Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 11 of 273 (470952)
06-13-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
06-13-2008 11:24 AM


from A to B
A:
quote:
The Einstein equation predicts that any deviation from flatness in an expanding Universe filled with matter or radiation only gets bigger as the Universe expands. So any tiny deviation from flatness at a much earlier time would have grown very large by now. If the deviation from flatness is very small now, it must have been immeasurably small at the start of the part of Big Bang we understand.
So why did the Big Bang start off with the deviations from flat spatial geometry being immeasurably small? This is called the flatness problem of Big Bang cosmology.
B:
So wouldn't that mean the universe is much younger than many of the stars in the universe?
Could you please explain to me how you got from A to B?

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 11:24 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 5:26 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 13 of 273 (470992)
06-13-2008 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ICANT
06-13-2008 5:26 PM


Re: from A to B
Yeah thanks, I did see the question mark. That's why I thought I should have been using longer screws on the book shelves. Notice I qualified that with "I thought".
Anyway, the BBT does not make any predictions as to the age of the Universe in its own right. It predicts that there should be ways to measure the age of the Universe. But because there was no know method for accurately measuring the distances to the galaxies in the 1920s and 30s the initial values for the Hubble constant were set by the extremes of credulity. 500 km/Mpc on the high end and 50 km/Mpc on the low end. These gave ages of the Universe from 2 billion to 20 billion years, respectively. It was as simple as that: No one could believe the Universe was outside this age range. As better tools and skills came alone better estimates followed.
The long age of the Universe was due to the aging of globular star clusters being aged at 12 - 20 billion years. This was later estimated to be nearer 12 - 16 billion years. Still later, more accurate distance measurements reduced this further to 10 -13.5 billion.
I was also amused by 18 billion year old stars in a 12 billion year old Universe. But then again, I was easily amused not yet a teenager.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 5:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 9:32 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 15 of 273 (471009)
06-14-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ICANT
06-13-2008 9:32 PM


Update Your Model
The density problem has a tendency to make a universe either immediately collapse or so tenuous that nothing ever forms. For all intents and purposes initial conditions that give us a 13.7 billion year old universe and an eight billion year old universe are identical. We certainly couldn't predict such a minor difference in out come.
You do realize that model are adapted as new information comes to light. As we get into trouble shooting our faulty television our hypothesis of the cause of failure evolves. You’re still trying to get up a conversation about what’s wrong with the TV before you’ve even hit it in the side. We've all got the back off and are doing nerd stuff with the horizontal convergence circuit.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ICANT, posted 06-13-2008 9:32 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 1:08 AM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 17 of 273 (471028)
06-14-2008 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
06-14-2008 1:08 AM


Re: Update Your Model
I like these assumptions without explanation. But I can't insert God without proving He exists.
We're assuming that conditions must have been such that we didn't immediately disappear into a singularity, and are admitting that we don't know why.
Inserting God says we do know why.
Now, I can prove I know the words to the Lords prayer, but I can't prove I don't know them. That is why the person who knows something has to prove it, and those who don't know something don't.
(And you're still talking about a dated model.)

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 06-14-2008 1:08 AM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 37 of 273 (471203)
06-15-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ICANT
06-15-2008 2:31 PM


Re: Update Your Model
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.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ICANT, posted 06-15-2008 2:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 06-15-2008 3:03 PM lyx2no has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 76 of 273 (471597)
06-17-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by tesla
06-17-2008 2:09 PM


Why 137?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by tesla, posted 06-17-2008 2:09 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by tesla, posted 06-17-2008 2:49 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 95 of 273 (471718)
06-17-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ICANT
06-17-2008 7:06 PM


BBT 2.0 Already
Could you please explain?
I explained it in Message 15, in a post titled "Update Your Model."
lyx2no writes:
You do realize that models are adapted as new information comes to light. As we get into troubleshooting our faulty television our hypothesis of the cause of failure evolves. You’re still trying to get up a conversation about what’s wrong with the TV before you’ve even hit it in the side. We've all got the back off and are doing nerd stuff with the horizontal convergence circuit.
You are intentionally disabling the television and claiming that as evidence of the concept of transmission and reception of electromagnetic waves as flawed. Have you a better adjective for that then idiotic?
Duh we were talking about standing on the surface of the universe if I remember correctly.
Since there is an absence of ANY THING outside of the universe why would it be stupid to say you would see NO THING if you were standing on the surface of the universe and looked up.
The only thing stupid about it is you could never stand on the surface of the universe in the first place. We are locked in and can't get out. I think that was my point.
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?
It has escaped you again. Please start a new thread on this one. I don't know why I like this topic so much, but I do.
Just a hint: Anything includes up.
Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 7:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 8:38 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 100 of 273 (471746)
06-17-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by ICANT
06-17-2008 8:38 PM


Re: BBT 2.0 Already
Sorry about that. That was my dyslexia kicking in. Numbers are difficult to correct for as the are no rules of order 15, 21: It's all the same to me half the time.
Anyway, I quoted the second paragraph as the relevant one. You've still failed to grasp that debating a 50 year old model with the intent of poking holes in it is not productive. Especially under the guise of "educational".
You gave the density problem of the BBT in your first sentence.
I did so in reference to your claim that:
[According to] the predictions of the standard BBT the universe would only be about 8 billion years old.
, which is crap.
But if you take away inflation the BBT is a bust.
If you take the back wheel off your bicycle you're pretty much screwed to. So don't.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2008 8:38 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 101 of 273 (471749)
06-17-2008 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by tesla
06-17-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Why 137?
It is a jeer, as you call it, but it is not an empty one. That would be a waste of a post.
137 is the combination to the programable bicycle locks of every quantum physicist in the world. That your method of exploring the Universe does not lead to that being the combination to your bicycle lock makes it inferior to that of the QM's if "understanding" is to be used in anything but the poetic sense.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by tesla, posted 06-17-2008 2:49 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by tesla, posted 06-30-2008 5:11 PM lyx2no has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 131 of 273 (471903)
06-18-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
06-18-2008 9:56 PM


Re: BBT without Inflation
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.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 06-18-2008 9:56 PM ICANT has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 258 of 273 (473744)
07-02-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Agobot
07-02-2008 2:47 PM


Re: Singularity's Size
You've only gotten to the Neutron Earth stage. Not that the Earth has the mass to do it by itself, but to get to the Black hole stage you've go to get down to 8 mm.

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 2:47 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 6:19 PM lyx2no has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 260 of 273 (473771)
07-02-2008 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Agobot
07-02-2008 6:19 PM


Neutron Earth
You've got he cart before the horse. It's the collapse that produces the neutron star. Prior to that you've got a carbon star that is trying to turn into an iron star. That consumes rather than produces heat; the heat that caused the outward pressure that was preventing the inward gravitational collapse.
If the star was massive enough it will become a neutron star. More massive still and even the exclusionary principle won't keep it from collapsing into a singularity.
The radius of an (non-rotating) objects event horizon ” the "size" of a black hole ” can be gotten by multiplying its mass by the meter-of-mass equivalent, 7.424 ” 10-28 Mkg. The Earth has a mass of 5.98 ” 1024 kg: therefore, a potential event horizon of 8.88 mm.
Abe: Neutron Earth would not be stable. Unlike Black Hole Earth, it wouldn't have the mass to hold itself together. You'll also note, if you go take a look, that the lower mass neutron stars have the greater radii.
Edited by lyx2no, : Add info and change the erroneous heading.
Edited by lyx2no, : Add units to meter-of-mass.

Kindly
Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Agobot, posted 07-02-2008 6:19 PM Agobot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024