Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

ICANT What does this have to do with the BBT? Science studies the natural phenomena that it can observe. There is no limitation to the natural phenomena, that Science studies, as long as it can be observed. Science has observed evolution which contradicts the creation story in the Torah. Science has observed an expansion in the universe which however does not contradict the creation story in the Torah. So, again, Science studies what it can observe. If Science observes phenomena that contradicts the creation story in the Torah then let it be what it is.

---

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

That is your opinion based on I don't know what.
But I have studied what I believe for over 45 years and come to different conclusions. That is fine we are all entitled to our opinions and as someone said everyone has one.Now when we get to the scientific senerio I become the sceptic, the doubter.I find men like Liddle who proposes a theory of inflation himself and he talks about others. He says there are problems with the BBT.I also find Brandenberger who confirms what Liddle says. They are both reputable men.They both say Inflation solves the problems listed in the OP which the BBT can not. The density problem alone without inflation would be very bad for the BBT.Here are the links to their papers read them and see what they say.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9910/9910410v1.pdfhttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9901/9901124v1.pdfI have never been able to understand the solution to a problem without knowing what the problem is.That is the reason I wanted cavediver and anyone else qualified to discuss the problems listed in the OP.Then we could discuss the solution and just maybe through it all be able to learn something about the process.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."

ICANT,Errant manuscripts:http://EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts? -->EvC Forum: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?Contradictory creation narratives:http://EvC Forum: Contradictions between Genesis 1-2 -->EvC Forum: Contradictions between Genesis 1-2Mythologically based:Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible I have already explained what the BBT describes "the origin of the universe" and that "it is expanding". I also have already explained that "inflation" describes "the structure of the universe". The BBT is fine without inflation. Inflation supports the BBT though.The density issue is not a problem with the BBT because it does not change the fact that the universe is expanding from a point which is what the BBT is all about. BOOM = EXPANSION..... Then inflation kicks in and explains the structure after the BOOM. If the universe implodes that still does not change the fact that once the universe expanded hence the BOOM = BIG BANG...Edited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : editEdited by Force, : edit

---

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

I too become a bit of a skeptic, or a doubter even, when I speak to someone in the medical field who is giving me a diagnosis. I think we all become like that when we don't understand something and are out of our fields. But, at the end of the day I go with those that know, because I wouldn't even understand the doctor if he explained it to me technically. Because im not a doctor.You are not a cosmologist! You don't even have a full grasp of it in the layman sense. You are not educated in it and continue to show stupidity through your replies and questions. You are not helping those who want to know, and you insult those who have tried to help...they even try to help YOU. As has been your case with someone like CAVEDIVER, who is only here to help those who have a true desire to understand, and not someone like yourself who has made himself a self-proclaimed cosmologist and argues without any concept of what you are argueing about.In the words of the great Archie Bunker..."Stifle Yourself!!!

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your fuckin' mouth.

qs3 aliens? Why 3? Is 3 the magic number?That is the number I get from my source that you will not accept.[/qs]Ohhhh. I geddit. That source.
I am still waiting for the first bible based scientific theory to make a single specific empirical prediction. The day that happens I will take your source more seriously as a guide to understanding the physical world. I think that is a misunderstanding of the hypothesis. Neither form of energy exists "before" or external to the universe. Ex nihilo. Or in the wider multiverse of some sort. No fight is being proposed.
In this hypothesis both forms of energy come into existence simultaneously as part of the same mechanism and neither can exist without the other. It is analogous to the creation of a virtual particle created by means of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. Both the particle and antiparticle are necessarily created together. Each cancelling out the other.Hawking No doubt thinking has moved on somewhat since 1988. I'll see if I can find anything more recent.You still have not explained how unanswered questions invalidate all the known evidence for a theory. You seem unable to think of any other major body of scientific knowledge which has not been modifed over time. You seem unwilling to apply your 'all questions must be answered' mentality to other areas that you do not have philosophical objections to.Basically your inexplicable desire to somehow disprove BBT is driving you to flawed arguments, inconsistent thinking and biased selective conclusions.Again I suggest the book 'The Big Bang' by Simon Singh for a very accessible historical look at the development of the BBT. I wholly accept you are never going to agree with the conclusions of BBT for your own personal subjective reasons. However this book is an excellent look at how scientific theories evolve and would hopefully open your eyes as to how the theory developed over a period of time, what the historical alternatives were and why scientists now genuinely consider the BB theory to be so solidly founded.

Well which of the evidences in favour of the BB have been refuted?
Thanks in advance for your opinion...... Inflation is not needed to explain or predict the observational evidence on which BB is founded.
Additional observation and analysis that in no way contradicted the founding principles of BB indicated that inflation was also necessary.Why is that such a hard concept for you? Good question. A familiarity with at least the founding concepts of BB, historical perspective and nature of science would be very useful in discusiing these things with you. Anyone has the right to disagree but your objections more often than not are based on ignorance, misconseption and a complete lack of comprehension regarding the scientific process as a whole.[q]Sure I can, and have you just don't like the answer.[/qs] Whoooaah! Hold on. You know why God created man? I have heard you offer speculations before but never heard you claim to know the mind of God.
Please do tell........................................? Really? So the scientist you quote says that BBT is wrong? Or does he say that it needs modificatio in light of new evidence but that it's foundations remain sound?Without a definitive answer as to exactly how and why God created the universe I assert (by means of your flawed logic) that the God hypothesis has been refuted.
How is this position different to yours regards BBT?

Have you read the two papers I cited?I know there are several things that the BBT does well.
I know according to Liddle there are some problems with the BBT.
For the BB to continue successfully certain initial conditions must be carefully chosen.The problem is those conditions are not met in the BBT.Therefore creating the necessity of the Inflation period.Without those conditions which have been conveniently supplied by Inflation there would have been no continuation.Maybe it is foolish to want to understand why these conditions would not exist without inflation.I mean we got inflation so we don't need to worry about those problems they are fixed.Then we have the problem that Inflation is not even a theory yet.
But being accepted by layman as a fact when scientist have many questions.I see nothing else on topic.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."

If certain conditions were not met in the beginning the BB would have been a big dud. The BBT does not meet those requirements.After ANDREW R. LIDDLE
Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, U. K.
Does the math using formulas from the BBT this is what would happen. He said it will either recollapse or it will be barren.Find it HereGod 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."

quote:

---

I noticed you contradicted yourself in posts 5/97.

---

No - you have to apply menial input to see I said most science 'views' [as in this forum] disregard the finite aspect of the uni, while most major scientists [incl. Einstein, Newton, Hawkings] agree the uni is 100% finite.

quote:

---

P.S. Please provide evidence the universe is finite.

---

You confirm my posts. Evidences point only to finite, and there are no evidences whatsoever to its contrary. The uni is expanding; the notion of a BB itself says, first and foremost, the uni is finite - else no BB.The enormity of this has still not sunk in, nor its impact on a host of premises held - it is as if the notion is very unwelcome, and a disruption. Mostly, it is shunned because it can or may allign to a theology such as genesis, when the correct outcome should be a point accorded in favor of genesis. There is paranoiac agenda science here as opposed honest science.No science forum is complete nor legitimate without a thread debating the 'WHAT IF' factor - namely how does a finite universe impact on sciences, including cosmology, physics, biology and ToE - if the finite factor is made absolute and non-negotiable in the preamble.

A complex outcome has to have a complex foundation. Else it ceases becoming scientific, mathematical or logical, and emulates magic, occultism, sorcery and myth [aka random].

Boy, am I tired. I went to Sears and bought one of those 120 piece Craftsmen tool kits. It’s got, like, all these screwdrivers and box wrenches in U.S. and metric, and lots of sockets in three drives sizes . Then I took them out back where I have a huge oak tree that’s needed to come down for years. Well, I whacked away for nearly four hours and nothing. Craftsman tools totally suck. Tomorrow I’m going out and tying those new Cobalt tools from Lowe’s. Some douche bag said I should use an ax, like that’s going to get those crappy sockets to take out that oak. Stupid tools.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

If the universe is finite, where is it going to go?

No one can say. But it is evident that there is a direction, from the pov everything appears to operate on an intelligent system, with measurable equations and awesome engineerings. It seems all this cannot be occuring for no reason.

Hi ICANT, If you have really seen what you described to me in email, why do you keep visiting this forum looking for answers?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT
Your whole premise is based on the flawed assumption that unanswered questions and modifications to scientific theories necessarily equate to refutations. This is a complete misapprehension. It displays a complete ignorance of the scientific process in general and especially the scientific process with regard to rival theories and how this relates to the succession of one theory over another.
No major scientific area of research has been plucked out of nowhere with no research, investigation or modification necessary. BBT is no different to any other scientific theory in this respect. I will try and explain this to you.Let’s look at the general effects of new evidence on a scientific theory and then relate this to the subject at hand.NEW EVIDENCE
New evidence relevant to a particular scientific theory can do, in simple terms, 1 of 3 things.
1)Further verifies a theory: If new evidence is directly in accordance with the theory under consideration. Ideally verifying theoretically predicted results.
2)Forces a theory to be modified: New phenomenon unexplained by the theory under consideration are discovered. These do not directly contradict the theory nor refute the basis or predictions on which the theory is founded. Rather such evidence raises new questions that the theory needs to subsequently address.
3)Refutes a theory: Evidence that directly contradicts the basis of a theory or the predicted results on which it had been considered to be verifiedBIG BANG EXAMPLES
Now let consider the above in terms of the BBT[1] Verification: An example of new evidence providing further verification of the Big Bang theory is the recent WMAP neutrino evidence.Page not found – Physics World http://www.physorg.com/news124169694.html Neutrino Evidence Confirms Big Bang Predictions - Universe Today [2] Modification: In terms of the Big Bang inflation quite obviously comes into the second category of modification. The original BBT concluded little about the rate of expansion of the universe or it’s consistency of expansion although various assumptions may have been made. The observed flatness of the universe has indeed required that the original BBT be modified to include an initial inflationary period. However this in no way contradicts any of the founding evidence for the BBT or any of the predictions on which it has been verified.We continue to gather evidence for inflation
Just a moment... [3] Refutation: Examples of things that would come into the refutation category regarding BBT include

Evidence demonstrating that red shifts were either not actually occurring or are not due to spatial expansion

Evidence that the predicted CMB does not actually exist or that it is of a value completely inconsistent with BBT

Evidence that the observed abundance of light elements is not typical of the universe as a whole

Evidence that suggested BBT to be inconsistent with General Relativity

​

As should be obvious the basis of the Big Bang theory remains sound and is indeed being further verified and expanded upon even as I write. As should also be obvious, like any other major theory, the BBT has been modified in the face of new evidence (i.e. to include inflation) and will continue to undergo examination and modification as new evidence comes in.
It should also be obvious to anyone vaguely objective on this subject that no evidence refuting the Big Bang model has been presented by ICANT or anyone else at all.

​

With this in mind let’s now consider what would be required of a theory in order for it to replace the Big bang theory.

​

RIVAL THEORIES
When considering the validity of scientific theories we consider two primary things -

​

1)Their explanatory power: What observed natural phenomenon are a necessary and logical consequence of the theory. Are the necessary logical consequences of the theory indeed observed and does the theory therefore explain these phenomenon more adequately than any rival theory. NOTE: By “necessary logical consequence” we mean that if found to be untrue the theory in question would be refuted and thus invalidated. We do not mean aspects of nature that could be explained by said theory but could also be the result of any other competing theory.

​

2)Their predictive power: Does the theory predict new phenomenon and evidence that is previously unknown. By doing so we dramatically increase objectivity on the basis that forming theories around known facts and aspects of nature with philosophical bias may be relatively easy whilst forcing nature to adhere to our philosophical bias and prejudices is all but impossible. Hence the gold standard of scientific verification is the power of prediction.

​

Thus two competing theories will be asesed in terms of these criteria.

​

BBT Vs ?WHAT?
What would a rival theory therefore need to achieve in order to oust the BBT from it's position of dominance? (as seems to be your ultimate aim)
In order to match (i.e. not replace) the BBT with a rival scientific theory your alternative theory would need to do all of the following

​

Explain why the abundance of light elements is a necessary logical consequence of your theory

Explain the existence of the CMB radiation as a logical necessary consequence of your theory and provide a calculated theoretical value for this phenomenon that is in line with observation

Explain the apparent ongoing expansion of the universe as a necessary logical consequence of your theory

Be completely consistent with General Relativity OR provide an alternate theory of gravitation that equals or surpasses all of the explanatory and predictive power of GR

Explain the “cosmic neutrino background” as a logical consequence of your theory

​

If you achieved all of this then your theory would indeed be considered a serious rival to BBT. In such a situation (and there are many examples of competing theories in the history of science) then it basically comes down to a “predict-off”

​

In order to determine which theory is superior additional predictions derived from the logical consequences of the theory at hand need to be made.
In terms of the BBT and a hypothetical rival maybe this could be the existence of a new and as yet unobserved particle, a measurable value for the cosmic neutrino background, a specific prediction as to the nature of dark matter etc. etc. etc. Basically a prediction regarding something new or as yet unobserved and/or not understood.

​

Then advocates of both theories would begin a frantic search for new evidence and ultimately the predictions of one theory or the other would be deemed superior based on the empirical observed evidence.

​

If the alternative to the BBT was the winner in these terms then the scientific community would eventually and ultimately embrace this new theory, Nobel prizes would be awarded and everyone would marvel at our ability to find answers to the deepest questions of all. Yes there would be some that resisted for the sake of reputation, personal prejudice, pride and various other very human failings. But ultimately the theory superior in terms of objective explanatory power and predicted results will win through. Again the history of science has shown this to be the case.

​

ICANT your main problem here is that you have no alternative to BBT. Never mind one that can match or surpass the extraordinary explanatory and predictive power of BBT. How can you possibly hope to discredit the BBT in scientific terms with no understanding of scientifc progress and no alternative scientific theory?

​

CONCLUSION
Nature does not bend to our wishes, prejudice or philosophical bias. The methods of science measure our conclusions against nature and reality itself thus ensuring that our conclusions remain as free from prejudice and bias as is possible.
Scientific progress will be gained through the objective analysis of predicted evidence with regard to competing rival theories and the modification of existing theories in light of new evidence.

​

ICANT your objections to BBT are obviously and indisputably not objective. Nature will not bend to your will. The evidence is in and it is against your particular beliefs. Whilst nature may or may not bend to the will of an omnipotent being of some sort there can be little doubt that the universe evolved to its present state from a very small, very hot, very dense state. Based on the evidence the Big bang theory is all but indisputable.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.