Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 166 of 389 (457897)
02-26-2008 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by IamJoseph
02-25-2008 2:52 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
light being a promidial factor and not the result of energy and heat, as is posited. We know this by the velosity of light being transcendent of its energy source
So then all waves are "promidial factors" that are "transcendent" of the source. Why do you keep repeating such fallacies even when corrected?
So there can be a premise for a pre-star light or pre-sun light
And pre-waves designed for re-heating my leftover lunch. It just doesnt have the same ring to it as light being transcendent and thus confirming your Biblical interpretations.
The latter gives cause to consider that light is more than what we see, and may account for the elusive factor which triggered the BB or the universe: all the data could have been contained in light as a directive program
Nope. Warming food is the key here IamJoseph, prove I am wrong.
I see no difference between an expansion and an explosion. By reductionism, an explosion is an expansion, with a higher time factor only.
Place an icecube on a plate, with a higher time factor it explodes!
We find that even ToE's speciation does not work w/o the seed factor
Asexual reproduction refutes you until you provide a working definition of "seed". Thanks for bringing this up once again, this time in a Big Bang topic no less.
Here, my ponderings asks, is it possible there is a sort of universal manufacturing basement, such as another dimension, which spits out seeds, which in turn become stars and all other things?
There is no evidence that stars need seeds to form. There is no evidence of formed stars containing seeds. There is no evidence of "all other things" needing or having seeds. There is evidence of gravity however and the current theories do just fine in explaining our universe.
all particles have the same base material, thus they must contain seperate wirings/programs to become different products.
The laws of physics. No programs or wires required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by IamJoseph, posted 02-25-2008 2:52 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 02-28-2008 9:08 AM Vacate has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 167 of 389 (458301)
02-28-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Vacate
02-26-2008 4:26 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
quote:
So then all waves are "promidial factors" that are "transcendent" of the source. Why do you keep repeating such fallacies even when corrected?
Waves are inert, their function being trasportation of force particles only.
quote:
So there can be a premise for a pre-star light or pre-sun light
And pre-waves designed for re-heating my leftover lunch. It just doesnt have the same ring to it as light being transcendent and thus confirming your Biblical interpretations.
Stars cannot produce light if it was not pre-existent. Light would be a factor in the BB billions of years before stars formed.
quote:
The latter gives cause to consider that light is more than what we see, and may account for the elusive factor which triggered the BB or the universe: all the data could have been contained in light as a directive program
Nope. Warming food is the key here IamJoseph, prove I am wrong.
Warming, is part of a process. The BBT explosion obviously was not a random one - the result says so, namely trillions of complex products and processes were set in motion - silimultainiously too, which negates the notion of 'by accumulative' means. Even time becomes a superfluous item here.
quote:
I see no difference between an expansion and an explosion. By reductionism, an explosion is an expansion, with a higher time factor only.
Place an icecube on a plate, with a higher time factor it explodes!
Slow down the film, and you get a slow expansion. The applied term explosion is relative here.
quote:
We find that even ToE's speciation does not work w/o the seed factor
Asexual reproduction refutes you until you provide a working definition of "seed". Thanks for bringing this up once again, this time in a Big Bang topic no less.
No, it does not. Asexual = a subjective view. There is a seed even in inorganic matter. Nothing happends without the seed, which contains the data to continue. The principle is exactly the same in a life form repro.
quote:
Here, my ponderings asks, is it possible there is a sort of universal manufacturing basement, such as another dimension, which spits out seeds, which in turn become stars and all other things?
There is no evidence that stars need seeds to form. There is no evidence of formed stars containing seeds. There is no evidence of "all other things" needing or having seeds. There is evidence of gravity however and the current theories do just fine in explaining our universe.
I used the term, ponderings, and asked a question there. Of course a star needs a seed factor, and an incubating period. Some do not become stars and dont reach a critical maturity. Everything cyclical and repeatable inhabits a seed.
quote:
all particles have the same base material, thus they must contain seperate wirings/programs to become different products.
The laws of physics. No programs or wires required.
The laws are explanations of a working system only. Like a car manual.
My issue with the BB, and what are its problems, is either there is an external impact here, or the theory fails in actuality. And this is based on the universe being finite. I see the BBT still prevailing only for want of another, more logical premise, which has not happened as yet - but there is widespread disastisfaction with it, and it does not answer any pivotal questions, ending only in a brick wall - the surest indication it is wrong.
The external impact, from any logical view, would also have to be continuous, not only at one BB instant. The BB posits a saturation point was reached of one particle/cell [?], but there is nowhere those componenets could come from, and the premise of an expansion [or explosion] is assumed as natural, when it applies only to one instant 15 B years ago, and at one point only: who gave the directive of an explosion, and where did this phenomenon arise from? Where did the componenets within the first particle come from? Where did the directives to form complex processes and products come from?
The answer is given as NATURE, or that it just happened - this is where science ceases to exist as an explanation, and becomes slight of hand casino science. I see no alternative to an external, independent impact here - the higher logical assumption. Sorry if it offends that it alligns with any theology - but it is also a logical, scientific conclusion to boot - and should be equally responded to in a scientific mode.
Should I assume you see no irregularities with the BBT?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Vacate, posted 02-26-2008 4:26 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 2:06 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2011 4:16 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 168 of 389 (623733)
07-13-2011 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
02-28-2008 9:08 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
For me the problem with the idea is that though it is as fascinating a tale as that of Baron von Mnchhausen lifting himself by the hair in the air with the help of his glorious hand, it is just as believable.
The theory postulates that the baby Universe in its first discernible to the "science" instant was 100 million trillion times smaller than a proton while being as hot as trillions hells in spite of such minuscule appearance.
Should I believe that? Well...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 02-28-2008 9:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 3:41 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 169 of 389 (623739)
07-13-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 2:06 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
For me the problem with the idea is that though it is as fascinating a tale as that of Baron von Mnchhausen lifting himself by the hair in the air with the help of his glorious hand, it is just as believable.
The theory postulates that the baby Universe in its first discernible to the "science" instant was 100 million trillion times smaller than a proton while being as hot as trillions hells in spite of such minuscule appearance.
Should I believe that? Well...
Well, why not?
If you have any sort of argument that small things can't be "hot", now would be a great time to present it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 2:06 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 170 of 389 (623743)
07-13-2011 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
02-28-2008 9:08 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Size is relative and does not matter. The only factor which impacts is if the first entity was a true 'one' [singular; indivisible; irreducible]. This is encumbent if a finite realm is the preamble.
There cannot be any action with one - because there was nothing yet to interact with. This says the universe did not begin with one but with a minimal duality construct and also an external, independent and precedent force applying. The precedent control factor is required because the dual entities have to be programmed to ID and interact with each other.
This can be seen in any reductionist example one wants to nominate: a star, a pineapple or a car - these cannot interact with each other to produce the result they do; and pre- and parallel universes not only violate this universe's finitae factor, but it does not resolve the issue - it only pushes the goal post further up.
At the first point there was no enivornment, energy, light, space, math, science or time. Else the finite factor becomes violated.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 02-28-2008 9:08 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Taq, posted 07-13-2011 12:02 PM IamJoseph has replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 171 of 389 (623748)
07-13-2011 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2011 3:41 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Heat is confined motion raring to go. Confined implies divided in two at least- confined by itself is a contradiction in terms while divided in two eliminates the idea of singularity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 3:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 5:26 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 389 (623749)
07-13-2011 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 5:15 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Heat is confined motion raring to go.
And why cannot something be confined in a small space?
Confined implies divided in two at least-
No it doesn't. If I say that a man is confined in a prison cell, I do not mean that he is divided in two in a prison cell. I mean that he cannot get out of it.
confined by itself is a contradiction in terms
No. To say that a man is confined by himself in a prison cell is not a contradiction in terms --- solitary confinement, since it exists, cannot break the laws of logic.
Instead of messing about with words, try some actual physics. Why should a small thing not be "hot"? Show your working.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:15 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 173 of 389 (623750)
07-13-2011 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2011 5:26 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Prisoner, the prison and somewhere to be free make three already.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 5:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 5:44 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 174 of 389 (623753)
07-13-2011 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 5:31 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Prisoner, the prison and somewhere to be free make three already.
I accept the premise that those are three nominal clauses. In your own time, please reason from that premise to the conclusion that small things can't be hot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 5:31 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 3:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 175 of 389 (623783)
07-13-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by IamJoseph
07-13-2011 4:16 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
There cannot be any action with one - because there was nothing yet to interact with. This says the universe did not begin with one but with a minimal duality construct and also an external, independent and precedent force applying. The precedent control factor is required because the dual entities have to be programmed to ID and interact with each other.
1. How is this a problem for the Big Bang model?
2. Why does the thing that our universe interacted with have to be intelligent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2011 4:16 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by IamJoseph, posted 07-13-2011 9:19 PM Taq has not replied

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3966 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 176 of 389 (623809)
07-13-2011 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
07-13-2011 5:44 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Well, the problem with so much heat confined in so little ...volume?? could that be any volume even? is that all that heat equals not just to anything..well, if that putative primordial state relates to anything I know and observe as the current properties of the physical existence, but to the amount of confined motion.
Now I take the Einstein's formula as the inviolable ratio of space to time, motion to rest and gravity to space and I take gravity to be synonyms with motion and be a subset of energy which is something extremely difficult to define in any way to distinguish from the same motion again. Now such great amounts of motion would imply a need for space galore with the corresponding amounts of time needed to measure that distance. To keep so much motion so densely compressed and confined in so little volume or rather an absence of volume would imply application of a terrible force. Here is the problem. The laws of physics as they stand do not allow anything like that. Without invoking magic nothing computes here, I am afraid. Also either this infinitesimal baby universe is embedded in something or what it is embedded in is nothing. Can nothing both be that force or be capable to withstand that enormous potential raring to burst? Confinement, mind you, implies that the force is divided and action equals reaction.
Nothing does not exist so can not be and do nothing of the sort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 5:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 5:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied
 Message 178 by Taq, posted 07-13-2011 5:32 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 389 (623814)
07-13-2011 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 3:55 PM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Much of that did not appear to be in English.
The laws of physics as they stand do not allow anything like that.
Show me.
This is a fact unknown to physicists, who know actual physics, and do not use phrases such as "heat equals not just to anything", but I'm willing to give you a fair hearing. Just show me the physics proving that small things can't be hot.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 3:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 178 of 389 (623823)
07-13-2011 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-13-2011 3:55 PM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Now I take the Einstein's formula as the inviolable ratio of space to time, motion to rest and gravity to space and I take gravity to be synonyms with motion and be a subset of energy which is something extremely difficult to define in any way to distinguish from the same motion again.
Wouldn't it be easier to say that gravity is indistiguishable from acceleration?
To keep so much motion so densely compressed and confined in so little volume or rather an absence of volume would imply application of a terrible force. Here is the problem. The laws of physics as they stand do not allow anything like that.
Which laws would these be? I think we can all agree that such a high amount of energy in such a small volume is very unstable, but that is kind of the point of the Big Bang. In fact, such a high concentration of energy could have resulted in a breaking of the symmetry between the four fundamental forces. Also, this high amount of energy could also be the cause for the sudden inflation of the universe.
So it may not be a case of this highly energetic singularity breaking the laws of physics. Rather, it may have created them.
Also either this infinitesimal baby universe is embedded in something or what it is embedded in is nothing.
Either way, the BB model pertains to the universe once it began to expand. If my knowledge is correct, other theories such as M theory try to explain the era prior to the expansion of our universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-13-2011 3:55 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 179 of 389 (623837)
07-13-2011 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Taq
07-13-2011 12:02 PM


Re: Problem with the big bang
quote:
1. How is this a problem for the Big Bang model?
2. Why does the thing that our universe interacted with have to be intelligent?
Because we are talking emperically, not theologically, right? And science is laws, as we see the entire universe rests on majestic laws throughout - it was either created in wisdom or became such on its own [only two possibilities apply].
We know that an action results only via an interaction - whch says a true pristine ONE cannot create an action. Thus, if the BBT is based on a ONE singular, indivisible, irreducible entity, with nothing else yet existing at the initiation point - it cannot expand or go BOOM! No action can occur here.
This leaves the only plausable alternative of a duality construct. Consider the first human or the frst zebra: the first example would have to be a positive [male]/negative [female] duality. The situation at the BB point is even more critical: there was no enviornemnt yet.
Admittedly, this scenario is based on an absolutely fnite universe - a pivital factor most neo scientists run far from - they either ignore this or produce novel manipulations around it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Taq, posted 07-13-2011 12:02 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-13-2011 10:30 PM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 180 of 389 (623838)
07-13-2011 9:25 PM


quote:
Well, the problem with so much heat confined in so little ...volume??
Once, the universe and all its contents never exsted. Preamble # 1.
In a finite realm there was yet no heat [which is the result of an interaction], or the principle of 'confinement' [infers more than one], nor the phenomenon of 'little' [relative to what?], nor volume [measured against what?].

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024