Origins of the Universe, Big Bang or No Bang.

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas wrote:

"...But! If I have to spend time away from my reading to the explain every paper..."

Harry,

For what its worth, I've always found that the best way to make sure I understand something I've read is to explain it to someone else. Reading and comprehending are not the same thing.

Chris

 

[aussiebloke]

G'Day Folks

Yevaud; I saw this a couple of months back and thought others might like to watch it.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2594259.htm

This website explains the problems they were having in detail.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/index.html

Fascinating stuff, I think the stress of it all would have made me ill.

Cheers Aussiebloke.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Chris

Smile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thanks mate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I undertsand your point. But! its more complicated then that.
If someone wants to discuss the paper I will then go into it. Too many papers too little time.

and most papers express opinions based on ad hoc theories.

and than some papers are beyond thunderdome ( I do not even understand although I get the GIST of it)

 

[ramparts]

and most papers express opinions based on ad hoc theories.

Then you're not reading closely enough

It's not uncommon for someone to come up with a theory, but equally common for a theory to get taken down by the facts. Those that survive are certainly at least something more than just "ad hoc opinions" Anyone can come up with an ad hoc opinion - a theory that survives is something with a rigorous mathematical edifice and at least doesn't contradict a wide swath of experiments.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

Smile

I'm a book worm

you said

Then you're not reading closely enough

It's not uncommon for someone to come up with a theory, but equally common for a theory to get taken down by the facts. Those that survive are certainly at least something more than just "ad hoc opinions" Anyone can come up with an ad hoc opinion - a theory that survives is something with a rigorous mathematical edifice and at least doesn't contradict a wide swath of experiments.

You are 100% right.


and yet
A theory can also survive by ad hoc theories supported by church, politics and money to projects.

 

[ramparts]

That sounds like it might have been more true in the patron days of Newton than today The church doesn't do much in the way of funding science anymore, and unfortunately politicians don't care too much about the cutting-edge of theoretical physics!

And if someone pays me a lot of money despite having a crackpot theory, the rest of the physics community will continue to see my theories as crackpottery regardless :lol:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Ramparts

Again in science you may be correct.

Cosmology is one of those sciences that does not folow that thought.

The BBT is a prime example of a theory built on add hoc ideas and supported by Churches, politics and the funding of monies to projects that are related to BBT and not to alternative theories.

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists


Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

 

[ramparts]

Alright, so I'm not going to get into the "debate" over the Big Bang right now since this would take a while and I have way better things to do with my time, especially this week. I have a feeling getting into this debate would involve a lot of teaching basic cosmology, and while that sounds great, life is busying up at the moment

But what do you mean by the theory being supported by politicians and churches? I know of no major support from any church for cosmology research, so that's just a bizarre claim. Meanwhile, even if people supporting "alternate" theories aren't getting as much funding (the way we've stopped funding intelligent design biologists and flat earth geologists), the beautiful thing about theoretical physics is you don't need anything fancier than a pen and paper to do it - so a lack of funding is no excuse for not putting out superior ideas and convincing the rest of the physics community.

Unless you want to put out some sort of conspiracy theory for why physicists tend to reject these arguments (like noblackholes does) - in which case discussion more or less grinds to a halt. I can't prove to you that there's no grand conspiracy to keep the "real" theory under wraps except just marvel at how ridiculous that is. But I don't think you're claiming that :lol:

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

Do a bit of research on the evolution of the BBT and its relation to the churches, politics, school systems and funds to main projects.

Its not a conspiracy theory, its one of those things that repeats in history time and time again. It happens when a pebble falls down a mountain collecting other pebbles on its way, in time the movement becomes very hard to stop, until you can prove that the first pebble was in error.

It really does not matter if the BBT did occur, what matters now is the understanding of how the universe functions.

Endless Universe
About the Book
http://www.endlessuniverse.net/

The Big Bang theory is widely regarded as the leading explanation for the origin of the universe. Yet, over the last three decades, the theory has been revised repeatedly to address such issues as how galaxies and stars first formed and why the expansion of the universe is speeding up today. Furthermore, no explanation has been found for what caused the Big Bang in the first place.

In Endless Universe, Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, both distinguished theoretical physicists, critique the Big Bang theory and recount the remarkable developments in astronomy, particle physics, and superstring theory that form the basis for a groundbreaking alternative, the “Cyclic Universe” theory. According to this theory, the Big Bang was not the beginning of time but the bridge to a past filled with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter and the formation of new galaxies, stars, and planets. The authors explain why the ensuing debate between these two, radically different theories will profoundly affect the future of cosmology and perhaps science, in general.

 

[ramparts]

Steinhardt and Turok aren't opponents of the Big Bang in a reasonable sense of the word. Models like the cyclic model are different ways of describing the Big Bang, inflation, etc.; they don't put forth a completely different theory. The general idea is still very much present.

To be more specific: the cyclic universe theory (which seems perfectly plausible to me) debates the idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of time, proposing instead that it was a part of a larger cycle. Thankfully, very little cosmology depends on what happened before the Big Bang, so something like the cyclic universe theory isn't going to be the nail in modern cosmology's coffin The main thing the cyclic universe gets rid of is actually inflation, and hey, good on them.

Also, if you're going to make claims like research on the Big Bang is funded by churches, please be kind enough to either back them up or not make the claims at all. Simply saying "research them yourself" (do what? Google them?) is completely unhelpful. If you put it out there, then defend it.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

You can make it work which ever way you think at the end of the day science will explain the process.

Think about it, a start of time.

How can that be so!!!!!!?

Read more papers from
Steinhardt and Turok

It is quite interesting how they explain the recycling process.

 

[ramparts]

Sure, but on the other hand, think about it, time going back infinitely far.

How can that be so?

Best not to go in with any such biases, then

G'night!

 

[harrycostas]

G'day ramparts

Because Time cannot be changed.

 

[csmyth3025]

harrycostas wrote:

"...Because Time cannot be changed..."

I'm not sure how to interpret your statement, Harry. Are you you saying that relativistic time dilation doesn't occur?

Chris

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Time communication is relative due to position and what ever forces act on the EMR.

but! actual time cannot change, that is TIME itself cannot be part of the change as we see changes in phases of matter.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Chris

Have a look at these links on time.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/timedilation.html

and

http://philsci-archive.ptt.edu/archive/ ... imetop.doc

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... index.html

 

[SpeedFreek]

Have a look at these links on time.

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/timedilation.html

Yes, that link backs up exactly what we are saying, Harry. Time is relative. Stick your identical twin brother on a very fast spaceship, send him to Alpha Centauri and back. He will return having aged less than yourself. His passage of time will have been different to yours. He will now be younger than you.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Speedfreek

Mate if that is what you think and if you are happy with it then do not do any more research into it.

I for one disagree.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

G'day Speedfreek

Mate if that is what you think and if you are happy with it then do not do any more research into it.

I for one disagree.

Time IS relative. There is no denying that. It is a proven phenomenon.

Get two atomic clocks and an aircraft. Place one clock on the ground and another inside the aircraft. Synchronize the clocks. Then, fly the aircraft at several hundred miles an hour. Compare the measured time and you will find a difference. The clock on the aircraft experienced slightly "less/more time" than the stationary one on the ground.

As an example, this experiment: Hafele-Keating Experiment - Time Dilation

If there is some other mechanism which affects observed data then what is it and how can it be explained while staying reasonably within the realms of what we already believe we "know."

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

People do not understand relativity let alone science.

The two clocks have been around for sometime and have been proven wrong. Now do a bit of research and find out why.

Yes the times on the clocks were different and yet there is an explanation. I hope the following links may explain.

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

and

Shedding Light On Time:
Learning and Teaching Difficult Concepts
Rick Garlikov
http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/time

and

http://comp.uark.edu/~davewall/Molly/sp ... tivity.htm

 

[yevaud]

People do not understand relativity let alone science.

There are numerous of us here who are well scientifically trained, thanks.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day yevaud


Then please explain the two clocks

 

[yevaud]

The velocity of C is constant. Note that no matter what your frame of reference is, C is always C within it. That it's observed differently by someone in another frame is not relevant; it's still C.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

http://www.originoftime.org/

Time & Position
Knowing where you are means knowing what time it is. The Global Positioning System (GPS) provides latitude and longitude within a few feet anywhere on Earth. However, the gravitational time dilation that occurs in the presence of a large mass (such as a large planet) or accelerated reference frame (such as a fast moving satellite) is significant enough that the atomic clocks onboard the orbiting GPS satellites are routinely corrected.

Hello yevaud

you said

The velocity of C is constant. Note that no matter what your frame of reference is, C is always C within it. That it's observed differently by someone in another frame is not relevant; it's still C.

Is it, are you 100% correct or you just accept it for what it is?


What happens to C near a compact matter 5 times the density of a nucleus of an atom?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

G'day

People do not understand relativity let alone science.

The two clocks have been around for sometime and have been proven wrong. Now do a bit of research and find out why.

Yes the times on the clocks were different and yet there is an explanation. I hope the following links may explain.

http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

and

Shedding Light On Time:
Learning and Teaching Difficult Concepts
Rick Garlikov
http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/time

and

http://comp.uark.edu/~davewall/Molly/sp ... tivity.htm

Doesn't most of this rest on the idea that there is some sort of Universal Observer factoring in here? (I don't mean an entity.) In short, it seems as if what is being defined is an observation that is required to be outside of the mechanisms present within the system being observed. It seems as if there is an assumption here that is not defined, simply accepted as existing and that the measurements recorded from this source, while conforming to the phenomenon observed, completely rely on its unconfirmed existence. That would seem not to be in accordance with Relativity at all but just a redefining of the established basic concepts to suit the experimental results.

It's like juggling explanations where any particular one can be justified just so long as founding those explanations on verifiable principles are ignored. Therefore, I say that Moleems are the the constituent components of the Universe. They're pink with purple spots but are completely invisible and undetectable. Same result, different story. So far, Relativity works. Do you have a new reason WHY it works so well?

You're welcome to clarify the reasoning behind including the material in the links in regards to justifying the idea that time is not truly relative if I have misunderstood your point.

(Yes, I read the information but, truthfully, skimmed over certain portions of Garlikov's explanation as being non-pertinent.)