First, the big bang theory was conceived under the notion that we live in a expanding, but decelerating universe. The universal expansion was proved by 'red shift' but its acceleration was proved long after.
As you say, the expanding universe derives from evidence of the increasing red shift of galaxies with increasing distance, but the idea that the expansion was decelerating was an assumption that played little role in formation of the Big Bang theory.
The universal expansion was proved by 'red shift' but its acceleration was proved long after. The big bang should have met its end right there, but no alternative to heavy element creation has kept it alive.
The same data that revealed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating also revealed that it *was* decelerating up until about 4.5 billion years ago (z~0.5).
When background radiation was discovered, it was predicted that it would be 'smooth'.
The exact opposite is true. It was predicted that the background radiation would possess fluctuations corresponding to the large scale structures of the universe. The first measurements of a smooth distribution were puzzling, but increasingly accurate measurements of the background radiation have discovered those fluctuations, though smaller than originally expected.
An experiment on board the space station was serendipitously and presumptuously found to be proof of accretion, but the controls for such an experiment were lacking. How a ball of dust and gas accretes into solar systems is completely unexplained.
Theories of solar system formation have nothing to do with the Big Bang. Why are you talking about both in the same message?
Anyway, can you provide a reference for this space station experiment so we know what you're talking about? And given that it is easy to find articles on the Internet about accretion disks and solar system formation, rather than saying that solar system formation is "completely unexplained," perhaps you really meant to say that you don't accept current explanations.
When scientists attempt to explain this event, they will say it 'somehow seems to have' flattened, started spinning and formed into a solar system.
Can you provide references to any technical articles where solar system formation is explained this way? I think the physics of accretion disks is fairly well understood, see the Wikipedia article on Accretion Discs.
In early attempts to explain the nature of our own solar system based on the accretion model, it was suggested that large planets, especially gas giants, had to form far from their host star. The recent discovery of large extra-solar planets orbiting very close to their host star clearly refutes this notion.
Large gas giants in close orbits are called Hot Jupiters. They are thought to form at great distances from their sun and then migrate in, see the Wikipedia article on Hot Jupiters.
Two space probes were sent to the asteroid belt to prove the prediction that asteroids were accreted and would show evidence of this.
The evidence that we have indicates that asteroids formed through accretion. Small asteroids are fragments from collisions between large asteroids. See the Wikipedia article on Asteroids.
Later, it was shown that under the accretion model, these galaxies should be flying apart. Instead of this being the final nail in the coffin for the accretion theory, scientists worked and came up with 'dark matter' to keep them from flying apart.
Accretion theory has nothing to do with the evidence for dark matter. It has gravitational effects that are easily measured. See the Wikipedia article on Dark Matter.
The accretion model predicted no moons beyond Mars would be active, yet there are many that are.
I don't think this was ever accepted as a prediction of accretion theory.
No current theory can explain the nature of super massive black holes or anything compressed beyond that of a neutron star.
All these questionable factors that surround the big bang and accretion concepts are important, but even more important is that these theories are unable to explain why galaxies are spinning, flat and mostly spiral shaped.
The second point you make that the universe was slowing down then speeding up is hard to explain.
Hopefully you mean it's hard to understand, because it's very easy to explain. We know how fast the universe is expanding today because we've measured it. And we know how fast the universe was expanding 5 billion years ago, because weve measured that too, and since it was expanding more slowly back then we know that the rate of expansion has been accelerating over the past 5 billion years.
We also know how fast the universe was expanding 10 billion years ago, again because we have measured it, and it was expanding at a faster rate than 5 billion years ago, so we know that between 10 and 5 billion years ago the rate of expansion was decelerating.
The explanation for why the rate of expansion was first decelerating and later accelerating is because the universe was more dense 10 billion years ago, giving gravity the upper hand over dark energy, which is the name we've given to the expansive force about which we currently know very little. But as the universe continued to expand and grow less dense dark energy finally surpassed gravity about 5 billion years ago. The universe has been expanding at an accelerating rate ever since, and is expected to do so from here on out.
Point three. What I am trying to find out is if BRN more represents a series of explosive events rather than one big one.
If by BRN you mean the big bang, then as long as you're interested in explanations that are accompanied by evidence it is very easy to find out. For example, you could read the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang. First the universe expanded at one rate, then for short period of time it expanded at an incredibly accelerated rate that we call inflation, then it returned to the original rate.
But the fluctuations in the background radiation are not capturing different rates of expansion. They're telling us about the structure of the very early universe at around T=10-42 seconds
Science channel, and thank you, I simply do not accept current explanations, nor do I think I ever will. The problem I have is that word 'formed'. I am looking for a creation.
As long as your criteria for rejecting any explanations is a lack of evidence then I think most people will be right there with you. And about your problem with the word 'formed', it isn't the specific words people use to describe what the evidence tells us that is important, it's the overall message. After all, according to the Bible God didn't create man, he *formed* him from the dust of the ground.
By the way, "I heard it on the Science Channel" is not a good answer to a request for a reference. I can only guess that you misunderstood some program you watched.
At any rate, what they think and what they know are two different things.
That's the wrong way to look at it. It is what they have evidence for and what they don't that is the important distinction, and the evidence they have indicates that Hot Jupiters form at distance and then migrate in.
Hold on there. It is my understanding that the results of the two probes only found fragments which has led scientists to now suggest that the asteroid belt came from a collision of two planets and are not left over accreted matter. They were supposed to be time capsules from the beginning and thus show clear signs of accretion which they did not.
All asteroids, both large and small, formed through accretion. The smaller ones are the result of collisions between larger ones that formed through accretion. Some asteroids are loose collections of rubble from collisions, but the individual pieces of rubble are from larger accreted asteroids.
Scientists created dark matter because they are so certain that the accretion model is correct.
Observed gravitational effects, of which galaxy rotational effects are just one, gravitational lensing is another, are the reasons we conclude that there is matter out there that is not directly visible.
About your ideas of solar system and galaxy formation, I think you're going to need to present evidence if you're to have any hope of convincing anyone.
It is one thing to document something mathematically. It is quite another to prove something mathematically. It is even less favorable to try and grasp the reality of a phenomena soley through mathematics. After awhile, mathematics turns into a huge shell game.
Which mathematics are you denigrating? The mathematics Newton used to determine the relationship between mass and gravitational force? The mathematics that predicted the orbit of Neptune before its discovery? The mathematics that used Hubble's data to discover that we live in a non-static expanding universe? The mathematics that Nasa uses to guide and land spaceships on Mars. The mathematics used every day by GPS satellites that take into account relativistic effects?
Or do you mean the mathematics behind any science you don't agree with and don't understand?
It was once thought in the early 20c that electrons went from one side of a battery to another. Then they swithced it. That is what I mean by understanding the true nature of the universe before explaining with math. It seems, by the way, under certain experiments involving levitation that the particles, not electrons, come out of both sides of a battery.
I don't want to get into this too much because it would be off-topic, but I don't think what you've said here has any basis in fact. The current carrying particles in a battery are electrons, and they have been known since the latter half of the 1800's to have a negative charge. Whatever the history might be of labeling electrodes as plus and minus, nothing so fundamental as getting the charge of the electron exactly backwards has ever occurred in the history of modern physics.
Point 2. I know. Atomic bombs convert matter to energy, but only in a universe formed by accretion.
Accretion, which is simple agglomeration under the influence of gravity, has nothing to do with nuclear physics and energy conversion.
Point 4. I suggest you work on the respect thing a little more.
Surely you wouldn't argue that the utterings of a fool must be granted the same respect as the words of a genius. And at a discussion board where we can only judge intellect on the basis of what someone writes, mustn't respect be earned by the quality of one's contributions? Poorly argued positions that lack evidence will be poorly received, deservedly so.
You've gotten your facts and arguments wrong time after time in a thread that is only 2 days old. Before you could earn the respect you've asked for, that would have to stop.
There is no way to convert a particle into energy. ... Not even the explosion of an entire galaxy will destroy or convert one single particle.
Galaxies do not themselves explode, but their individual stars do, either as nova or supernova.
Matter to energy conversion takes place at the core of all stars. It is this conversion of matter to energy that is the source of a star's heat and light. In young stars the basic conversion process fuses 4 hydrogen atoms into 1 helium atom, in the process giving off both particles and a great deal of energy.
Have you thought much about the likelihood of someone who gets all his facts wrong coming up with a new and viable theory of galaxy and solar system formation?
You're repeating the questions I just answered. The answers aren't going to change. Quote something I said and respond to it instead of repeating your original questions and we could have a discussion.
Even scientists admit that there were many more planets than there are now obiting the sun.
No, scientists do not admit that there were many more planets than there are now. Current theory is that many planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets.
There were two in between Mars and Jupiter and one must have crashed into Saturn.
There were once many planetesimals between Mars and Jupiter.
It has been suggested that one crashed into our own earth.
Earth's moon is thought to have formed out of a collision between the Earth and another large body that has not as yet been identified.
Any planet with rings suggests a collision with another planet.
The debris from a planetary collision is not thought to be a common source for the material that forms rings. The material from Saturn's rings appears to come from its moons or from collisions of its moons with other space bodies such as asteroids.
Have you heard me make any changes to mine so far? Even after 10 years and many new discoveries, mine has changed not.
Of course your theory hasn't changed. It didn't explain the evidence we had 10 years ago, and it doesn't explain the evidence we have today. The strength of a theory is measured by how much evidence it explains, and as we gather more evidence theories have to adjust to explain it.
However, if you wish to continue to debate it and analyze it, I will be right here to respond.
Well, yes, we can see that, you have been responding, but mostly only to dismiss rebuttals without rhyme or reason. The strength of your ideas isn't measured by how tenaciously you hold on to them, but how persuasive they are found by others.
So far, someone pointed out that there are many more sunspots than there are planets. Now that is what I am looking for. That was a good observation.
It's the sort of information you should have gathered before you started theorizing. You've put the cart before the horse by starting your theorizing before knowing anything about the subject.
The answer of course is that there were many more planets in the beginning, and even accretion theory understands this.
If you replace the word "planets" with "planetesimals", then this is true.
I think people should be encouraged to know about our universe...
Good advice, you should follow it someday.
Then you can shred this thread if you want to.
Your thread has already been shredded. You've said almost nothing consistent with evidence already in hand. Reality is the ultimate idea checker, but you seem to be ignoring it.
What you're interpreting as anger and hostility is just the frustration everyone is experiencing because you're ignoring most of what we say. Keep it up, pretty soon you'll have people typing in all caps.
On the respect thing: I don't know what happened. I'll take responsibility and try respond quicker to all these messages and take a deep breath first.
No one here wants quick replies. They want informed and coherent replies that address the responses. If it takes you a week or a month to find the time to do that, that's fine.
Science knows a great deal. It's a poor notion that one can be ignorant of that knowledge and yet still construct credible theories, and that's why your ideas are colliding with known evidence in almost every sentence. The task of scientists is to construct theories that reflect reality, not that they find personally appealing. You've fallen in love with your own theory.
The research that you're only now expressing an interest in conducting must be done *before* one theorizes, not after.
By the way, in Message 63 NoNukes recognized what you were referring to when you said that science once had backwards the direction of flow of electrons. Current flow was defined as the flow of positive particles long before we knew whether it was positive or negative particles that were mobile. As it turned out only electrons are mobile and they carry a negative charge, so they flow in the opposite direction of a positive current. A negative charge moving in one direction is precisely equivalent to a positive charge moving in the opposite direction.
You wrote: planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets.
I did not write that "planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets." I wrote that "*many* planetesimals formed in the early solar system, not planets." Planets of course formed also, else they wouldn't be here today, but the number of planets was small, the number of planetesimals huge.
My response: In looking for large planet like bodies that have since collided with other large bodies, it is suggested that a giant moon crashed into Saturn as evidenced by its rings. Taken from this link:
In December 2010, National Geographic suggested that the rings of Saturn could be the remains of a giant lost moon that was stripped of its icy shell before it crashed into the planet.
You've misinterpreted what this is saying. Scan further down in the article to the section on Ring Formation to put it in context. The sentence you quoted is saying that the rings might be the remains of the icy shell of a moon that is no longer there, so they speculate that it crashed into the planet. It is not saying that the rings are the ejecta from the collision of a moon with the planet.
Could you use some help with the quote codes?
Thanks, for now on I will use dBCodes.
Plenty of people can help you with the codes if you need it. Click on the peek button at the bottom of this message to see how the quoting was done in this message.
What I like is 'as we gather more evidence theories have to explain it without adjusting its position.'
I think it was accidental that you said "without adjusting its position", because that's not the point I was trying to make. As knowledge grows our theories must change to incorporate that knowledge. Sometimes new evidence is so out of line with current theory that new theory is required, but that is rare. Usually theories are revised, not replaced. As our knowledge grows theories evolve to become better and better models of reality.
There seems to be a big and small to adjustments. There seem to be big adjustments often made to current theory that warrent question. It is not so much of an adjustment but so many times the requirment of an entirely new theory to keep old one alive. I seem to have a problem with that.
I know you think you've uncovered many radical changes to theory, but your conclusions seem to be based upon ignorance and misconceptions instead of upon what science actually does know.
What I am suggesting is that no electrons are flowing.
What I would suggest in response is that you stop giving voice to every idea that pops into your head. Find supporting evidence first, in this case of your belief that electrons do not flow through wires. The physicists and electrical engineers (I have a Bachelors degree in electrical engineering) have quite a bit of evidence that electrons do flow through wires. We even know where (in the perimeter) and how fast (slowly - the drift velocity of electrons is only a few centimeters per second for everyday voltages).
That is why an overloaded fuse breaks in the middle of it.
The fuse breaks where the wire is smallest (can transmit the least current) and furthest from the junctions where it can dissipate heat, which happens to be near the middle.
I did not come up with this idea...
Oh, come now, don't be modest, take credit for it. It certainly isn't an idea anyone else would ever fight with you over.
...but it is what has led me to my cosmological theory.
Wrong ideas will only give rise to more wrong ideas. Because everything you know seems to be wrong, all your ideas are also wrong.
So when you want to understand science, you read a book by (this is from Wikipedia) "an eccentric Latvian emigrant to the United States and amateur sculptor who single-handedly built the monument known as Coral Castle in Florida. He was also known for his unusual theories on magnetism."
Why do you think you should have any better luck uttering Ed's weird ideas than Ed did?