Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

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.

Fine, this is an idiotic statement. 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.

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?

The Big bang is a classical theory - it will have shortcoming because of this - it is GUARANTEED to have shortcomings. If it has validity, it should agree with observation to a very strong degree in the classical domain. Problems will be seen in the quantum domain (i.e. in the very early moments, and effects of those early momemts carried forward into the classical regime). This is EXACTLY what we see. The Big Bang model of cosmology will be modified as we gain a deeper understanding of quantum gravity. Inflation is a leap ahead into this regime, where we are guessing at the overall coarse effect of some loosely understood quantum gravity mechanics. The coarse effect has good observational evidence. But inflation will not be the only modification. We have already seen Dark Energy, and there will be much more to come.But BBT as the classical limit is one of the most solid theories around. That it has issues in the claassical limit is not a problem but a PREDICTION. The issues are what we use as sign posts to the deeper quantum theory. Inflation is one (evidence-backed) possibility. If inflation proves to be incorrect, then all that means is that we have the wrong quantum correction, and we must search further. Yes, "Duh" is the operative expletive: When you can answer this for yourself, you will have understood...

Do you delight in being an idiot, or does it upset you? You mean, you don't know, despite all your reading? So once again, ICANT, someone who ponders about seeing nothing as he gazes up off the 2d balloon analogy, claims to have a far better understanding of all of this than the entire cosmological community. 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? Perhaps you'd care to explain your critique of inflation? Your own words would be nice. And please explain the evidence we have for inflation, if not caused by inflation? And please explain 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.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

A field, what else? This is obviously false - many of us have many clues 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 Absolute bollocks - you are misreading the article, revealing your own complete ignorance of this subject. 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... Then Liddle is wrong, though it is more likely your reporting that is wrong. Yes, I'm sure I did say this. And you still completely fail to understand it.

And the Born Again Christian cosmologists? What about them? 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... Yes, it is. 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...

Yes, and similar to the photon field, the strong force field, the weak force field, the electron field, the quark fields, etc, etc. Idiot. 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 see, so on the basis of one paper not mentioning something, you can comfortably declare me a liar... good to know. And the Born Again Christian cosmologists? What about them?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

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).

you may want to check that, ICANT...