|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,809 Year: 4,066/9,624 Month: 937/974 Week: 264/286 Day: 25/46 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4743 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
when you understand, or for those who do understand, the universe and all that is came form a single existence, which evolved, how long til you understand that it had intelligence? Finally, someone who understands the Universe. Why 137? Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1620 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Finally, someone who understands the Universe. Why 137? i understand what is obvious. what 137 are you referring? i will not be able to reply to your post, and i figure its just a jeer anyways. i still got that post 1 time every 30 minutes thing because the site is run by children who dont like real discussions. but i always love to try to figure out puzzles within what I'm capable of researching in the reality of our world. 1 3 and 7 i noticed is times two plus one. ie: 1 times two plus 1 is 3 and 3 times two plus one is 7. i read an interesting article about cesium 137. a radioactive by product of nuclear fission. the glowing salt thing was kinda cool. but anyways, i dont see where any of that is useful. only God knows all the secrets of the universe. its his body. knowing that though, is a start to understanding what roles we play in it, individually, and as a whole. and for the seeker, you find that place. Gods blessing be with you always. see y'all when i get a chance to get back to a PC. take care, and God bless. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Straggler writes: Because the basis on and predictions of BBT theory remain true with or without inflation. Thanks for you opinion. In Message 62 I used information from Liddle.
ANDREW R. LIDDLE http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124v1.pdf Flatness problem,Liddle says the BBT density problem would cause the universe to recollapse or rapidly expand and cool below 3k withing its first second of existence. Liddle says according to the BBT predictions the universe would have recollapsed or expanded so rapidly nothing would exist on it. So how do you justify your statement inflation is not needed. Is Liddle wrong?
Straggler writes: Why don't they tick off that pesky question of the universe as sorted and go onto the next thing? I call them questions LIDDLE and BRANDENBERGER call them PROBLEMS. They then show how the BBT as proposed can not be true in their descrition of the problems. If you will read Message 7 you will see cavediver agrees there is a problem and that inflation fixes it.
Straggler writes: If you want to refute BBT I am a Bible thumper. The Bible is not accepted as trustworthy here. So who am I to refute the BBT? I can point out where scientist say the BBT fails to match observations.
Straggler writes: You cannot answer the question as to why God created man. Sure I can, and have you just don't like the answer.
Straggler writes: Unanswered questions are not refutations You are correct with that statement. But the problems presented by the Scientist I quoted say the BBT does not exist without Inflation. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 639 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
what you don't seem to understand is that Inflation IS a form of the 'Big Bang'. In addition, inflation predicted the patterns of the structures of the universe ahead of time, before we discovered them.
I suggest as a high level , layman's book, 'Wrinkles in Time' by George Smoot to explain how the inflationary model of the big bang made predictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
IAJ,
You really need to provide evidence for your claim that the universe is "finite" because your claims are a lot of nothing without it. Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
ICANT,
ICANT writes:
I keep hearing there is mountains of evidence. I have not seen any yet that is not questioned.
You fail to understand the point my friend. The big bang model was not summarized until there was evidence to devise it. I also want to mention that if the BB model fails there will be a new model to replace it and it will be based on all the current evidence of the time. The difference between Religion and Science is that Scientific theories/models are based on actual evidence but however such is not the case for Religion.
icant writes:
We have about 230 posts left, put it on the table.
I will be happy to learn about the BB with you =).
ICANT writes:
Could you explain where I can touch this evidence. That is what tangible means isn't it. No.
www.dictionary.com writes:
Tangible: 1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.2. real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary: the tangible benefits of sunshine. 3. definite; not vague or elusive: no tangible grounds for suspicion. 4. (of an asset) having actual physical existence, as real estate or chattels, and therefore capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms. -noun 5. something tangible, esp. a tangible asset. Please reference the entire meaning above but also pay attention to part 2.
ICANT writes:
One is where did the little pea sized universe come from?The answer I am given is it just exists and then expands. No reason for it existing. No reason for it to start to expand. It just does. Where did it come from? Best answer, "We don't Know." Along come Inflation to fix the problems. Guth says inflation starts with a smear and it doubles a few hundred times and then expands into the universe as we see it. Where did the smear come from? It just is. Then comes the scalar field. Where did it come from? We don't know we have not found one yet. I put forth questions that scientist say the BBT can not answer and is incompatible with. The only answer to those questions is Inflation. Inflation is not even to the theory stage yet. Therefore it does not answer the questions yet. Will it answer the questions eventually? Maybe, maybe not. Until then the BBT has serious problems.
I can understand your frustration but however just because there is no answer to a question does not mean that a God did it. Science is based on evidence, as mentioned above, and as such the current Scientific understanding simply does not have enough evidence to answer all of our questions at the moment. Will Science understand this supposed "GOD" someday? it may but we have to wait for the evidence. Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Force writes: You really need to provide evidence for your claim that the universe is "finite" because your claims are a lot of nothing without it. The CMB data gathered by wmap says the infinite universe model does not fare as well with the data which corresponds to wide-angle temperature fluctuations as the finite universe model. http://www.math.cornell.edu/...4/geometry/finite/finite.html These fluctuations are really necessary for the infinite universe model. Do you have some better information. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
ICANT,
It is my understanding that according to the BB model the universe is finite. I am trying to get IAJ to post references for his claims as he has a tendency to make wild ass assertions. I also want to mention that just because the Bible creation story supports a finite universe does not mean that this is what the authors had in mind. What I mean is that the authors obviously did not mention the words "the universe is finite" or even imply it directly. If the universe is claimed to be finite then that claim must be based on evidence. Edited by Force, : edit Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
ramos writes: what you don't seem to understand is that Inflation IS a form of the 'Big Bang'. In addition, inflation predicted the patterns of the structures of the universe ahead of time, before we discovered them. The CMB had been discovered and expansion was accepted which caused the problems in the OP. Guth came up with the idea of inflation in 1981 some 15+ years after the CMB and expansion. So when did inflation become a part of the BBT? Was it before the problems? Or, Was it as a solution to the problem? Inflation is a add on to the Big Bang Theory to fix the problems listed in the OP.
ramos writes: I suggest as a high level , layman's book, 'Wrinkles in Time' by George Smoot to explain how the inflationary model of the big bang made predictions. What is wrong with, Robert H. Brandenberger, Andrew R. Liddle.What is wrong with Alan Guth who came up with the idea of inflation? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I suggest as a high level , layman's book, 'Wrinkles in Time' by George Smoot to explain how the inflationary model of the big bang made predictions. Great suggestion, Ramoss, but what you have to understand (and I'm sure you do) is that ICANT has absolutely no interest in understanding any of this. All he wants is to find gaps, problems, and open questions so that he can believe and declare that his theological "theory" of cosmology is just as valid as that of the world community of cosmologists. He would act exactly the same way at any point in the history or the future of science - look at the front line of research and mock the open questions. Don't forget that every "transitional" fossil find is simply the creation of two new gaps... I wish I had any enthusiasm for addressing this whole issue but ICANT has just sapped me of the will to live - he is the AntiChrist of knowledge. In the unboundless wonders of the Universe, all he can do is say - ooh look, you don't understand this yet, and your model for this isn't quite right. The simple facts are these: Big Bang comsology has a huge array of evidence, from nucleosynthesis, large scale structure of the Universe, Cosmological red-shift/expansion, CMBR, stellar age, etc. Just as importantly, it is predicted by General Relativity, our theory of spcae-time which has passed every test ever thrown at it. This is sufficient for us to accept that the big bang cosmology is very likely an extremely good picture of what has happened. The original BBT does leave some questions, e.g. flatness, horzion, "monopole". These demonstrated that there was something more than the simple, naive dynamics of the original model. But given that the original model was based on the simplistic models of matter and energy content of the Universe, this was obvious. One of the most important contributors to the dynamics of the Universe which was missing in the classical model are scalar fields. The Higgs field is the most "known" of these, but most plausible Planckian physics models are replete with scalar fields. We are already seeing the probable effect of one or more scalar fields in the so-called Dark Energy which is driving the accelerating expansion of the Universe. When the concept of inflation was proposed as the answer to the problem mentioned earlier, it was a real no-brainer. That said, it's not the only solution to the problems, but it does possess some excellent observational evidence. We don't yet have a perfect underlying model of the inflation process, but then these involve guessing the nature of Planckian physics, so it's not too surprising! So, yes, there are open issues in cosmology - that is why we have cosmologists. And I don't see the situation changing for 100 years or so. But when ICANT makes idiotic statements suggesting that the BBT is dead in the water, he's being, well, an idiot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
cavediver,
fear can lead people in many directions =). Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Force writes: Please reference the entire meaning above but also pay attention to part 2. In part 2 it says real, actual.In part 3 it says definite. Which means not vague. In part 4 it says actual physical existence. I have a real, actual, definite, physical pick up truck in my drive-way. Guess what I can observe and touch with my hands. Yep that is tangible.
Force writes: I can understand your frustration I don't think you can understand my fustration. I am not fustrated that there are no hard and fast answers to the problems. I can accept the fact that there are a lot of unknowns. Some of which we may never have the answers for. I enjoy studying and learning, I love reading, I love looking for answers. But if I want to find answers I must have an open mind. That is the reason I question everything. Now my fustration comes from everyone presenting the BBT as if it is perfect with no problems or flaws. I had the same problem in Seminary. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
ICANT,
Science is more tangible than faith. Edited by Force, : edit Edited by Force, : edit 2 Edited by Force, : deletion of mute points... Thanks To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Welcome back,
cavediver writes: So, yes, there are open issues in cosmology - that is why we have cosmologists. And I don't see the situation changing for 100 years or so. But when ICANT makes idiotic statements suggesting that the BBT is dead in the water, he's being, well, an idiot. I don't mind being called an idiot. But if you are going to quote me please use the entire statement. My statement was that without inflation the BBT was dead. I think that is the only way I made the statement. You mentioned a couple of other posibility's that are a long way off. I read of several.
cavediver writes: he is the AntiChrist of knowledge. my e-mail address is available if you would care to put a test together to find out what I have learned from what you have put forth in the last 15 months. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
My statement was that without inflation the BBT was dead. Fine, this is an idiotic statement.
my e-mail address is available if you would care to put a test together to find out what I have learned from what you have put forth in the last 15 months. ICANT, you miserably failed that test the other day when you made your comment of standing on the "balloon" and looking up, seeing "nothing". I should have been howling with laughter but I was kicking in frustration that someone who trys to play hardball with the limits of cosmology would reveal himself such a ignorant fool of the subject. I find it deeply insulting given the time and effort invested.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024