A few simple objections to the BBT

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />I think you need to sort out your assumptions from your predictions mate. You've picked on the one part of Kmarinas post that is generaly accepted.</font><br /><br />correct. i picked out the part that is generally accepted because that is the part that is unacceptable <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />the 3 assumptions may be dangerously presumptuous. to the extent that it keeps bb at the forefront.

 

[yevaud]

The scientific process <b>does</b> require a few (ST reference here) "Hot Probes of Inquiry" from time to time. Just as long as they're <i>sensible</i> ones... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[ag30476]

> i said the bb cannot ever be proven. and it cannot be <br /> /> because the idea of it is an abstract fantasy. <br />If BBT makes predictions that are confirmed - what diff does it make that it's an abstract fantasy? QM is an abstract fantasy too.<br /><br /> /> -an infinite state is stable and will not explode. <br />How do you know?<br /><br /> /> -moreover, infinite gravitational attraction of infinite <br /> /> density and mass cannot be overcome to explode. <br />How do you know?<br /><br /> /> -theoretically allowing for an indivisible state of <br /> /> infiniteness to explode, it will immediately become <br /> /> expanded back to it's stability of infinity as it reaches <br /> /> escape velocity from itself. this will require total <br /> /> violation of c, as the entire mass of the universe <br /> /> would instantly explode 'back" into infinity. <br />Again how do you know? BBT only predicts what happens AFTER not before the "Big Bang". What you are saying is truly untestable theoretical fantasy since we don't have singularities with which to play with at this time. If you can figure out how to play with black holes maybe...<br /><br /> /> -before some of these issues are considered, there is <br /> /> not any opportunity to seriously consider missing <br /> /> mass, CBR, doppler redshift, anything that has <br /> /> anything to do with proving the BB. because none of<br /> /> it is evidence. <br />What issues? The ones you mentioned. They are just speculation. CBR, the expansion of galaxies, the composition of matter in the universe are directly related to CBT because predictions are made by BBT on CBR, galaxy expansion and so forth. So far the evidence that confirms BBT. That is the evidence does not disprove BBT. The evidence does not disprove string theory either. But predictions of string theory different from BBT/standard model have not/cannot at this time be verified. The evidence does disprove Steady State. So in this sense it can be said that BBT is co

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br /> /> -an infinite state is stable and will not explode. <br />How do you know? </font><br /><br />i don't know. and that is the point. the nature of a singularity is indeterminant and unknown. philosophically thought out, it is entirely impossible to subdivide an infinity. this is the problem with bb origins. it is not outright accountable for this condition, yet it is. this is why it is nearly purely fantasy to begin with, with subsequent models built on this. <br /><br /><font color="orange">BBT only predicts what happens AFTER not before the "Big Bang". What you are saying is truly untestable theoretical fantasy since we don't have singularities with which to play with at this time. If you can figure out how to play with black holes maybe... </font><br /><br />exactly. i agree. you are only helping me out here. and i thank you for that. you are exactly making a case against using any theory based upon that above premise of creation. an entire school of thought that is passed off as factual, based upon a figment of an enigma, wrapped around a mysterious fantasy, is scientifically negligent. we are in perfect agreement. <br /><br /><font color="orange">What issues? The ones you mentioned. They are just speculation.</font><br /><br />right. exactly again. we are a good team --- />they are just speculation. exactly. subsequent theories based upon this speculative origin of the bb are then automatically suspect and in need of re-examination as to their nature. my speculation is a train of simple logic that dismantles validity of a purely speculative theory. <br /><br /><font color="orange">CBR, the expansion of galaxies, the composition of matter in the universe are directly related to CBT because predictions are made by BBT on CBR, galaxy expansion and so forth. So far the evidence that confirms BBT.</font><br /><br />all of that is supportive of the theory of bb, of course. and bb, by it's very inception, is s

 

[ag30476]

> > -an infinite state is stable and will not explode. <br /> /> > How do you know? <br /> /> i don't know. and that is the point. the nature of a <br /> /> singularity is indeterminant and unknown. philosophically <br /> /> thought out, it is entirely impossible to subdivide an infinity. <br />With GR, mathematically we supposed that at the BB, we have an infinitely high density (though the amount of matter/energy is still finite). So what? First such a model is not complete because it does not take into account QM effects. More importantly, it is only a mathematical model. All mathematical models break down, that is fail to continue to give a satisfactory explanation, at some point. For example V=RI is true only a certain range of temperatures for certain materials. Yet it is a useful formula. The mathematical model BB breaks down right before Planck time. That is, the model cannot explain what goes on before 10^-34 seconds. But BB gives a good explanation after.<br /><br /> /> this is the problem with bb origins. it is not outright <br /> /> accountable for this condition, yet it is. this is why it is <br /> /> nearly purely fantasy to begin with, with subsequent models <br /> /> built on this. <br />The BB took a long time to be considered mainstream. BB was only accepted mainstream when more evidence came in for it then for the Steady State model. BB is the logical conclusion of "running the film backwards". The prediction that there is some point in time "past which we cannot see", as shown by the CBR, is consistent with "running the film backwards" and getting a super high density state. The mathematical model developed so far involves infinite density. But this is a fault of the model. It does not invalidate BB as a physical theory. <br /><br /><br /> /> an entire school of thought that is passed off as factual, <br /> /> based upon a figment of an enigma, wrapped around a mysterious<br /> /> fantasy, is scientifically negligent. we are in perfect agreem

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> The mathematical model BB breaks down right before Planck time. That is, the model cannot explain what goes on before 10^-34 seconds. But BB gives a good explanation after. </font><br /><br />this is pretty fun, by the way. like eating popcorn at this point. and i see you like having your cake and eating it, too:<br /><br /><font color="orange"> The mathematical model developed so far involves infinite density. But this is a fault of the model. It does not invalidate BB as a physical theory. </font><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />i will just repeat what you say to confirm what i say. the model cannot explain before 10^-34s because, however tiny this is, implies a gigantic problem of indeterminancy of something purely and absolutely derived in fantasy. it is nearly the same as getting into an argument about black holes and whether or not they exist. this is nearly the same model and the same debate (although i must admit, black holes are <b>way</b> more fun and mind-tripping). you can roughly equate the expansion front of the universe to an event horizon. <br /><br />but that is another subject.<br /><br /><font color="orange"> On the other hand, are you saying that speculation on the what could or could not happen before the "Big Bang" is good evidence? </font><br /><br />dude, this is real simple. bb is predicated upon the expansion of a singularity that defines within it all space and time. nothing outside of it existed prior or exists currently "outside." i've read about quantum fluctuations and what not to describe possible impetus for expansion of the singularity. but this would impose laws of physics upon a dimension removed from the universe --eventhough it is allegedly the seed. this is giving me a headache now. <br /><br />anyway, it is really late and i just finished a big job. i need to go to bed. we can continue this tomorrow. i like your posts. you're very thorough and a good spor

 

[ag30476]

> > The mathematical model BB breaks down right before Planck time. <br /> /> > That is, the model cannot explain what goes on before 10^-34 seconds. <br /> /> > But BB gives a good explanation after. <br /> /> this is pretty fun, by the way. like eating popcorn at this point. <br /> /> and i see you like having your cake and eating it, too: <br />So did Newton. How does gravity work? Spooky action at a distance? How can you prove that the Solar System or the whole universe doesn't collapse on itself due to the various disturbances of all the bodies? These questions did not seem to hamper the success in applying the model. Granted, BB is not of as much practical use. Yet as a theory which makes predictions which can be tested, it does its job.<br /><br /> /> i will just repeat what you say to confirm what i say. <br /> /> the model cannot explain before 10-34s because, however tiny this is, <br /> /> implies a gigantic problem of indeterminancy of something purely <br /> /> and absolutely derived in fantasy. <br />The same can be said for all of GR and QM (that is they seem to be having trouble explaining all we see in a "satisfactory" manner yet they prove useful enough).<br /><br /> /> it is nearly the same as getting into an argument about black holes<br /> /> and whether or not they exist. this is nearly the same model and the<br /> /> same debate (although i must admit, black holes are way more fun and<br /> /> mind-tripping). you can roughly equate the expansion front of the <br /> /> universe to an event horizon. <br />It is the same. You seem to have a problem with GR when it gets to singularities. So do most physicist. The thing is nobody supposes that a GR singularity corresponds to an actual, physical "infinity". It may. Who knows? The singularity is indicative of something. There is something that is the black hole singularity. There is something before 10^-34 s before the Big Bang. GR can't tell us what these somethings are. <br /><br /> /> dude,

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />And you could be labeled a radical nut if not for the fact that you are intelligent and know what you are talking about.</font><br /><br />ag30, thank you, sir. that says more to me than this whole thread <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />indeed, our idea of turning the film backwards is very ambitious to match our curiosities as humans. some of the greatest minds have jumped on board to innovate upon this great mystery, of our origins and of our universe's beginnings, if any. <br /><br />the question and the situation boggles my mind, and ultimately leaves me believing that "we ain't got it yet." QM is, in my layperson's seat, somewhat fetching for straws to justify other precarious theories. some of the particle behaviors that QM claims are bordering on mythical. and as you say, "spooky action?" ---god help us. and the sheep say "baaahhhh....baaahhhh... yes master, yes master.... bahhh.. baaahhh.. spooky action...."<br /><br />i mean, there are hypothetical particles during the BB's particle epochs. and yes, assuming they were there, these things no longer exist and may never be replicated in a lab; they may never have existed. so we are waiting for godot? as well, as experiments and technology and funding advance in the field, as sometimes happens, an entirely surprising outcome may be rendered when trying to search for something else. in this respect, the research is good. some bizarre and unknown process may be revealed out of it, that which may shatter previous ideas. <br /><br />therefore, i am not purporting that assumptions in science are accross the board wrong or undeserving of place. we need value judgements and hypotheses to create a pursuit for something, an impetus to act. science is full of theories, bb not being the only one, of course --it is but one of thousands of theories. <br /><br />i think passions and ideas polarize on this one because of it's far-reaching ramifications, as it is extremely noteworthy. i'm

 

[ag30476]

> the question and the situation boggles my mind, and<br /> /> ultimately leaves me believing that "we ain't got <br /> /> it yet." QM is, in my layperson's seat, somewhat<br /> /> fetching for straws to justify other precarious <br /> /> theories. some of the particle behaviors that QM<br /> /> claims are bordering on mythical. <br />No argument here. QM, GR, and BB all leave one scratching one's head. But then so does much of science. There's just more head scratching with QM, GR, and BB.<br /><br /> /> i mean, there are hypothetical particles during the <br /> /> BB's particle epochs. and yes, assuming they were <br /> /> there, these things no longer exist and may never be <br /> /> replicated in a lab; they may never have existed. so <br /> /> we are waiting for godot? <br />In a way, yes. <br /><br /> /> in this respect, the research is good. some bizarre <br /> /> and unknown process may be revealed out of it, that <br /> /> which may shatter previous ideas. <br />One can only hope.<br /><br /> /> i'm saying that some of the assumptions about bb, with <br /> /> it's roster of famous CBR and redshifted poster children<br /> /> that prove it, may be presumptuous and entirely <br /> /> over-enthusiastic. and largely misunderstood. <br />Agreed<br /><br /> /> but we act as if we can just carry on like "yep, okay, <br /> /> let's move on now... we have that checked off the list<br /> /> ... moving on now.."<br />But here I would differ. It seems to me that experiments and observations are being made. Some come from experiments directed at cosmological research (the Nova surveys and COBE sats just to mention two). Some may come from surprising places (for example if the Pioneer anomoly does prove to come from some new unknown effect). And theorists too are looking to solve the riddles. One of string theory's attractions is that can eliminate singularities. Of course we have to give up practicality because right now string theory has not proved useful (in that it makes no

 

[bonzelite]

ag30476, again, a great insightful round of replies. your posts are very engaging and well informed. very balanced and present to the moment. and your humor is wonderful and understated. <br /><br />this speaks volumes:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Well most of the popular science books on BB or string theory have more fantasy than science. But you could not sell those books otherwise. </font><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />