Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 273 (471776)
06-18-2008 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by cavediver
06-18-2008 4:14 AM


Re:End
cavedive writes:
But you are also saying that Buz does not know what the Bible says and that Ray Martinez does not know what the Bible says So which of you has the correct story?
We all have the correct story. Because we have the same information.
We just interpret the information a little different.
Isn't that the reason I can find so many different cosmological views. You guys have the same information just interpret the information differently?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 4:14 AM cavediver has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 107 of 273 (471782)
06-18-2008 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by cavediver
06-18-2008 4:49 AM


Re: BBT without Inflation
cavediver writes:
We have already seen Dark Energy, and there will be much more to come.
If Dark energy has been seen, what is it?
From what I can find it makes up 72% of the universe.
No one has a clue as to what it is.
Dark matter makes up another 23% of the universe and no one has a clue as to what it is.
These numbers are according to the latest WMAP measurements.
WMAP 9 Year Mission Results
The search for Dark energy is 60 years old.
The search for Dark matter is 75 years old.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2008/01/080131094056.htm
Dr. Zhao says dark matter has been seen in galaxies over and over. The amazing thing is they see something and have no idea what it is.
If dark matter however is a twin phenomenon of dark energy, it will not show up at instruments like the LHC, but has been seen over and over again in galaxies by astronomers."
Dr Zhao concluded. "No matter what dark matter and dark energy are, these two phenomena are likely not independent of each other."
It does not sound like Dr Zhao has any idea what dark matter or dark energy are.
This was printed in ScienceDaily Feb. 1, 2008.
cavediver writes:
That it has issues in the claassical limit is not a problem but a PREDICTION.
According to Liddle that is a prediction by hindsight.
cavediver writes:
When you can answer this for yourself, you will have understood...
You mean I am supposed to understand that anywhere I am standing that I am standing on the surface of the universe as it is everywhere.
Now to the part of Message 92 that you did not mention.
ICANT writes:
Now did you not explain to me how that the universe was self contained and that everything was inside the universe and there was no thing outside the universe?
I ask again, is this not what you have explained to me on more than one occasion?
If that is true and a person could observe it from the outside, would that person be looking at the surface of the Universe?
I know you told me one time that would be very dangerous.
But if it were possible to put your feet on that pea you could look in any direction parallel with your feet and see that surface to the horizon.
If you looked up you would see absolutely nothing unless the multi-universe theory is correct. If that was the case you would see many surfaces of many universes. It would be like looking out into our universe but in place of galaxies we would see universes.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 4:49 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 8:18 AM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 108 of 273 (471786)
06-18-2008 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
06-18-2008 7:33 AM


Re: BBT without Inflation
If Dark energy has been seen, what is it?
A field, what else?
No one has a clue as to what it is.
This is obviously false - many of us have many clues as to what it is.
Dark matter makes up another 23% of the universe and no one has a clue as to what it is.
This is obviously false - many of us have many clues as to what it is.
Do not believe everything you read in poorly written popular science articles. Especially those that claim that GR was published in 1905
The search for Dark energy is 60 years old.
Absolute bollocks - you are misreading the article, revealing your own complete ignorance of this subject.
It does not sound like Dr Zhao has any idea what dark matter or dark energy are.
No, of course he hasn't. It's only his area of expertise but he knows absolutely nothing about it, no more than you in fact...
According to Liddle that is a prediction by hindsight.
Then Liddle is wrong, though it is more likely your reporting that is wrong.
Now did you not explain to me how that the universe was self contained and that everything was inside the universe and there was no thing outside the universe?
Yes, I'm sure I did say this. And you still completely fail to understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 7:33 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 10:09 AM cavediver has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 109 of 273 (471787)
06-18-2008 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by cavediver
06-18-2008 4:58 AM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
cavediver writes:
Do you delight in being an idiot, or does it upset you?
It doesn't bother me one bit. I am sorry it affects you as it does though.
cavediver writes:
You mean, you don't know, despite all your reading?
I know how it could solve the problems if it turns out to be true that inflation in the first billionth of a second took place.
But this is prior to the BBT taking over and explaining things.
That is the point that GR has broke down and can't tell us anything.
I have ask several times about this time and have been told "we don't know", as we have no theory to explain this time.
cavediver writes:
Perhaps you'd care to explain your critique of inflation?
Not at the present time but I will discuss the critique of a couple of scientist later in the thread.
cavediver writes:
Are you claiming that every cosmologist is self-deluded, stupid, and just hoping, praying that inflation wil save them from the disaster of the Big Bang theory?
I think they are very educated people.
I think they are very dedicated people.
I think most are too busy trying to find answers to take time out to hope and pray.
Are you declaring the BBT a disaster that should be replaced as you told me in another thread when you said we need a new theory?
Now you asked about delusion, I don't like that word. I do think that they are all blinded by the devil and can not see the truth when they are looking Him in the face everyday.
cavediver writes:
ALL of the evidence for the Big Bang, if it is not actually caused by the Big bang, as you are so desperate to believe.
You act like the BBT is the only hypothesis around that agree with the known evidences.
You say they don't agree with all the evidence. Neither does the BBT. The BBT is just the one that has been sold as the real McCoy.
Now as far as my desperation concerning the evidence and the BBT.
I have been accused of trying to twist the Bible writings to fit what science has found as evidence.
I see the situation the other way around.
Science is scrambling to find ways to make their theories match the evidence God wrote down in His manual of the Universe. That manual is what science studies.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 4:58 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 8:41 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 121 by Force, posted 06-18-2008 6:11 PM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 110 of 273 (471788)
06-18-2008 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
06-18-2008 8:19 AM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
I do think that they are all blinded by the devil and can not see the truth when they are looking Him in the face everyday.
And the Born Again Christian cosmologists? What about them?
Are you declaring the BBT a disaster that should be replaced as you told me in another thread when you said we need a new theory?
No, in no way is BBT a disaster - but it cannot explain the quantum gravity regime, and that will require a theory of quantum gravity. In the same way that Newtonian Mechanics and Gravity was sufficient for us to reach the Moon, but not to explain the orbit of Mercury with an accuracy to match careful observation.
These are such trivial points...
You act like the BBT is the only hypothesis around that agree with the known evidences.
Yes, it is.
Science is scrambling to find ways to make their theories match the evidence
If irrefutable evidence turned up tomorrow completely overturning BBT, every cosmologist would suddenly experience the utter joy of knowing that their grant cheques will continue for a long time yet, and that the scope for papers and research has just blossomed.
Just as with evolution - we don't hold to the theories because we like them so much, and need to believe in them - we hold to them becasue that is where the evidence leads. When it leads elsewhere, we will move elsewhere. You think that all these issues you raise should make the world community of cosmologists drop BBT. I have news for you. You know jack shit. *WE* will decide when the evidence tips us away from BBT, not you, and we won't care when it does. In fact, we will celebrate if it does. But you just cannot grasp that...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 8:19 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 10:37 AM cavediver has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 111 of 273 (471794)
06-18-2008 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by cavediver
06-18-2008 8:18 AM


Re: BBT without Inflation
cavediver writes:
A field, what else?
Would that be a field like the Higgs field?
Or would it be like a cotton field or a corn field?
A cotton field I have seen.
A corn field I have seen.
I can't find anybody that has found the Higgs field yet.
cavediver writes:
This is obviously false - many of us have many clues as to what it is.
There is a lot of information as to what it is not. There are many guesses to what it is. Is that what you mean by clue's.
cavediver writes:
Then Liddle is wrong, though it is more likely your reporting that is wrong.
Liddle writes:
3 Problems with the Big Bang
In this section I shall quickly review the original motivation for the inflationary cosmology. These problems were largely ones of initial conditions.
While historically these problems were very important, they are now somewhat marginalized as focus is instead concentrated on inflation as a theory for the origin of cosmic structure.
Liddle writes:
4 The Idea of Inflation
Seen with many years of hindsight, the idea of inflation is actually rather obvious.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124v1.pdf
Problems were very important.
Enter Inflation 1981.
They still exist but now they are marginal.
No place do I find that any of the problems were predicted.
I do find that Inflation was a result of hindsight.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 8:18 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 10:25 AM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 112 of 273 (471798)
06-18-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
06-18-2008 10:09 AM


Re: BBT without Inflation
Would that be a field like the Higgs field?
Yes, and similar to the photon field, the strong force field, the weak force field, the electron field, the quark fields, etc, etc.
Or would it be like a cotton field or a corn field?
A cotton field I have seen.
A corn field I have seen.
Idiot.
There is a lot of information as to what it is not. There are many guesses to what it is. Is that what you mean by clue's.
Yes, and if you had half a brain cell you would appreciate that this is rather a lot - but sadly you have no clue so all you do is pour scorn upon those who know immeasurably more than you.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124v1.pdf
Problems were very important.
Enter Inflation 1981.
They still exist but now they are marginal.
No place do I find that any of the problems were predicted.
I see, so on the basis of one paper not mentioning something, you can comfortably declare me a liar... good to know.
I do think that they are all blinded by the devil and can not see the truth when they are looking Him in the face everyday.
And the Born Again Christian cosmologists? What about them?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 10:09 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 11:00 AM cavediver has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 113 of 273 (471800)
06-18-2008 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by cavediver
06-18-2008 8:41 AM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
cavediver writes:
And the Born Again Christian cosmologists? What about them?
That would be determined by how you define a Born Again Christian.
cavediver writes:
If irrefutable evidence turned up tomorrow completely overturning BBT,
But the BBT would not be falsified. It would only be modified as in the past.
cavediver writes:
You know jack shit.
You right but the pile I do know is getting bigger every day.
cavediver writes:
You think that all these issues you raise should make the world community of cosmologists drop BBT.
Would you be talking about them if I was not putting them forth for discussion?
What is wrong with talking about the problems of the BBT.
You have had a wonderful opportunity to explain the flatness problem and how inflation fixes the problem.
You have had a wonderful opportunity to explain all the problems in the OP and how inflation fixes them.
Instead of trying to broaden my knowledge and those reading these posts all you want to do is act like a religionist and defend your beliefs.
I know you don't have any beliefs and science is not a religion. Well I deal with religionist every day of the week and you act just like they do when you go on defence.
ABE REFERING TO BELIEFS BEING FAITH BASED
cavediver writes:
Absolute bollocks - you are misreading the article, revealing your own complete ignorance of this subject.
What benefit is there to a statement like that. When a simple explanation would have been just as easy to type?
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : Correct for belief

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 8:41 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 10:48 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 115 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 10:50 AM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 114 of 273 (471802)
06-18-2008 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
06-18-2008 10:37 AM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
When a simple explanation would have been just as easy to type?
Strange - I have spent my years here explaining cosmology and fundemental phsyics in great detail, even drawing up diagrams (for you even) to help get the point across. But when it comes to you (and Buz) all I get in return is ignorant argumentationa and idiocy. Have a trawl through the archives at my posts, and ask youself why I treat you differently to everyone else (bar say Buz and randman).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 10:37 AM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 115 of 273 (471803)
06-18-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
06-18-2008 10:37 AM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
I know you don't have any beliefs and science is not a religion.
you may want to check that, ICANT...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 10:37 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 11:05 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 118 by Admin, posted 06-18-2008 3:07 PM cavediver has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 116 of 273 (471804)
06-18-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by cavediver
06-18-2008 10:25 AM


Re: BBT without Inflation
cavediver writes:
Yes, and similar to the photon field, the strong force field, the weak force field, the electron field, the quark fields, etc, etc.
But it would not be any of those fields or any other field that we know of would it?
It would be one like the Higgs field that we haven't found yet, would it not?
cavediver writes:
Yes, and if you had half a brain cell you would appreciate that this is rather a lot - but sadly you have no clue so all you do is pour scorn upon those who know immeasurably more than you.
I thought a clue was quite a bit more substantial than a guess but if they are the same I apologize.
cavediver writes:
I see, so on the basis of one paper not mentioning something, you can comfortably declare me a liar... good to know.
I did not realize my not being able to find something would cause you to be a liar.
Possibly you could correct me by sharing the proper papers.
cavediver please realize I am 69 years old I don't have time to go back to school and learn these things. The only way I can learn is to read what these men have to say and try to digest it.
It is not my intention to belittle anyone but I do question everything.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 10:25 AM cavediver has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 117 of 273 (471806)
06-18-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by cavediver
06-18-2008 10:50 AM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
cavediver writes:
you may want to check that, ICANT...
I really tried to make you into a dumb bunny with that one didn't I?
I was refering to science as a religion that what you believe is not based on faith.
I just got through wiping the egg off my face.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 10:50 AM cavediver has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 118 of 273 (471817)
06-18-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by cavediver
06-18-2008 10:50 AM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
Hi Cavediver,
I'd prefer not to intrude into threads where the participants seem able to keep things pretty much under control, and I don't really have a problem with calling someone an idiot who by his behavior seems to be purposefully encouraging it, indeed even reveling in it, but Rahvin has posted a note to the Windsor castle thread indicating that ICANT's participation is getting in the way of meaningful discussion. Are you feeling that progress is being made? Would like to continue in this vein?
Edited by Admin, : Typo.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by cavediver, posted 06-18-2008 10:50 AM cavediver has not replied

Force
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 273 (471839)
06-18-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by IamJoseph
06-17-2008 8:55 PM


Re: Update Your Model
IAJ,
IAJ post 5 writes:
The first problem is that most science views disregard or reject the universe as a finite realm
Force post 80 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.
IAJ post 97 in respose to my post 80 writes:
You have to conform your thoughts there is not a single hint the uni is not finite, and this is the conclusion of the greatest scientists, maths and sciences.
I noticed you contradicted yourself in posts 5/97.
P.S. Please provide evidence the universe is finite.
Edited by Force, : edit
Edited by Force, : change

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by IamJoseph, posted 06-17-2008 8:55 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by IamJoseph, posted 06-18-2008 10:23 PM Force has replied

Force
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 273 (471848)
06-18-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ICANT
06-15-2008 10:10 PM


Re: Update Your Model
ICANT,
The "BBT" describes how the universe started and the IT describes the structure and potential changes to that structure of the universe. The BBT does not depend on inflation. If you can observe the universe expanding over time that means originally it was smaller hence BBT.
My understanding above may be wrong but I believe it is correct. I am still learning about cosmology though so if I am wrong please forgive me. =-).
ICANT writes:
I think you said it best several months ago when you said we need a new theory. I am still satisfied with mine.
The issue with yours is that it has errant scriptures, contradictory creation narratives, and mythological based stories.

Thanks
To believe in "Force" is to believe in Love, Wisdom, Intelligence, Force, Agility, and Charm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 06-15-2008 10:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 6:18 PM Force has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024