The Big Bang and Magnetic fields

:wave:

Has he put us all on ignore yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy, so..you also have made your choice. Thank you.
As far as "your lack of respect" - it originates within you - it was there long before I (or even my "imaginary" nefarious other "handle"!?!?) ever started Posting on this Forum.

paddoboy, I made no "disguised threats re moderation" - I made a direct statement : "...then any further Posts by you, whether to or about me would/could/should and WILL be nothing but TOTAL HARASSMENT OF A FELLOW POSTER, and will be treated/handled as such!"!

paddoboy, that is what I am doing now! RESPONDING TO YOUR TOTAL HARASSMENT - do you understand? Or do I have to Post it on youtube... or "copy/paste" it from Wiki before you believe it!

paddoboy, since it was explained to me that yourself and some other Posters on this Forum are expected to make false "assertions" without evidence to back said "assertions" - I will not in any way try to impede your seemingly childish game playing.
You have convinced me that you are not just "acting" ignorant!. I understand that you "get your rocks off" by less than mature methods and you seem quite content doing as much. Therefore I will respect you for exactly what your seeming lack of self-esteem evidently demands of you to be.
You are free to suffer the consequences of your chosen course! If you ever again FEEL CONFUSED BY FACTS, please do not blame the "CONFUSION" on me!

paddoboy, YOUR CONFUSION should end at about the same time YOU become able to discern REALITY from FICTION, FANTASY and DELUSION - WHEN and IF YOU EVER reach adulthood and can cope with and accept becoming a REAL MAN! (not sure how that whole "ignorance" problem will play out, though...so...suffer on!!

paddoboy, how sweet, a seeming "sanctimonious condescending attitude...exhibit(ed) so well", and by a seeming child, no less!

You do realize of course, paddoboy, that this is as far as I will go in responding to your CHILDISH BAITING AND INANE BEHAVIOR. I will not sink to YOUR LEVEL!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:wave:

Grumpy, if I put you all on "ignore"...then I would not be able to laugh at and enjoy your constant exhibition of ignorance.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ paddoboy

@ Grumpy

If you have not put me on ignore - I could really use your help with this Thread : Link below -
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?135056-Gravity-is-compressed-compression-pressure-density

 

No pad

I asked you how space and time become hotter and evolve without energy and matter

You gave no response other that insults

And then you gave , E=mc2 , fine

Which has Energy and mass

But the discussion , by you is that space and time were both energy and mass absent

E=mc2 , is dependent on energy and mass to exist

So I ask

How does space and time become hotter and evolve , without energy and matter?

Further just be clear

This has nothing to do with a Plasma Universe ideas and/or concepts

It has all to do with what was put forward by you , and asking a simple questions , by me

I'm calling you out

Now if you don't like the questions I put forward , tough

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Enough said on that subject above, as obviously records speak for themselves.

The sorry part in this saga, is similar to that other saga re the validity of SR/GR and another poster that dabbles in pseudoscience.
Difference being though, our anti brigade here, are unable/unwilling to use common sense and logical reasoning to extrapolate what has been said, being of course blinkered by their support of discarded pseudoscientific material, and at the same time asking self evident questions on that mainstream view, in there vain efforts to discredit it.

Cosmologists have some work to do yet and a working observable QGT is almost certainly part of that.
But the basis and main points of the BB/Inflationary model, are indisputable and at present without peer.....

Once again for the dummies and from one who likes to parrot the mainstream position [me] [based on evidence] to those that prefer anti mainstream propaganda parroting, [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] 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.
WIKI:

 

I see what you did there. Not the Best. Not one of the Best. But a Best.Tricky. Wiki.

Of course what Wiki means is : The instant in which the universe is KNOWN to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is THOUGHT of as the Big Bang. Did I do that right?

 

No, as usual you didn't......

The BB/Inflationary model is the model supported "ÖVERWHELMINGLY" by evidence....Nothing you say or infer or misconstrue will change that......
That evidence is as follows....
[1] The observed expansion of the Universe/space/time.....
[2] The CMBR [ or relic left over heat from the BB at 2.7K].....
[3] The abundance of lighter elements......
[4] The large scale formation of galaxies....

Now of course most people, even lay people know that this doesn't mean there is no room for tinkering, such as Inflation.....As technology improves, as we see further, so to is the likelyhood of the BB model improving. After all that is what a scientific model/theory is all about, and what sets it aside from religion and pseudoscience crap.
The over riding factor is that no model matches the evidence anywhere near as well as the BB........

In fact in all probability, any further QGT theory, will almost certainly entail/enclose the BB.

Like the theory of evolution of life, SR and GR, the BB stands as part of 20th century's greatest achievements.

 

I see what you did there. Not the Best. Not one of the Best. But a Best.Tricky. Wiki.

Of course what Wiki means is : The instant in which the universe is KNOWN to have begun rapidly expanding from a singularity is THOUGHT of as the Big Bang.

Did I do that right, that time?

P.S. - Do you also Post on this Forum using the "handle" : krash661 ?

 

Unlike you and your unmistakable style, I only have one handle.

Now read the situation as it stands in post 68 and learn from it.
You should also, to avert future misinterpretations, digest the definition of a scientific theory.


If you have any honest questions, I will do my best to answer.

 

Why can't you answer your own questions about theoretical predictions and what they say about natural phenomena? Probably because you're only interested in trolling. This isn't a school for cranks.

 

It is real life. Knucklehead. You're alive and you're on the internet. Maybe you're not alive beyond a figment of some sociopathic trolls imagination? Whatever.

 

Why he wasn't on my list prior to this nonsense thread is beyond me.

 

You started this thread trolling a nonsense question. What is the magnetic field strength before the beginning of inflation? After inflation begins [the actual beginning of our universe]? During nucleosynthesis? Over the years of thermal expansion? After last scattering? What makes sense to you? This is what makes sense to me without doing any research [a much better way to get answers to questions]. The electromagnetic field is infinite in extent [look for the difference between that and infinite. Not the same]. Total universe matter is conserved. Total universe charge is conserved. Total electromagnetic energy is conserved so the total field strength is a constant. The local field strength has to decrease as the area of the electromagnetic field increases. You probably need to do a little research to figure out what I just said. The sooner you start doing that the less flak you'll get when posting in these threads. Education is an important part of our future. Trolling the internet isn't.

Total energy is conserved but electromagnetic energy is just a variable component of the total.

 

Since the electromagnetic total energy is a variable component I would need do some research to see if I could find a probable range for different times during the evolution of the universe.

Since the expansion is at thermal equilibrium [to quantum limit] during inflation, and thermal expansion, the total electromagnetic energy might remain somewhat constant. Maybe river can figure it out?

 

Honest Question :
1.) - Can you Prove that I, dmoe, use more than one handle?
2.) - Is your ^^above^^ statement : (a) - an established Fact? / (b) - a Theory? / (c) - a(n) Hypothesis? / (d) - pure Conjecture?

Honest Question :
3.) - On what basis do you assume/presume your Authority to issue such an edict?
4.) - What do you/will you "digest" to maintain your constant misinterpretations?

Honest Question :
5.) - Is your ^^above^^ statement : (a) - a Fact? / (b) - a Theory? / (c) - a(n) Hypothesis? / (d) - pure Billshut?

paddoboy, based purely on the constant repetition of your own "unmistakable style", my Theorem (as used in Logic/Mathematics!) is that the Honest Answer to Honest Question #5 is (d).

P.S. - krash661, err, paddoboy, there is a Theory that proposes that : - "those that Can, do - those that Can't, preach"!

Honest Question :
6.) - Would you be so kind as to please continue to exhibit what you Can and Can't do?

 

So...if you can not answer the questions, you proffer feeble allegations as to the "interest" of the Poster.
brucep, this is not a School at all?! By all indications - it is just another Forum that a few individuals choose to use as a "playground" to to engage in their puerile games of ineffective and inferior mental thuggery.

"whatever"...the oft repeated last word(s) of the (maybe?/truly?) ignorant.

So, brucep, you also use the list to exercise your ability to be ignorant?

Please pardon my "Maybe...not alive beyond a figment of some sociopathic trolls imagination" but...
According to the BB theory and Einsteins TOR - since the observable universe is neither able to gain or lose Total Mass, regardless of contraction/equilibrium/expansion, would not the Total Energy be as invariable as the Total Mass?

 

Beautifully and eloquently put brucep....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think I did mention it somewhere in all the mire, just the point I was referring to was the DE/CC/quintessence unknown component of space/time itself.

 

paddoboy, if you actually took the time to read what you copy/paste - you would realize that your Post #78, contained the first use of the word "quintessence" in this Thread.
Of course you did Post a lot of "mire", and it was your claim that you "think" - and since you claim to "think" - well...asking for you to Prove that would be like asking you an Honest Question and expecting you to follow up on your statement quoted below, would it not?

 

So????
Quintessence:
In physics, quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated as an explanation of observations of an accelerating universe. It has been proposed by some physicists to be a fifth fundamental force. Quintessence differs from the cosmological constant explanation of dark energy in that it is dynamic, changing over time, unlike the cosmological constant which always stays constant. It is suggested[according to whom?] that quintessence can be either attractive or repulsive depending on the ratio of its kinetic and potential energy. Specifically, it is thought that quintessence became repulsive about ten billion years ago (the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old).[1]
wiki:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well I was referring to you/rivers, but I'll stand by the judgement of my peers on this forum, that obviously know something about cosmology.

But personally your ignorance never ceases to amaze me...Prove what? Like I asked you earlier in the piece....You need to check the definition of a scientific theory, and others have also recommended you brush up on the basics, despite your erronous claims about self education.

You should also know and this is the second or third time its been mentioned, but the further we go back to the instant of the BB, the less positive/certain things become....Until the point at t=0 and t=10-43 seconds after the event, when cosmologists are actually blind to what exists. Our theories/models do not go back that far.

This is of course where the conspiracy pushers/anti mainstream brigade/pseudo scientists are quick to jump in and propose their own pet model, in your case that being Plasma/Electric model. Despite it all ready having been peer reviewed and failed miserably.
You need to accept that.