The Story of the Universe: : Tutorial :

You sure act like the BB theory is pretty absolute.

Yes. Are you?

So the universe didn't begin with a big bang?

And we only have a theory that runs the clock back to a singularity. You are talking in a circle.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nup never and I have made that clear. Yourself though could certainly be accused of that with your nonsense, which thankfully and rightly has been shifted to the fringes in your other thread.

Sure and as evidenced many times in black and white on this forum, but maybe you are looking into a mirror.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't be such a silly fraud. The BB is as I have stated, It says nothing about the initial event. That assumption was logically extrapolated backwards by that Planck time of 10-43 seconds.

No a scientific theory based on evidence, as stated in my tutorial and generally recognised by mainstream cosmology...your thread on the other hand, well the less said about that, the better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you will have the guts to back up your claim or withdraw it and apologise.
A while back I accused you of plagiarism and was informed by James there was not really enough evidence for it.
Without any instruction from James, I withdrew my accusation and apologised, as any honest person would.
Are you now honest enough to do the same?
Again, please report your accusation for review and see what happens.
Are you up for it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are the one being a silly fraud trying to claim that the big bang theory is not about the beginning of the universe.

The big bang theory is all about the beginning of time and space from a singularity. It is a theory is about how the universe supposedly began. It might just be a creation myth.

Most mainstream cosmologists don't share your certitude. Science is not supposed to be an argument from authority. Modern cosmology is more open minded than this supposed science forum.

"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."
~Lawrence Krauss



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Irrespective of your rantings, the BB stands as the overwhelmingly supported theory for the evolution of spacetime/Universe.

No one has said any scientific theory is absolute, including the BB, and for you to say otherwise means you are a liar.
Still it is your nonsense in the other thread that languishes in the fringes.

Wrong. There is one scientific theory for the evolution of the Universe.
The rest are hypothetical speculations...nothing more, nothing less.

The only one who claims to no all the answers is yourself.
Science/cosmology and the BB are ongoing concerns that we add to, subtract from if necessary, or modify if necessary.
At this time the BB stands as the supported model.

 

That was just the definition of base unit of time....You encountered that first time and babbled, there was no need for me to counter on that. James, was kind enough to clear cobwebs in your head politely.

As I said, in general, Tutorials and Surveys should be referenced, yours is a clear case of text mining from here and there without proper referencing. You claim it (and other issues) to be as per mainstream cosmology...of course you cannot deviate, but the problem is your understanding (or lack of it) even of mainstream cosmology is faulty. Thats my diagnosis, treatment calls for your cooperation, which I am unlikely to get from you. Bad for you.

 

So what? What a boring discussion.

Don't call me a liar. Besides, I didn't say it. Lawrence Krauss did.

This forum takes an authoritarian stance on science that discourages good discussions.

That is not true.

Dude. You are the one making claims to "no" all the answers. Lawrence Krauss and I were pointing out that the big bang theory may not turn out to be correct. It might be, but we don't know for sure yet. We may never really know for sure.

Ongoing concerns? Really? Where do we openly discuss the ideas that will eventually be a part of the model but aren't yet? In fringe hypotheses?

Hooray for the big bang. Yawn.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html
The BB theory explains the universe from t+10-43 seconds.
It says nothing about the beginning of the universe.

This science forum is not mainstream science. Mainstream cosmology generally support the BB theory.

You do realise you are contradicting yourself don't you?
compare what you say above to

Which one is it?

 

So you remain a liar and a gutless one at that.

 

I have shown and proved over many threads that I understand cosmology far better than you.
Would you like to salvage some credibility and answer my questions in the BH tutorial?

 

The BB theory says the universe had a beginning. Right?

I know. So what?

Both. You need to learn how to read. Those two statements are totally consistent with each other. Lawrence Krauss said that the universe might not have a beginning, i.e. the big bang theory may not be correct. I said you were the one being a silly fraud by playing a weird semantic game over whether the big bang theory is about the universe having a beginning at a specific point in time about 13.7 billion years ago.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes it infers a beginning, BUT IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THAT BEGINNING. UNDERSTAND?.

No you are playing games as you did in your political doomsday thread......
Futilitist said: ↑
"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.[implies it says nothing about the quantum level which is correct]
then you said......
You are the one being a silly fraud trying to claim that the big bang theory is not about the beginning of the universe. [and it doesn't say anything about the beginning of the universe]

The universe had a beginning: correct. But the BB says nothing about that beginning. In fact it says nothing about anything from t+10-43 seconds.
We have no knowledge of anything within that period incuding multi verses or any other speculative stuff.

 

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/early-universe

The early universe
All matter in the universe was formed in one explosive event 13.7 billion years ago – the big bang

Nobel prize in physics in 2011(link is external). Physicists had assumed that matter in the universe would slow its rate of expansion; gravity would eventually cause the universe to fall back on its centre. Though the big bang theory cannot describe what the conditions were at the very beginning of the universe, it can help physicists describe the earliest moments after the start of the expansion.

Origins
In the first moments after the big bang, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As the universe cooled, conditions became just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which we are all made. A few millionths of a second later, quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas. Heavier atoms such as carbon, oxygen and iron, have since been continuously produced in the hearts of stars and catapulted throughout the universe in spectacular stellar explosions called supernovae.

But stars and galaxies do not tell the whole story. Astronomical and physical calculations suggest that the visible universe is only a tiny amount (4%) of what the universe is actually made of. A very large fraction of the universe, in fact 26%, is made of an unknown type of matter called "dark matter". Unlike stars and galaxies, dark matter does not emit any light or electromagnetic radiation of any kind, so that we can detect it only through its gravitational effects.

An even more mysterious form of energy called “dark energy” accounts for about 70% of the mass-energy content of the universe. Even less is known about it than dark matter. This idea stems from the observation that all galaxies seems to be receding from each other at an accelerating pace, implying that some invisible extra energy is at work.

 

I do not feel like cursing you any further. You have proved that you do not have any formal education.

Still to your credit Paddoboy, you know more than a fellow with your (or higher) educational background knows, you are hardworking and you justify your stand with extensive googling, not like some stupid morons who throw stones and run away.

I can understand the psyche of a person, who possibly for no fault of his lacks in formal education, and wants acknowldegement on scientific pursuits. Even though they are club level discussions only. Its a great acievement for you that you are able to interact with profs, and able to engage people with far better knowledge on the subject.

I just have to teach you about creative thinking, lateral thinking, some rationality.That will complete you, I will do that in due course....Till then keep fighting.

 

I have never revealed that to you, only rajesh.
Still does not detract from the fact that you are very rarely correct.

Unlike you, and as I told rajesh, I have no ego to bruise and neither do I have an agenda, other than the scientific methodology.

Whatever dreams rock your boat...Suffice to say, I'll keep on stating firstly what I see as the most evident, secondly, the mainstream position and thirdly remaining open to new ideas, backed up and supported by observational or experimental evidence, and not just personal hypothesis based on ego.
And I'll be honest in that process.

 

You need to keep more up to date, paddoboy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your article is from 2014.

http://news.discovery.com/space/ast...-will-gravitational-waves-be-found-150206.htm

Will Gravitational Waves Ever Be Found?

It’s official: data from the Planck satellite has revealed no signs of gravitational waves embedded in the cosmic microwave background, the primordial ‘echo’ of the Big Bang that occurred nearly 14 billion years ago.

This landmark result contradicts the now-infamous BICEP2 announcement of the discovery of gravitational waves last March — but this is not the end of gravitational waves, nor the theories behind inflation. In fact, according to cosmologists, we can expect the search to intensify over the coming months and years.

Although no one in the cosmological community disputed the fact that BICEP2 had detected B-mode polarization, they argued that too little was known about the galactic dust and that the signal was just as likely gravitational waves as it was dusty interference, urging caution against concluding that it had to be gravitational waves. And this week’s paper, a collaborative effort between Planck and BICEP2 scientists, has shown that there are no detectable traces of gravitational waves in the BICEP2 data.

“What this recent joint Planck/BICEP paper did is take Planck measurements, that are at a different frequency to BICEP2, combine them with the BICEP measurements, so that now with multiple observing frequencies, one can make a clear statistical separation between the cosmological gravitational wave signal and the dust signal,” said Smith.

In other words, the B-mode polarization that BICEP2 originally detected was caused by dust and not gravitational waves.

“That’s interesting to comment on as often data analysis is very subtle; a paper may have multiple interpretations or loopholes. But this paper is not one of them,” he said. “The conclusion is very clear: when you combine the observing frequencies of BICEP and Planck, all of the B-mode (polarization) in the sky can be accounted for by dust and there’s no evidence that any of it is gravitational waves.”



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So you believe that Professor Krauss has disowned and dropped the BB model since 2014.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cling to your dreams ol son, if it supports that ego!

 

Gee wiz, did I say that?

Keep on playing games ol son, if that's all you got.

I never said it did.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And of course the point is, not that they did not find gravitational waves from the BB, [which knowledgable people know are notoriously hard to detect] but that they had to accept the BB in the first place and obviously since experiments continue to search for them, still do.

 

They had to accept the BB in the first place? I thought they were looking for confirmation.

Maybe that is why the BICEP2 team jumped the gun. Confirmation bias.

Perhaps the BB is a product of Groupthink.



---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!