The Big Bang and Magnetic fields

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by river, Dec 7, 2013.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    From one who likes to parrot the mainstream position [based on evidence] to those that prefer anti mainstream propaganda parroting, Here is a best model to how and why the Universe/space/time evolved as it did........



    The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is known as the Big Bang. As of 2013, this expansion is estimated to have begun 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago.[1] It is convenient to divide the evolution of the universe so far into three phases.


    The very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no particles existed or could exist (except perhaps in the most fleeting sense), and the forces we see around us today were believed to be merged into one unified force. Space itself expanded during an inflationary epoch due to the immensity of the energies involved. Gradually the immense energies cooled – still to a temperature inconceivably hot compared to any we see around us now, but sufficiently to allow forces to gradually undergo symmetry breaking, a kind of repeated condensation from one status quo to another, leading finally to the separation of the strong force from the electroweak force and the first particles.
    In the second phase, this quark-gluon plasma universe then cooled further, the current fundamental forces we know take their present forms through further symmetry breaking – notably the breaking of electroweak symmetry – and the full range of complex and composite particles we see around us today became possible, leading to a matter dominated universe, the first neutral atoms (almost all of them hydrogen), and the cosmic microwave background radiation we can detect today. Modern high energy particle physics theories are satisfactory at these energy levels, and so physicists believe they have a good understanding of this and subsequent development of the fundamental universe around us. Because of these changes, space had also become largely transparent to light and other electromagnetic energy, rather than "foggy", by the end of this phase.
    The third phase started with a universe whose fundamental particles and forces were as we know them, and witnessed the emergence of large scale stable structures, such as the earliest stars, quasars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters, and the development of these to create the kind of universe we see today. Some researchers call the development of all this physical structure over billions of years "cosmic evolution". Other, more interdisciplinary, researchers refer to "cosmic evolution" as the entire scenario of growing complexity from big bang to humankind, thereby incorporating biology and culture into a grand unified view of all complex systems in the universe to date.[2]
    WIKI:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Now what I would like, speaking personally, is for some bright spark to come up with a scenario that is supported as well as the above, instead of asking stupid self evident questions, that just reinforce their ignorance.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    What is rather certain, is that the force that shaped the Universe as we see it, is gravity.
    Of that fact, most cosmologists do agree.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160

    I am quoting myself from before and I noticed nobody has answered direct experiments via the scientific method. Say both assumptions were true, or mass forms from space-time expanding and space-time expands as mass density lowers. Say I exploded a huge mass in the lab or witness a large expanding mass, such as a quasar, so space-time expands, via GR, as it follows the decreasing mass density. Shouldn't more mass/energy appear from the rapid space-time change? Was this done in the lab or observed in space?

    One can have time without space. A point or singularity that is undergoing internal changes leading to the boom is changing in time but not in space, since it remains a point which means no space. Picture an egg with an embryo developing. The egg does not change in size/space since the egg remains the same size. Changes occur inside the "point" but only in time.

    If you could move in time without space requirements, you can be anywhere in the universe in an instant. Or all places in the universe can be at the same point in an instant. This amounts to simultaneity at a point, which cannot occur in space-time but can occur in time without space. Once we add space to time to form space-time simultaneity stops; boom! Now there is time lag due to space so things don't coordinate so well and begin to differentiate and isolate.

    If we start the universe in a pure C reference you can go back even further. The entire universe is heading back to C but in different and often competing ways.
     
  8. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    So...paddoboy, if you perceive a question as "NOT HONEST", why not just refrain from what would seem to be a useless waste of your time by giving any type of answer?

    So how does "taking the bait", then failing to provide "any honest answer (to) immediatley(sic) discredit(s) his Plasma/Electric Universe nonsense", make your position appear any more honest/dishonest or sensible/nonsensical than river's to anyone witnessing the discourse?
    paddoboy, you enjoy Posting quotes, here are a couple : - "Never argue with a fool, on lookers may not be able to tell the difference." -
    “If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.” –Proverbs 29:9

    So...name calling ("idiots") and puerile accusations ("they do not want to learn")..."...the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet"!?

    paddoboy, why do you believe that only "Idiots are unable to see that all the observable Universe/space/time packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus would not create high temperatures and pressures", yet at the same time "...all the observable Universe/space/time packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus would not create"...a magnetic field?

    ...evidently...

    ..."and there is no quiet"!?

    So...paddoboy, you add more name calling (anti mainstream nutters!?) then try to shift the onus (or Burden of Proof) onto the person asking the questions, and not the Poster making making the statements that would seem to require evidence of proof?
    Are you positive that the onus (burden of Proof!?) falls on the shoulders of the one seemingly seeking to learn, by simply asking questions, instead of the one deeming to seemingly "know it all" and ACTUALLY MAKING THE STATEMENTS OF PURPORTED FACT!?!?

    paddoboy, what is your reason or impetus to use name calling and derision of other Posters, in what should be an openly honest and rational discussion?

    *NOTE* - Behaviour that may get you banned - from : http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=22
    - Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling. -

    paddoboy, you seem quick to allege, accuse, deride, belittle, "rage and laugh"! Is it possible that in your seeming stubbornness to "... state... the mainstream view and...continue to state it while evidence supports it.", you maybe..."do not want to learn"!?!?

    I have no "agenda", unless seeking more knowledge is an "agenda", and only ask these questions because :

    1.) - I have some honest interest in the issues brought up in the OP, and would not mind learning even more about them.

    2.) - As an "onlooker", I am not having much of a hard time "be(ing) able to tell the difference" between the "dogs in the fight" of this Thread, nor the seemingly dubious methods of "fighting" in a couple of the "dogs" participating.
     
  9. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Okay, paddoboy, the observers of this Thread have already distinguished between the Posters asking the questions and the "parroting" Posters - there is no need to reinforce that distinction! But, obviously...

    ...and parroted from Wiki...impressive...
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Much of what we perceived to have happened since the BB is based on GR and effects we have seen in particle accelerators etc.
    We logically know that just after space/time evolved from the event we call the BB, things were hot and dense....The four forces were amalgamated into one superforce. In conditions like this, matter cannot exist as matter.
    As phase transitions occurred [analogous to water turning into ice] excesses of energy [as temperatures began to fall with expansion] went into creating our first fundamentals, electrons, quarks and such......Further temperature decreases saw quarks unite into neutrons and protons, and our first atomic nuclei.
    This still pretty dense plasma existed with little change for 380,000 years [or thereabouts] until temperatures were low enough for electrons to couple with the atomic nuclei to form the first elements, hydrogen mainly and even some helium.
    From that point over a few hundred million years, gravity worked its magic, and the vast clouds of hydrogen and some helium underwent gravitational collapse and fusion at the cores of these collapses to form our first stars.

    This is why we have never seen quarks as individual separate entities. So close to that first Planck instant, have so far been impossible to obtain in our accelerators.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    What we as layman need to be careful of wellwisher, is that the scientific methodology, leaves itself open to plenty of abuse.
    The great man said "Ïmagination is more Important then knowledge", meaning of course that Imagination is as Important as knowledge.
    Sometimes someone [like Einstein] will revolutionise our view of the Universe with incredible insights, and I dare say one day in the near future, we may have a Zefram Chochrane emerge from the rubble of the many thousands of would be new Einsteins, with just as many new crazy ideas.
    Certainly there is a non zero chance of that happening.

    But the more likely scenario is that this future Zefram Chochrane will come from established ranks, as it is those in the established ranks that have access to the new accelerators and incredible powerful computers and other advanced technologies of today, that are out of reach of normal folk.
    Look at what the HST, COBE, WMAP, and other advanced technical machines and probes have achieved in the last half century.

    In other words, don't be fooled by claims made by those that see the fanatical need to usurp mainstream cosmology, from local backyards and bedroom labs. They are behind the eight ball from the word go for the reasons stated.

    The sorry thing about it though, is that some then get rather delusional and start mouthing off with unsupported claims about established mainstream scientists.
    It's sort of like the Cocky on the biscuit tin....They just aint in it!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543


    Like WIKI, I prefer to stand on the shoulders of giants, rather then Gnomes.
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    This observer of the thread thinks you need to put a cork in it.
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Yes, wellwisher, abuse along the lines of stating an exact quote :
    ...and then abusing the exact quote, by continuing...
    ...and pointing out that "the great man" seemingly lacked the ability to say what he actually meant, and therefore needed a seemingly and possibly even "great(er) man" to point out to Laymen what the merely "great man" actually meant to say!

    Yes, wellwisher, plenty of abuse!

    Abuse like maybe even taking the liberty of comparing real people to fictional characters from 50 year old T.V. shows...
    ...he might have meant "Zefram Cochrane" - but he is doing the abusing, so...well at least he supplied some examples of some of the "abuse" that...
    Of course you do, paddoboy. Just as you seemingly prefer to use name calling, derision, ridicule and constant failure to actually answer any questions, and seem to instead prefer repeating the same established Theory(Theories)...ad nauseam!

    paddoboy, if you consider "Wiki" to be "on the shoulders of giants" - what stature would the American Institute of Physics attain in your..."reality"?
     
  15. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    brucep, so...do you expect me to base my "need(s)" on what "brucep" thinks?

    Please tell me, brucep, why exactly I "need" to follow your thoughts instead of my own?

    And, brucep, could you possibly do it without quoting/parroting Wiki?
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543



    Oh brother, we have a real live one here!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    WIKI, just for your benefit, establishes the case for mainstream science.......

    And it is far far preferable for a layman such as myself, to rely on WIKI and its mainstream stance, rather then the goofball, ranting and raving from those that prefer the ratbag scenario......plus of course I do read plenty of reputable material by the likes of Thorne, Davis, Sagan, Feynman and a few others.
    I'll stand by that lots parroting gladly and proudly.
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'm not going to explain [write down any physics] for you. If you haven't read any of my previous posts on science then you wouldn't know what I can do. Irrelevant to me. In the beginning I was hopeful 'your handle' would be an indication that your posts might be interesting to read.
     
  18. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    brucep, I did not ask you to "write down any physics" for me. You know very well what I asked you - you even quoted it!

    So...please tell me, brucep, why exactly I "need" to follow your thoughts instead of my own?

    brucep, I have read many of your Posts - and why should I care about your abilities and limitations - except those that have to do with ...
    ...brucep, show me what you can do about answering the questions that I posited directly to you, in my Post #32 ^^above^^!

    Incidentally, you have no idea what I can do either! And, like you stated...it is just as...
    Also..just as your thoughts hold no sway over me - what you "hope...might be interesting to read" is not of my concern!

    Now, brucep, would you care to cease your seemingly feckless attempts at boasting, vaguely disguised feeble insults and failure to answer my questions?

    I need no "written physics", no inane evasive machinations, no condescending puerile sermon - just a simple answer as to why I, dmoe, "need to put a cork in it" because that is what you, brucep, think!!!

    P.S. you should not need to cite Wiki to do what I ask.
     
  19. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Yeah, yeah, yeah...but will you ever answer any of the questions Posted in this Thread!?!?
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Because you, along with rivers are sprouting rubbish???
    Because this is the cosmological forum, to discuss established mainstream ideas, and possibly sensible speculative ideas.
    Because Plasma/Electric Universe ideas have already been peer reviewed, and discarded.
    Because the alternate theories thread and the pseudoscience thread is over that way?
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Yeah, yeah yeah, will you ever stop your fanatical ranting????
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Just once again for the crackpot index adherents.

    The BB was not an explosion in the usual sense...much as a scientific theory is not just a theory in the usual layman sense.....

    The BB was an evolution of space and time from a highly dense form with incredible temperatures.


    Matter, our first fundamentals came later, through phase transitions and false vacuums.

    As temperatures dropped, matter started to congeal, first quarks, then after 380,000 years Electrons.....

    From that point gravity continued its irrepressible work and stars, planets and galaxies were formed.

    Once again, without question, gravity was the dominant force, along with that little known aspect of space/time itself, DE/CC.
     
  23. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,523
    Please be kind enough to quote Posts in this Thread where I have stated my accepted model of the universe. I Post mainly queries.

    ???... paddoboy, so who discerns the "possible sensibility" of these "speculative ideas" that you mention?

    Please be kind enough to quote Posts in this Thread where I have stated anything about this "Plasma/Electric Universe" you cite?

    Please be kind enough to quote Posts in this Thread where I have stated anything about "alternate theories" or "pseudoscience"?

    ...and 9 minutes later you repost your perception of your favorite theory, again..."fanatical ranting????" !!!
     

Share This Page