting somewhat. You struggle to understand it and so you assume everyone else is the same and thus they must just be accepting it on blind faith. I hate to break it to you but some of us actually have a working understanding of this stuff and this don't need to take someone else's word for it. I know how to compute the effect such a thing would have on the CMB and its power spectrum or the emission lines of supernova. I know how to construct the FRW metric from the field equations and not just parroting, actually understanding it.

I told you before, I'm not a cosmologist. I know from your point of view its impossible to tell the difference between someone who is a professor of cosmology and someone who did a cosmology course in university but my academic career was not related to cosmology, I worked on the general relativistic/quantum field theoretic description of the compact dimensions in string theory. Such things can be used to model inflation in the big bang model but I only spent a month or two doing that in my first year. If the big bang were kicked over tomorrow it'd have absolutely no bearing on my research. Now my research is outside of academia and not related to cosmology at all. Thus your insinuation I'm defending the BB because I have work invested in it is false. I did say all of this to you before but you obviously didn't remember. Pay attention a little more.

Yes, but when you factor in the plethora of experimental observations pertaining to the universe's state 10+ billion years ago there's very little room to avoid such qualitative things like "The universe was small and hot a while back". If someone could provide an alternative model which successfully explains said observation I'd be interested to see it but as yet there isn't one.

But if you make an answer too succinct as to be wrong then you've made a mistake.

Again, how do you know what mathematicians are or aren't aware of? You don't know what part mathematics plays in science and you don't know the utility of mathematics in physics. Would you like me to list a few famous mathematicians who made huge contributions to physics again or are you capable of scrolling up? I wouldn't want to overtax your brain.....

You keep whining about how mathematicians aren't aware of things yet you've demonstrated you aren't aware things in physics expected of a 16 year old. Trying to insult someone like me for supposedly not knowing about physics methodologies is so laughably hypocritical I really hope you're just trolling because otherwise it means you're very very thick not to notice it.

After all, you're getting schooled in basic physics by me, someone whose job description is literally 'mathematician'. If mathematicians are so clueless when it comes to physics what does that say about you?

From your general attitude you appear to think you don't need honesty and understanding either. I guess those just get in the way of self delusions.

You haven't looked at the evidence, you haven't tried to find anything out about it, you haven't got any understanding of it, you haven't got any wish to even try to understand it and you haven't got a single iota of intellectual honesty. You've decided you're 'not totally convinced' without finding out anything about. How honest is that?

I have, repeatedly. The problem is you won't look. If you were really interested you'd have done by any 6 year old would do and type something like "Evidence for the big bang" into Google. Even kids know to do that when they want to find something out. You thought a picture from Wikipedia was PhD level in complexity so even if I were to try to explain the specifics to you you obviously lack the basic understanding of physics to understand it. I'd say you also lack the basic brain capacity too. Perhaps you think so too and that's why you've made no attempt to find any information for yourself, you don't want to face up to the fact you're simply too thick. That'd explain why you keep saying "Things should be simpler! That's too complex!!", you don't want to face up to the fact there's something about the world you can't grasp.

No, you assert you have an explanation but you don't. You keep using the word 'model' but you can't model anything. I guess you didn't understand even my high school level explanation.

I've answered this. I explained why your 'models' aren't models because they don't model anything. You quoted the post so either you're exceedingly thick or exceedingly dishonest. Probably both.

If you're unable or unwilling to listen when someone who understands something you don't corrected you on it (in regards to this 'raisin cake' label) then simply stop talking about it, else you're just trolling. I've given you plenty of lengthy explanations about your mistakes but you keep ignoring them and then repeating the same mistakes or asking the same inane questions. The post of yours I'm replying to is an example, you went back and replied to a post from further back in the thread, ignoring the newest reply I'd posted. Why? I imagine it was something to do with avoiding answering questions I ask you or facing up to mistakes I correct.

If your 'model' is so great and your grasp of physics so brilliant surely answering direct questions isn't too hard? Can't you manage an honest discussion with a mathematician? Is your grasp of physics so poor?

It isn't a model, it doesn't model anything. If you claim otherwise then please reply to this DIRECT question, which I previously asked and you ignored :

Name one phenomenon on the real world which you have developed a working quantitative model for. Show how you derived such a model, clearly stating your starting assumptions. Using the results you derive make precise, testable, predictions about said phenomenon and compare them to the current mainstream model's predictions and experimental results.

If you won't reply to that direct question then I won't discuss your 'models'. Answering basic things like that is a necessary part of 'good science'. Being unwilling to answer them is a sign of 'poor science'. If you want to discuss your ideas then you've got to be willing to answer questions other people ask, not just spout set pieces.

 

No, I'm now a med student, and previously a lecturer in business information systems.

You appear to assume that anyone who supports Big Bang cosmology must be a zealot. I think it would be better to look at the science itself, rather than engaging in stereotypical character judgments.

In my experience, most scientists (that's a job title by the way... if someone is not getting paid for doing science, then they are not a scientist) are not zealots.

 

Not to your face.

 

Astrocat, nobody thinks that the universe popped into being fully formed except for some fundamental religious people.

The big bang theory posulates that the universe started from a very concentrated point and expanded and evolved over time. It is continuing to expand and evolve.

 

Okay, Alpha, why don't you tell me about the raisin cake model in Wiki. You obviously hate my description of it, so let's see yours. And a 'Prediction,' to me anyway, and I'm sure to a lot of people out there, comes from the Latin, 'pre' means before-hand and 'diction' means 'saying'. Ergo, prediction is a fore-saying of something in the future. Please explain, one more time if you don't mind, what you think 'Prediction' means. Also, your models are mathematical and based on Einstein's Cosmological Constant, which he didn't just abandon, but he took the trouble to publicly denounce it, using the strongest language possible, calling it 'the greatest blunder of my career.' If Einstein had made a mistake, don't you think in 30 years he would have done something to correct it. What actually happened was mathematicians loved his Lambda, and Einstein gloried in their praises - but he couldn't help physicists from looking at him askance. Now I'm sure he would have asked his wife why this was, and she might even have asked around, among other physicists she knew. Pretty soon she would have found out, if she didn't already know it, that going around making up new repulsive forces (that fly in the face of Gravity) is to be considered poor Science. Poor Science says who? Me, I'm a true scientist, willing to look under any rock in order to gain Scientific Truth. You simply can't go around manufacturing these repulsive forces, no matter how much fun it is, or how much other mathematicians will think of you.

 

I am willing to answer any question you like. My models model the behaviour of the Observable Universe. You want mathematical models, I prefer to offer real world models that you can actually see, hear touch and, if neccessary, taste. Your mathematical models all have a flawed ancestry, all fly in the face of gravity - I'm sorry, Alpha, to me they're worthless... They model what's really happening - a Universe expanding exponentially ad infinitum outwards, powered by anti-gravity (with a cool sounding name - Dark Energy - ooh!) from something less than the size of an atom which for some reason exploded, instead of forming a Black Hole as predicted by GR - and which only yesterday started Speeding Up? With your manufactured Repulsive forces, you think this is fine, because your math agrees with it. Well, I got news for you. The Expansion comes with a negative curve - go to Freidy for the math. It's all possible - actually probable, if you would just consider that penultimate sentence.

 

Great to hear what you do. Me, I fix fridges. And no, Pete, I don't think everyone who supports the BB is a 'zealot' as you call them, or 'Modern Scientist' as I call them. Everyone in the world believes in the Big Bang, everyone but me. If I was against them personally I wouldn't have many friends. It's the Fundamentalists among them, the ones that believe every word of their particular book is the word of the Almighty, whatever they call him in that religion. You see, every book has this 'Poof,' there it is, kind of beginning to the Cosmos. These books were written eons ago, by relatively simple people, and have been passed down. Now, if, as I am, you say their book is wrong, well, watch out - they don't like that at all. If you persist they get angry. I'm sure Darwin noticed the same thing.

 

Hi, Origin. The Big Bang states that the Cosmos came out of a space less than an atom. Such an object would not, could not have exploded - it would have formed a Black Hole as predicted By GR. Um, you can't evolve much in 13 billion years. Let's say Sol accreted Earth about 5 billion years ago. That seems to agree with current estimates. Now let's say Earth goes on for another 5 billion years (before Sol eats it?). that gives Earth, a planet, a ten billion year life span. I actually think that's a very conservative estimate. Now, because of the red hot ball of iron that composes Earth's core, I suspect that that red hot ball of iron is part of the ejecta of a dead , exploded star. If the Cosmos is 13 billion years old, and Earth can persist for another five billion years giving it a 'ten billion year lifespan', and Earth is already Five billion years old, then that leaves only 8 billion years for the star (from which Earth came) to have compressed down from a hyge Hydrogen cloud, to the point where fusion occurred, then to have lived its complete lifespan right up to its final death - all in 8 billion years? And Earth lasts 10 billion years? Do you see anything wrong with this picture? Please respond.

 

Astrocat, I don't know why you're so attached to the idea that the Big Bang model is the product of religious fundamentalism. Like origin said, the Big Bang model does not describe how the Universe began, it describes the state of the Universe some time ago, and how it evolved from there.

And your dialog with Alphanumeric is interesting... you don't seem to be proceeding with a True Science attitude. It's as if you really want your idea to be right, instead of really wanting to know whether it's wrong. A True Scientist would be seriously critically examining the idea with the expectation that it will turn out to be wrong.

Note that doing so is going to need mathematics. Hard mathematics. Vague descriptions really aren't enough to check whether an idea is able to model whether a ball of hydrogen and helium the size and mass of the Sun would have the Sun's temperature and radiation, for example.

 

Predictions in science, especially physics, need to be detailed. After all, the devil is in the details. Its easy to come up with a 10 sentence 'explanation' for something which is off the top of your head and might seem superficially viable. Anyone can do that. The difficult part is being able to make precise predictions. I've already given you examples, a ball thrown upwards will come down but its important to know where and when. Both Newton and Einstein predict the precession of Mercury but only Einstein gets it right.

Yes, they can be used to make precise predictions. And the fact they are phrased mathematically doesn't mean they don't have any physical grounding. The derivation of the Einstein field equations can be done considering the dynamics of a fluid. The FRW metric is obtained from the field equations by noting that the universe has both isotropy (looks the same in all directions) and homogeneity (looks the same from any vantage point). These two very simple physical conditions lead to the FRW metric.

No, it can include the CC but it is not required. You should look up the models before making proclaimations about them.

You seem to really be failing to grasp how science works. Science is about correcting previous mistakes. You keep saying about how Einstein 'corrected' his mistake, his 'blunder', yet now you're telling us not to correct that mistake, despite the fact we have decades of evidence since Einstein's death which point to the non-zero value of the cosmological constant. Yes, Einstein was wrong about the cosmological constant, he was wrong about a lot of things. His views on general relativity are not gospel, there is no "We must follow Einstein's words", which making your comparisions with religion all the more flawed because we're not canonising someone, someone you are canonising! The 'golden age' of general relativities was the 60s and 70s, after Einstein's death. He contributed little to GR after the early 30s.

I've asked you several times and despite you saying you'll answer any question you refuse to explain how it is you think you know more about the history and development of general relativity than any actual physicist. You don't even know high school physics yet you seem to think your guesses about how professors, both mathematicians and physicists, in science have been working are right.

I have been in both a maths and a physics department. I've worked on both quantum field theory and general relativity. I know people on both sides of this imaginary fence you think exists between maths and physics. I understand both the details and the history and I can categorically tell you your take on things is false.

Einstein had a PhD in physics. He worked in a physics department. Why would he need his wife to ask around?

If all you can do is simple invent stories to tell yourself and to try and convince others then you're demonstrating you aren't interested in honest discussion.

Yes, your extensive experience in fixing fridges and inability to understand high school physics makes you 'a true scientist'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Before I thought you were a bit naive, that you'd just not understood the things you'd read. Then it became clear you are dishonest, as you haven't even tried to find out the information you ask others to provide. Now you're showing you're just delusional, thinking you're 'a true scientist' when you have no knowledge, no experience, no understanding, no honesty and no grasp of anything relevant to your claims and you resort to simply making up stories about Einstein's wife. I mean, come on, do you think you'll really convince anyone who knows a jot of GR's history or basic science you're anything other than dishonest?

You can if the evidence is there and its a tested working description of the relevant phenomena. Without something like the cosmological constant gravity is actually the only force which doesn't have a repulsive component to it. Electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions can be repulsive as well as attractive. For the technically minded (since other people other than you will read this post and some of them aren't detached from reality) its because they are all associated to vector fields. In quantum field theory its possible to show that the effective interactions of vector fields can be repulsive while scalars and spin-2 fields (the graviton is spin-2) must be attractive only. I can provide a book and page reference if anyone is interested, but obviously you aren't. You're too dishonest to even try Google or Wikipedia before making claims.

The simple and evident fact of the matter is you're not.

You haven't yet provided a model. You've provided a wordy explanation.

You can taste your model? A model is an abstract concept whose structure we associate to things in the real world. You can't feel or taste or see Newton's model of gravity or Einstein's general relativity. You can feel and (if you want) taste the things they describe, ie the objects which gravity acts on. Since you clearly don't understand I'll explain it to you....

A mathematical model is an abstract formal construct with clearly stated rules and formalism. Using known results in mathematics various parts of said model can be developed and 'conclusions' arrived at. A simple example would be that if \(\ddot{x}(t) = -g_{0}\), where \(g_{0}\) is a constant then \(x(t) = A + Bt - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}\) for A,B constants. This is pure mathematical abstraction presently. To turn it into a physical model you have to associate physical things with the mathematical objects in your model. If you associate the height of something above the ground with x(t) and \(-g_{0}\) with the acceleration objects feel when dropped from a height then \(x(t) = A + Bt - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}\) is now a simple model for the motion of objects near the Earth's surface as they move under gravity's effects. Suppose you want to know how long it takes a ball dropped from a height of 2 metres to hit the ground. The initial height is 2 so A=2 and the initial speed of 0 so B=0. Thus \(x(t) = 2 - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}\). The ground is at height 0 so you want to solve \(x(t) = 0\). Thus you solve \(0 = 2 - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}\) for positive time to get \(t = \sqrt{\frac{4}{g}}}\). The stronger gravity the larger g and the quicker the ball hits the ground. For Earth g is about 10 so it'll hit the ground in \(t = \sqrt{0.4} = 0.63\) seconds. Go on, try it.

But its better than that! What if NASA wants to land a probe on Mars and they use inflating airbags to cushion the probe landing (which they have done, look up the Pathfinder mission), so they need to know how things fall near the Martian surface. Then you just put in the Martian value for \(g_{0}\) and you get the time taken for an object to fall from 2 metres on Mars! But what if you don't want to do 2 metres but 10? Then you solve \(0 = 10 - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}\) and get \(t = \sqrt{\frac{20}{g_{0}}}\). You can even include the fact the object might not be initially at rest by having B non-zero, you just solve \(0 = A+Bt - \frac{1}{2}g_{0}t^{2}\) for initial height A and initial velocity B. One model does it all and since it applies to all those different conditions we can test it for a lot of different cases and then use it to build machines based on said understanding.

The fact its been phrased mathematically means you can correctly apply it to different situations. Using maths you can be sure that your result is the logical conclusion of your starting assumptions, just as the FRW metric is the logical conclusion of assuming the universe is isotropic and homogeneous. There's no room for a mathematician just throwing in something he likes on a whim, as it's got to follow from the initial postulates and the implications will be tested. Einstein's original derivation of the CC was via mathematics, which shows its not impossible for the universe to be filled with a background energy, provided it behaves in a certain way. An important principle in science is the totalitarian principle, if you can't rule it out then you should consider it. Einstein thought observations ruled it out and called it a blunder. Now, 50+ years after his death observations say it isn't ruled out.

You simply do not know how the CC fits into cosmological models so your ignorant assertions are just that, ignorant.

No, it flies in the face of our understanding in 1930, just as our understanding in 1930 flew in the face of our understanding of 1800, which flew in the face of our understanding in 800, which flew.... you get the picture. Yes, some things science says now contradict what science used to say but that's the power of science, it is self correcting. You whine about dogmatic religious attachment in the scientific community yet you're clinging to the science of 1930, even in the face of evidence its incorrect.

Why should you be the yardstick by which worth is measured? You don't do science, you have no use for any quantitative models, correct or otherwise. Hell, it would appear a high school education in science is worthless to you, as you clearly don't have one and thus make no use of it.

A rose by any other name....

That's a quote from Shakespeare by the way, as I am not going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are aware of that.

Think about what you just said. You said GR predicts the BB cosmological model as impossible, yet every single person whose working on cosmology is familiar with basic GR, they use it everyday. Not only that but there's just as many relativity researchers working in other areas of physics. And yet, despite knowing about GR, none of them have reached the conclusion you have, that it contradicts the big bang model. What would a reasonable person conclude? Would they conclude it means they don't contradict one another or that there's some giant conspiracy covering it up, despite it being basic undergrad stuff we're talking about.

Inflation was put forth to explain why the universe is so thermally homogeneous while dealing with the issue of having to have expansion such that the universe didn't collapse back into a black hole. There's a great deal of work considering such kinds of 'universes'. If you want a pop science explanation Penrose talks about it in 'Road To Reality'. A more technical discussion can be found in a paper by Susskind on such things. See here and here. The fact is it is not automatic such a concentration of matter would automatically become a black hole. If you'd done a bit of reading before declaring you understand this stuff then you might have known this already.

Like I've said, it doesn't say good things about your honesty if you're daft enough to lie about physics on a physics forum, some members of which have working understanding of the material you lie about. Its like smearing yourself in raw meet, jumping into a tank of sharks and being surprised when you get bitten.

A ball kicked just right to go up a hill and only just get over it will slow down as it goes up the slope and then speed up after it gets over the top. The rate of expansion of the universe can be viewed in a similar manner. In fact you can model the dynamical field associated to the expansion in just that manner.

Putting forth new things is what science is about. If we couldn't suggest new things we'd never move forward.

No, its fine because the experiments and observations done to test the implications of the mathematics have validated the implications and thus the notion of a cosmological constant. You constantly demonstrate you think this is all just done on the whim of mathematicians and that no physical considerations are made. That's flat out wrong, it was physical observations which prompted people to look at the cosmological constant again.

And you know this how? Did the last fridge you fixed lead you to such a conclusion or are you just making things up in order to avoid facing up to the fact you don't understand science? You said you'd answer any question so answer that one, answer why you think you're in any position to know what expansion does or what poor science is or isn't, given your zero experience, knowledge and understanding of anything relevant, model or observation.

 

I just find it hard to believe, Pete. I'm never gonna believe Planets last longer than Stars, I guess it's just something in me. Are you saying, a Star can collect enough Hydrogen to go critical in the center, live its life, die and explode all in 8 billion years? It's my belief that some of the youngest stars are between 20 and 40 billion years old. Going back to that graph you so aptly brought up. Now, if, as I say, there are only two kinds of expansion, the kind that starts fast and slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and speeds up, and we know Modern Scientists all thought the expansion of the Observable Universe was of the first kind, the kind that starts fast - your Big Bang. It was while looking to find when the slowing down would occur (1998) that it was discovered that the expansion of the Observable Universe was of the second kind, the kind that starts slowly and speeds up. Now, if we take your graph and pencil in when the expansion would have started if it was of the second kind (and it is) you can quickly see that you have to go back 'further' than the graph will let you. Imagine if the expansion of the Observable Universe was of the second kind, which it is, and we are penciling in the graph that shows the speeding up expansion, how far back, Pete, would we have to go, in order to find the exact? moment the Universe was born? Perhaps several miles, and of course, the graph would only gradually touch that moment - there wouyld be several moments when the Universe was born - showing, among other things, that we evolved.

 

Reality is determined by astrocat's belief. He has no basis for his belief, other than his total lack of science education and understanding. But he is a
real scientist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Big Bang does not describe how the Universe started? It didn't come from a space of less than an atom? The Universe didn't happen suddenly, everywhere at once? The Big Bang evolved? Wow, are you absolutely sure mainstream Science is going to go for that? Sure, the Big Bang agrees with the bible - with the bible or khoran or whatever you want to call it, of whatever religion you choose. They all have this 'Poof,' there it is - 'just like that' that primitive people believe. Okay, you tell me, on which day (wasn't it the third?) did god put in place the 'Firmament?' Now, if you believe this, and someone tells you the Universe didn't happen 'Poof,' just like that, it's your Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu or Shinto duty to shut him up. But then, I believe there are only two kinds of expansion. As for my discussion with Alpha Numeric, I dunno. I do my best, I guess.

 

Actually, it doesn't. It describes how the universe has expanded and evolved, but it doesn't address what it was that 'banged'.

 

Predictions is the first word of your post, and yet you were entirely unable to predict the exponential ad infinitum expansion of the Observable Universe that you think we see tonite. I, however, was well aware that the exponential - to a terminal speed - expansion of the Observable Universe would be discovered. I predicted it. That's what's so good about a forward looking theory compared to a backward looking one. I will further predict that not just the expansion, but the Cooling Down also will eventually, maybe soon, be found to be increasing exponentially. I predict that we are going to be encountering greater and greater masses, as we go, and that there is going to be a revolution in cosmological circles. Now don't tell me I'm wrong. Let the future show who's right and who's wrong. You mock me because of my job? Well, mathematician, that's a two way street, as is everything else in life. And please don't talk to me about predictions anymore. That said, your posts take me a long time to read, and again, reluctantly, I have to thank you for your valuable contributrion - your post #372, and this one. yOU CAN BE (CAPS LOCK) interesting as well as insulting, knowledgable as well as ... I won't say it.

 

Your Universe didn't evolve - it happened 'Poof, just like that.' Don't be misled, evolution doesn't happen 'Poof, just like that.' Evolution happens only slowly, over trillions of years, sometimes.

 

Actually, I just don't fall for all the garbage you've consumed in your head.