Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

Only two??? That would be so much easier...The problem is that people with no background in the subject are expecting answers, and expecting to UNDERSTAND the answers to these questions. To explain this at even the most basic of levels requires presenting a substantial body of introductory material. The questioners then proceed to question, critique, and ridicule this most basic of background information, and the original question is never addressed. This is the classic untrained common-sense belief, with the impression that the Universe is expanding into this "space". This question presupposes the above erroneous view - what volume?What occupied the volume of the Halo 3 world (or any other first person shooter) before it was written? I disagree. But at what level do you want an answer? At the level of complete ignorance of cosmology? After having read some Brian Greene or Hawking? After your final year undergrad cosmology course? As a beginning PhD student of General Relativity/Quantum Gravity/String Theory? Or front line research? My answer requires a blackboard, considerable handwaving, a few props, and a fair bit of time. It's damn hard to convert that to typing replies on a discussion board.

I think you have answered my question. What level? That is the point in which I asked about objectivity. When dealing with any scientific theory , it is a fact that all theories are subject to falsification. To be objective to a theory, one must follow this thinking. It would be the same as to answer whether time had a beginning or not. If time had a beginning then what occured one second before time began. If time had no beginning then how could this be. Neither has any objectivity to a finite mind. Is time finite or infinite. What does 1/0 equal?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

quote:

---

The problem is that people with no background in the subject are expecting answers, and expecting to UNDERSTAND the answers to these questions. To explain this at even the most basic of levels requires presenting a substantial body of introductory material. The questioners then proceed to question, critique, and ridicule this most basic of background information, and the original question is never addressed.
  —cavediver

---

You are right, we don't understand all the calculations that go into proving the validity of such a theory. But at the same time, you are far from being the only one in the world with a background in cosmology. That's why I think an internet link with the supposed evidence that there is no space outside our universe, will give you much credit and we won't have to take your word for it.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I don't give a shit whether you take my word for anything. I'm not here to debate cosmology - I do that with other experts - I'm here to help interested readers understand something of the Universe. You don't even understand the words you are using. I have already asked you: but you have yet to answer...

I left it out on purpose as I wanted to talk about the problems with the BBT. Without inflation the BBT would be dead.Inflation is an add on to the BBT to fix the problems listed in the OP.The reason I asked you in Message 10 "Which hypothesis of Inflation are you refering to." I was wanting to know which one had become a theory.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Incorrect - there would just be some explaining to do, and there are competing ideas to inflation. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, and thus we do not simply discard it on the basis of open questions/problems. "We do not know yet" is not the point where you discard a theory. Why? They differ on fundemental mechanism, not coarse-grained effect. It is the latter that we care about in terms of solving the issues with non-inflationary BBT.

Why would you want to intentionally talk about the problems with an antiquated model?<” Not a rhetorical question.Has it occurred to you that there is a reason it's antiquated?It's because problems were see with it.These problems were then resolved.The updated models then replaced the antiquated model.Now sensible people look for problems in the UPDATED MODELS.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Unless you are backtracking there is no space outside of the universe as time, space, and gravity all were contained in the universe that began to expand some 13.7 billion years ago.The problem we the uneducated have is, how does the universe expand?If the little pea sized universe is all that there is, and there is an absence of anything to expand into. Then is it just expanding into itself and we just think the universe is billions of light years across because we are actually so small?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Which hypothesis solves the problems listed?Present the one you think that does and we can discuss it. There is no updated model. There is the BBT that has been patched up and pawned off as a true good model. When the patches are just guesses.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It's been done. You brought up flatness, and you were replied with inflation. So, what did you want to discuss? Funny, I could have sworn there was Lambda CDM... but then you, the pastor, seem to know a hell of lot more than me, the cosmologist... So you are discounting the evidence for inflation? Please present your critique...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Backtracking, you condescending twat??? Yes, you're so right. You're running rings around my knowledge, having grasped everything I have ever explained to you, and know I am struggling to keep up. Yep, you got it.

There are some very learned men I have read that says you can not explain the problems listed in the OP without some type of inflation period.ROBERT H. BRANDENBERGER Physics Department, Brown University says,

quote:

---

Standard cosmology cannot explain the observed isotropy of the CMB.

---

quote:

---

The problems I will focus on here - the homogeneity, flatness and formation of structure problems are questions which have no answer within the theory and are therefore the main motivation for inflationary cosmology.

---

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9910/9910410v1.pdfNo answer within the theory.That is the MAIN MOTIVATION for inflationay cosmology.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Yes, well done ICANT. This has been our position for 20 years. But there are ideas other than inflation as I have just stated. Or are you refuting that?

quote:

---

Then is it just expanding into itself and we just think the universe is billions of light years across because we are actually so small?

---

quote:

---

Yep, you got it.

---

What happens when you enlarge zero by 50%? 100%? 1,000%? It stays ZERO. If the universe was infinitely small at T=0, and is infinitely small 13.7 bln. years later, then the universe doesn't exist exist. Right? Where is the rationality?
What can make a metre suddenly become 1.1 metres long(is the void within or between atoms enlarging)? If such a thing did happen, it would no longer be a metre. And even if it did, how could we possibly tell the difference? From that reference frame, it is still one meter.Is the Big Bang theory going to crumble to dust if redshifts are proven to not have been caused by spatial expansion? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

So which version of Inflation as I asked you for earlier.The original by Guth or his 2001 version Eternal Inflation.
Chaotic inflation model.
Multi-field theories.
Open inflation.That is some.But Inflation has it's problems. No body can agree is one. Very few hypothesis have been thrown out.There seems to be a fluctuation problem for all realizations of potential.driven inflation.Chaotic inflation has a Trans-Planckian problem.Scaler field driven inflation does not eliminate the singularity.Then there is the cosmological constant problem.All these problems according to Robert H. Brandenbergerhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0101/0101119v1.pdfNow there could be later data that I have not been able to find if so please point it out.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."