|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
For me the problem with the idea is that though it is as fascinating a tale as that of Baron von Mnchhausen lifting himself by the hair in the air with the help of his glorious hand, it is just as believable.
The theory postulates that the baby Universe in its first discernible to the "science" instant was 100 million trillion times smaller than a proton while being as hot as trillions hells in spite of such minuscule appearance. Should I believe that? Well...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Heat is confined motion raring to go. Confined implies divided in two at least- confined by itself is a contradiction in terms while divided in two eliminates the idea of singularity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Prisoner, the prison and somewhere to be free make three already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, the problem with so much heat confined in so little ...volume?? could that be any volume even? is that all that heat equals not just to anything..well, if that putative primordial state relates to anything I know and observe as the current properties of the physical existence, but to the amount of confined motion.
Now I take the Einstein's formula as the inviolable ratio of space to time, motion to rest and gravity to space and I take gravity to be synonyms with motion and be a subset of energy which is something extremely difficult to define in any way to distinguish from the same motion again. Now such great amounts of motion would imply a need for space galore with the corresponding amounts of time needed to measure that distance. To keep so much motion so densely compressed and confined in so little volume or rather an absence of volume would imply application of a terrible force. Here is the problem. The laws of physics as they stand do not allow anything like that. Without invoking magic nothing computes here, I am afraid. Also either this infinitesimal baby universe is embedded in something or what it is embedded in is nothing. Can nothing both be that force or be capable to withstand that enormous potential raring to burst? Confinement, mind you, implies that the force is divided and action equals reaction.Nothing does not exist so can not be and do nothing of the sort.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
That was not the point of the post. The gist of it is that from an outsider vantage point the explanations to the ultimate nature of existence offered by the Big Bang Theory are vastly inferior next to what most competing alternatives are suggesting. The core tenets of the theory are patently absurd and in blatant contradiction to all the observations and predictions of each other. Yet since the theory is so eagerly re-patched and readjusted and is enjoying an overwhelming support and presently being the common myth of the whole mankind, such acceptance demonstrates the deep-seated need of humanity for the magical thinking whether such is direct or masquerading as science as is the case with the current cosmological ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
That's because you've no argument either against the sceptical cosmology statement or my summary and paraphrasing of it. In the case of the original all you can do is to hint that those who made the statement lacked credentials to have any good opinion on the issue. That's an appeal to authority of those entitled to an opinion according to you.
In my case it is a vague appeal to a vague ideal of coherence in general to which as you insinuate my rants may not correspond. These are all impotent tricks any dying ideology is always resorting to against the assaults of sceptical reason in an desperate attempt to prolong its sway indefinitely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Well, as far as I understand the group of people or rather the movement or direction that has grown out of the original statement unites the people who fully share only in the opinion that the Big Bang cosmology is fundamentally incorrect and therefore should not enjoy the current monopoly and stranglehold on such things as the research grants, observation time given and so on. Otherwise, they all may well disagree among themselves. The fellow who is currently heading the dissent is Hilton Ratcliffe and he is a practical astronomer. What he advocates is freeing the observation from any prior theoretical assumptions. That is, as much as such freedom is possible. So he is not encouraging too much any complete theories of everything.
I find that to be quite a reasonable stance for the ultimate nature of existence is not anything possible to test. Unless you could put time and the universe in a test-tube, there may always remain disagreements on such issues as whether time could have possibly had a beginning and the Universe an origin. It all goes beyond empirical science as such, thus the issue at hand is highly ideological,- it spans religion and politics just as well and unless ideologies compete freely, they stagnate or become totalitarian. Neither any of that can be decided by any show of hands, so any numbers whether those of the majority or the minority are irrelevant. You can't possibly vote the Big Bang in and out of happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Well, if you read closer you may find that I gave an extended answer to both of your loaded questions while nicely extracting the load. For our minds are already made up- you find the BBT to be a decent scientific theory and I find it an utter creationist rubbish so the question of what might be convincing to any one of us two has no common ground to be answered from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Well, not at all. He makes a good point about singularities being a pure mathematical fancy and not possible physically in any way, shape or form and that point is common to many a thinker, Albert Einstein included.
His way of expression is different from any one else not the content of his idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
All that would be very well if those who are qualified to grasp the Big Bang were confined to themselves existing on a separate island in deep, deep blue sea where they would be discussing among themselves all the intricacies of the nucleo synthesis, background radiation anisotropies, critical densities and the perfection of the universal flatness, etc . Persuading each other what an overwhelming plethora of detail all those offer to serve as a definite proof that the existence had indeed popped out of nothing in order to expand into nowhere.
Unfortunately in spite of the intrinsic impossibility of those complicated matters being explained in a way to make sense to the commoners by the caste of those well qualified, it is those simple-minded janitors, engineers, geologists and philosophers on whose faith in the correctness of the explanations offered by the elite of mathemagicians, the very upkeep and existence of the mathemagicians entirely depends. No janitors' faith that the elite is not crapping off their mouths with the equations,- no grants, no tenures, no respect and no food on the table of the smart expert, I am afraid. The equations as such are known to possess a rather poor nutritional value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I suspect it is the contents and not the shape of what I am saying you are so uncomfortable with. I am sure you would be still less happy with my meaning if I wrote the post in the style of Hemingway.
Anyway, the gist of it was that the expert is very happy with the blind acceptance of his expertise by the layman, the expert would never say: "I am likely be totally wrong and if the layman believes that I know better than he does that is all down to his ignorance. The expert would never admit: if the layman studied physics and mathematics as long as I did, he would have easily seen all the blunders in my reasoning I fail to notice". Still hard to decipher?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Unfortunately it is not any ease of comprehension I am talking about. I am talking about making any sense whatsoever which is what is sadly lacking in the consensus hypothesis defended here.
Not being patently absurd and hiding the fact behind the equations like the priests hide behind the intricacies of the biblical text claiming an immunity to logical scrutiny . Equations describe only what quantity of which quality is in which relation to what quantity of another quality. Qualities are nicely expressed with words, I am afraid, so that all can see whether the qualities described by equations are physically possible or are magical and just alleged to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, it was yourself who made the list of those who must shut up and swallow whatever claim the cosmologists care to make. Geologists were on that list and I just picked them up from there together with the janitors and philosophers.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I am sorry but cynics like yours truly do not believe in any need for any conspiracy in such matters. There is never any possibility of conspiracy to humanity as the sum of clashing conscious wills is a blind force.
And no - the Big Bang idea has never passed the sceptical scrutiny with flying colours as you wish to believe. The whole edifice disappears in a few puffs of my logic yet it persists on the ground and there are very good reasons for that and those reasons again have got none to do with any conspiracies whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Well, of course, the public gets all it wants too as it craves certainty as much as the mathemagicians themselves do. The priests themselves are always much more naive than it is assumed. So after all, the public does not part with their money for nothing. The priests too fondly believe that they do know something and the public fondly believes that although it itself may know nothing much, there are at least the priests who do know, and who do it with a vengeance since unlike what was the case with all former priests, the modern ones got the truth about the nature of the Universe and existence revealed through the wonderful and infallible scientific method. That gives a marvelous feeling of living in a special age. That's worth all the money parted with. That's certainty by proxy and after all the figures are impressive and speak for themselves. What are poxy 6000 thousand years gotten from a dubious text next to 13.7 billion extracted straight from WMAP and the colliders? Worth every penny per satisfaction derived.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024