The Story of the Universe: : Tutorial :

Denying that which is evidenced only makes you look foolish. and silly.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_pillars.html
The four key observational successes of the standard Hot Big Bang model are the following:

• Expansion of the Universe

• Origin of the cosmic background radiation

• Nucleosynthesis of the light elements

• Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure

The uniformity, structure, shape, CMBR, and age of the Universe were confirmed to within very high degrees of accuracy with WMAP.

That's totally false. They were and have obviously.
But of course all you need are references to support your version. I,m waiting.

The BB is overwhelmingly supported and accepted and is what the tutorial is based on. Your unsupported drivel and attack on mainstream science, as usual is based on your own discredited version of cosmology along with the Black Neutron Star.

Please start reading reputable links my friend, instead of making up rubbish in your own limited mind. You sound more like Hans Christian Anderson then any lay person with any interest in science.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The observed expansion predicts a hotter, denser. smaller universe in the past, no matter how you want to cry foul and use semantics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The tutorial stands as correct and a credit to the powerful predictability of a scientific theory/s

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CMBR and WMAP are old parameters of BB. Both of which are limited in their reach into the depths of the Universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you plagiarized your tutorial from...

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_pillars.html

Actually it is copy paste from many sources with some words of yours, and thats where you goofed up.

Well tutorials and surveys are generally based on other's work, so It is always prudent to give references.

Anyway, if you can read the reference supllied by you, then read the last line, this will give you an idea about incompleteness of BB as being hammered to you without success so far, and please google about CDM as well, you will learn something on the context. Do not create carbon footprint by unwarranted copy pastes here.

 

Of course the BB like all science is in a continued state of improvement as new observations come to light. DM and DE are the two most recent additions.
What a future validated QGT will reveal is breath-takingly awesome to contemplate.
The many things that science speculates on now such as multi-verses or whether our BB is the arse end of a White Hole........
The nature of DM and DE, as well as the revelations of a QGT are aspects of cosmology that we can all look forward to.

 

word salad.

 

Ha ha. I seem to have inspired you to run and hide behind your pillars!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The point is we don't have any evidence, absolutely that the universe began. The Big Bang is based on General Relativity which we know breaks down as a Quantum Theory.

And, in fact, those presuppositions that there must be a singularity, or a beginning...there are many theories that, in fact, produce an eternal universe that contracts and expands forever and has been around forever, that is consistent with the known laws.

We don't know the answer. And we are excited that we don't know the answer.
Because we have something to learn.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There are only so many galaxies that our technology can eliminate as sources of CMBR , five at the most.

 

No, my dear friend, unlike you, I have a quality of honesty, which you continually abuse. My tutorial stands as a summation of present day cosmology, whether you agree or not. No plagiarisation at all.
Of course though if you believe you have evidence than you should report it.

My tutorial is based on accepted mainstream cosmology and that has already gladly been established and despite your total idiocy.

Let me say it again just to make it clear.
The BB is the overwhelmingly supported model of Universal evolution as accepted by mainstream cosmology.
And to educate you some more, it is also a well known fact that no science is complete.....the BB while being the accepted model is in s state of improvement and revision and continued accuracy of figures all the time.
If it wasn't, it would not be a scientific theory.

 

rubbish

 

Investigate pad.

I did many years ago.

As usual you are behind the times.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ummm, who said any theory was absolute?
Are you aware that no scientific theory is absolute?
And of course the BB is not a theory of the beginning of the Universe.....It is a theory of the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds after the event.

We have no evidence for anything back further than t+10-43 seconds, hence no evidence for any eternal universe, or continued expansion and/or collapse

 

Reference.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please?
Or are you just doing your usual spouting of crap?

 

Reference, Please ?

 

No link needed

Just phone NASA , I did , several years ago. Or just phone your nearest University. And then ask the question; how many galaxies can you eliminate as the source of CMBR?

No harm in asking pad.

 

Here's a nice scientific paper to compliment by tutorial re the BB.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

■ The expansion of the universe is one of the most fundamental concepts of modern science yet one of the most widely misunderstood. ■ The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface. ■ This difference between the expansion of space and the expansion in space may seem subtle but has important consequences for the size of the universe, the rate at which galaxies move apart, the type of observations astronomers can make, and the nature of the accelerating expansion that the universe now seems to be undergoing. ■ Strictly speaking, the big bang model has very little to say about the big bang itself. It describes what happened afterward.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Another aspect from this paper that I never touched on in the tutorial was "tired light" a long debunked hypothesis attempting to invlaidate red shift and consequently expansion.
again the following is an extract from this paper.......

"A Wearying Hypothesis Every time Scientific American publishes an article on cosmology, a number of readers write in to argue that galaxies are not really receding from us—that the expansion of space is an illusion. They suggest that galactic redshifts are instead caused by light getting “tired” on its long journey. Perhaps some novel process causes light to lose energy spontaneously, and thereby redden, as it propagates through space. Scientists first proposed this hypothesis some 75 years ago, and like any good model, it makes predictions that can be tested. But like any bad model, its predictions do not fit the observations. For example, when a star explodes as a supernova, it brightens and then dims—a process that takes about two weeks for the type of supernova that astronomers have been using to map out space. During these two weeks, the supernova emits a train of photons. The tired-light hypothesis predicts that these photons lose energy as they propagate but that the observer always sees a train that lasts two weeks. In expanding space, however, not only do individual photons get stretched (thereby losing energy) but the entire train of photons also gets stretched. Thus, it takes longer than two weeks for all the photons to arrive on Earth. Recent observations confirm this effect. A supernova in a galaxy of redshift 0.5 appears to last three weeks; one in a galaxy of redshift 1, four weeks. The tired-light hypothesis also conflicts with observations of the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation and of the surface brightness of distant galaxies".
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

Well that's hard to do, but since my tutorials are still standing, despite your efforts to do otherwise, and since I do not need to disappear only to return under another handle, and since every claim you have made about me is easily refuted in what I have posted, and finally, you and I are in the hands of our peers my friend...You do realise that don't you? I mean you do recognise your peers, correct?
yes, I'm certainly honest in respect to this forum.

 

I don't believe you.
If what you say is true, there should be a link. Please supply it.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html