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

It seems a popular pastime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It seems a good way to learn...

ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science prefers the simple answers, AlexG. Comlicated fabrications don't interest me, you see. The Universe started expanding fast, then it slowed down, then it sped up again - please!

Thanks at least for enlarging on your view that this thread belongs in the cesspit. I don't, of course. Gravity rules!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I notice, Phlogistician, that you employ a good deal of sarcasm in your language. Can we at least keep the discussion scientific?
I trhink Newton's work was called 'In Principia,' though I could be wrong.

No, I concluded that there never was a Big Bang, and that Dark Energy doesn't exist. If Dark Energy fills the Cosmos, how come there isn't any around here?

No, I don't have three eyes, but I am able to spot a fabrication at a thousand paces. Let's see you do that?

 

Not getting it...

 

Welcome, Lady Historica, to my thread. I trust you're another Big Bang fan? Do you agree that science prefers the simpler answers?

 

Science prefers correct answers.

You don't even come close.

 

We could try, but you'd have to try hardest.

You are wrong, I gave you the name already. Are you such a dolt you cannot work a search engine and verify the title? Clearly you are!

Another unsupported assertion by you. Claim after claim, ... no evidence of understanding. You are becoming a waste of time.

 

I am very unhappy with it. I wanted way bigger bang for my buck....

 

I think it was Einstein who said that a theory should be as simple as possible but no simpler.

Newtonian gravity is much much simpler than GR but there are things it simply cannot accurately describe and so if someone is doing extremely precise gravitational experiments they must use GR, else they will reach false conclusions. Electromagnetism is simpler than electrodynamics, as electrodynamics includes special relativity, but if you're doing high velocity electromagnetic experiments you need to use electrodynamics. Electrodynamics is simpler than quantum electrodynamics, as it doesn't include quantum effects, but if you're considering high velocity particle interactions then you need to include quantum effects.

Its easy to come up with a wordy explanation for things like galaxy rotation rates or universe expansion rates because you're avoiding the details. Dark matter was included in astrophysics because when you work out the details no current gravity model can explain the observations. Yes, not including dark matter in your model certainly gives a simpler model than if you included dark matter but you end up with incorrect predictions, your model is too simple.

Its an historical fact that models get more complex as time progresses. Typically an old model is replaced by a new one which includes the old one as a special case. Electromagnetism is a special case of electrodynamics, which is a special case of quantum electrodynamics. Newtonian mechanics is a special case of relativity, which might be a special case of a quantum gravity model (currently unknown).

I asked you to provide a quantitative working model because until you do there's no reason to think you can actually model anything real. Would you believe me if I said galaxy rotation curves are due to invisible pixies pushing stars about? I doubt it, you'd ask for me to show I can actually apply this model to a real system, else I could just be making stuff up. That's why I asked you to give details, your claims might seem more legitimate 'science' than invisible pixies but that's only because you use physics buzzwords. Buzzwords do not a model make.

Intellectual curiosity and open mindedness doesn't seem to interest you either.

Can you provide a working detailed model which explains the observed data without predicting the behaviour you just rejected? If not can you provide experimental data which falsifies the mainstream model? If not then can you explain why you reject something when your position is completely unsupported by evidence and the opposing position makes testable predictions which have been validated.

 

never mind right and wrong. Science always prefers the simple answers. Either you know this, or you don't.

 

Yes, let's try to keep it scientific. Thanks, Phlogistician. Yes, Newton's book is commonly known as In Principia just like I said.

And where do you get off insulting me - I think I'm smarter than you, so how's that?

 

There was no big bang. It was made up by a Belgian Priest, The Rev. Lemaitre, on news that the Observable Universe was expanding. Quite a leap, it seems to me. I understand Erwin Hubble was reluctant to accept this explanation.

 

There is a difference between Simultaneous Equations. I'm surprised you need me to tell you this, just as I'm surprised you need me to tell you that Gravity runs the Universe.

Yes, I know how to use a search engine. Do you ask just to annoy me? Hubble was not the only one, of course, to notice the Observable Universe was expanding. He was the first to try to quantify the expansion by his Hubble Constant. He thought the Universe was expanding at a Fixed Rate.

Evolved in what way? People used to think Man was made instantly. Darwin taught us that man evolved slowly over time. The Cosmos too, evolved only slowly - not instantly, as you seem to think.

Collapse into the center of the Cloud - That's exactly what happened! Gravity is elastic, it's as if we're held down by rubber bands. If you jump up, you don't hit your head, you just fall back gradually. Air is also elastic. Hope you'll agree.

The center of the Universe is somewhere the other side of our Galaxy, in the zone of avoidance Beyond the Supercluster of Hydra Centaurus, beyond the Great Attractor, and beyond the Shapely Convention. As we near the center, bodies will become more and more massive. We are freefalling towards the central point of the Cosmos.

I prefer to say all Outward Expansions start fast, after a few milliseconds, and then start to slow down. Do you have a problem with this? Can you tell me one Outward Expansion that Speeds Up as it goes - other, of course, than what you imagine the Universe to be doing?

How does Gravity create a Hydrogen cloud? How do you think the sun started? Look at Jupiter - a planet on the edge of going critical. What do you think Jupiter is made of?

It's not Hubble's Law, it's the Hubble Constant (of expansion). I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this. I don't know much about Quantum - not really my area of study.

Why did the Cosmos Cool Down? There was compression in the original cloud, that warmed everything, especially towards the center. Black Holes eat heat. The center of the Cosmos is without heat. The remaining Cosmos still retains that original heat. And he Cosmos is finite, that's why it has a ceter. And anything finite has a center - or do you disagree with that?

And it's not Newton's principia. It's Newton's In Principia. I'm again surprised you need me to tell you this.

Yes, the universe is 'Pancake-like' confined largely to the Horizontal plane, with a bulge towards the center.

The Cosmos is Expanding Inwardly. Now I realise you never learned about Inward Expansion, but it is a genuine physical phenomenon. Put the Nozzle of a working Central-Vac in the center of a room, and it will evacuate the air nearest to the Nozzle. The remaining air in the room will Expand Inwardly to take its place. As the process continues, air from across the room will eventually stir (air is elastic, like gravity) and become drawn into the Nozzle - the point of Coldest Temperature, Highest Speed, Lowest Pressure - and Maximum Expansion.

How common is this Inward Expansion? Every time you breathe in, you mimic a Central Vac. How far do you have to go to finD Inward Expansion - it's right there at the end of your nose. Common or what?

I enjoy talking to you, James R, and I hope I've kept the talk scientific.

 

This boys cheese has slipped off his cracker.

This belongs in the Cesspool.

 

That's not even a complete sentence, you seem not to even understand James's question about differential and simultaneous equations.

I asked you to provide some quantitative details and you ignored me. If you don't have an answer at least admit it.

 

You never said that, you said:

But the actual title is:

'Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.'

So I have no idea where you derive the 'in'. When I studied physics, it was referred to as 'Principia Mathematica'. That's when I studied physics, ... clearly you haven't.

Well, you are a dolt that can't use a search engine to verify the name of a book, so that is insult worthy. Also, you may think you are smarter than me, but I doubt that. You clearly aren't as well educated, and I doubt you have more raw smarts. Have you managed to make one little mental connection yet? That being that all of the people here that have actually studied physics, disagree with you? What does that tell you?

 

What I meant to say, Alex G., is that Science prefers the simple answer because the simple answer is generally the correct one.