Prove it.

Hi Poincare's Stepchild,

Just a minor correction. In fact, gravity can be repulsive as with the cosmological constant. For example, the vacuum fluctuations of quantum fields can behave rather like a cosmological constant. In fact, the strongly repulsive gravitational field that can be produced by such a quantum field was likely the cause of inflation. A leading candidate for dark energy is also the cosmological constant, but as you indicated, the precise meaning of such a thing remains mired in the difficulties experienced when trying to put quantum field theory and the general theory of relativity together.

Just wanted to clarify, and I hope this helps.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I understood it, the cosmological constant...as an effect of gravity...had been thrown out. It has resurfaced with the evidence of accelerating expansion of the universe...but still not as an effect of gravity.

Recall Einstein saying he thought the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will leave you folks to keep on contradicting yourselves. When you have a feasible theory let the plasmic camp know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just a thought before I go, did you know that the big bang that created everything means the universe should be 20 million yearts old? But observations show that the universe is more than 120 million years old. Thats just one of the many flaws of the big bang. Its also evident that most of you have no idea of what you are talking about, some of you just go to wikepeidia and come here with ridiculous ideas. My humble suggetsion id to read about the many flaws of such a ridiculous bang, its not too difficult.
Here's a start, if you want more I can help. The big bang has been remodeled, rewritten, reformed, readjusted, revised, and recontructed several times. To me its entirely impossible to fit something infinite as energy into something as finite as a single bang.
http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/index.htm
http://www.public.asu.edu/~kevinlg/anti-Big_Bang.pdf#search='flaws%20the%20big%20bang%20theory'

http://www.biblelife.org/bigbang.htm

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=7994

 

Does energy equal zero? If there is energy present doesn't that mean there is actually "something" present. Like I said most of you don't know what you are talking about. You can't even explain scientific ideas to a lay man so you can't possibly have a grasp of what you are talking about. Big bang is full of shit, period, get over it.

 

Kid, I've got fossils on my shelf older than that.

Kid, I've got fossils on my shelf that old.

Nope, just your lack of understanding of the orders of magnitude. The Universe is about 14Bn years old, child, not _millions_

That, is funny.

At least those people have actually read _something_ about the subject.

There are flaws, granted, but there is also a lot of evidence for. Pick each flaw in turn, and we'll discuss them.

That's science in action, reworking the model as new data comes in. But, the model has really just been honed, and new data fits quite nicely. There has been no major rethink, really. It's still a bang, after all.

Because you don't understand what energy is.

Oh, and please, leave out references to the biblical sites when talking about science. It make you look stupid. Sorry, more stupid.

 

whatever...(lights a cigarette)

 

So have I, and the many people who have refoemed, readjustec, revised, supported, fabricated, spun, and politicalized the subject. And so have the many millions who believe in plasmic ever changing beautiful universe.

 

You guys are fuckin nutters. I have given many reasons on a universe governed by process, both as devils_reject and the alias "Chatha". Its impossible for the universe to come to be from a single bang. I once read a scientific work somewhere that once upon a time the universe was small enough to fit into your living room before the big bang. Folks, try not to be too fuckin stupid will ya? There was no first bang, bangs have been happening for eons. However its possible that a certain bang gave the universe its meaning as we can possibly observe it today, I can't say, suffice to say there was no first bang. Its not a hidden prospect, the reality is that something in the universe is infinite. And yes if you want to discuss this point by point I will go out of my way to entertain you. You can start the debate..or thread. By the way why not also call it the first enegry, or the first matter, or the first space, or the first light, why do you call it the first big bang. You know why? Because it points to an external factor such as God and it sounds too full of shit. people are too stupid, i'm sorry to say. Period.

 

Its impossible for the universe to come to be from a single bang.

Prove it!

Dee Cee

 

"finite is a subset of infinite"

 

Prove it!

Oy! EmptyForce!

I'm not your fuckin' sock puppet!

Jump in here man.

This is making me feel stupid.
Dee Cee

 

That's because you are stupid.

 

devil's reject...

It is obvious you know little about the subject of the Big Bang. You may have read some stuff on anti-BB sites, but you know very little about what BB's supporters say. Most of your "facts" are not.

To really be able to grasp what the theory is saying, and current thinking on the subject, you need to know a fair amount about quantum mechanics. Without that knowledge, you are just blowing hot air.

 

What about my questions? PhysicsMonkey? Anyone? (*sulks off sadly*)

 

Poincare's Stepchild,

Einstein did say that the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder (and what a blunder since he could have predicted the expansion of the universe!), but he was probably wrong. Recent measurements suggest that the cosmological constant has a small nonzero value.

Now, gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and the expansion of the universe is inextricably linked to the gravitational field. Indeed, expansion is nothing but a change in the "scale factor" of the metric of spacetime. The cosmological constant is really a source for the gravitational field, but unlike most ordinary types of matter, it produces repulsive gravity. As I indicated above, something like it is important for describing inflation in the early universe, and something like it seems to be needed to describe the accelerating expansion of the universe.

To summarize, gravity can be repulsive given the right kind of source, and the cosmological constant is alive and well (and one of the biggest outstanding problems in physics).

 

this shows you just how little you understand. I don't claim to be an expert on BB, but spacetime expanded. how can you have eons when you cannot even measuring in time?

 

Hi Superluminal,

Sorry, I didn't see your questions before.

First, the universe is not expanding into anything. The trouble here is the usual culprit: an evocative analogy that has since gotten out of hand. What expansion means, in the technical sense, is just that something called in the scale factor changes. As its name implies, the scale factor tells you something about the size of the universe, but what people mean when they say the "universe" was once the size of a grain of sand is that the observable universe was once that size. Why does this distinction matter? Let's say, for example, that the universe is spatially flat (this is consistent with our current observations), then no matter what the scale factor, the universe is always infinite. What expansion means in practice is that every point in the universe is getting further away from every other point, that is, the scale factor is getting bigger.

Second, no one really knows what happened before the "big bang". No one even knows if this question makes sense. We are stuck with another misconception, namely the notion that the big bang theory is describing the absolute origin of the universe. It isn't. The big bang theory is a description of the evolution of the universe after some finite time. People will say all kinds of crazy things about infinite curvature, exploding from nothingness, and vacuum fluctuations, but all this is basically fluff. It's all decoration that's been added to the basic testable big bang model.

 

Big bang model for beginners:

A very very long time ago, the Universe was very very hot and very very dense.

 

Hi Chatha/devils_reject,

After reading your posts, I have concluded that part of your problem with the big bang theory is that you don't actually seem to know what it says. As I just told superluminal above, this exploding from nothingness is just fluff. The big bang theory is a model of the evolution of the universe, and it is well supported by observational evidence. Your insistence on there being a "center of expansion" and so forth is indicative of the fact that you haven't understood what physicists mean by expansion. I would suggest trying to learn what the theory actually says before you criticize it since at the moment all your criticisms are based on popularizations and as such carry no weight.