The Electric Universe (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, March 13, 2011, 23:26 (4813 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

(Just to put this out there up front all of my sarcasm in this post is directed towards the BBT, not to anyone here.)
> 
> Xeno, 
> 
> Just to make sure we are on the same page, let me see if I can break it down into layman's what the BBT expects us to believe.
> -You don't need to break it into laymen's terms, I actually understand about 60% of the actual mathematical model. (I'm shaky on topology and Lie groups, but I have the calculus and the linear algebra down.) -> The universe expanded rapidly into emptiness at speeds exceeding the speed of light.
> -Correct; it slowed down for awhile and now is has accelerated to 3x the speed of light. -> Yet, even though everything was expanding in every direction in a plasma state, the particles themselves were not expanding outward, they were just kind of taking a direction at random. (the universe was expanding but that which constitutes the universe was not.. even though our observations now say that everything is expanding AWAY from each other..)
> -In the beginning there were no particles. Quantum mechanics doesn't look at particles or waves, it looks at probability functions. If you witness a 'particle' you plug it into the function and out comes the probable quantum states that gave you that particle. Same for a wave. Particles couldn't form until the universe had expanded enough for the energy to cool. -> And that this went on for roughly 1 billion years.. and then magically, a bunch of particles that were not only expanding, but accelerating, away from each other (while absentmindedly moving every which way including AGAINST their inertial movement) decided to stop expanding away from each other and clump together for a little while, then collapse in on themselves into a tightly packed ball of dust and gas that ignited to form a star. 
> -> Tada! Gravity Houdini strikes again... -Not magically. The initial mass had an average temperature. In areas where temperature was on average cooler, this attracted more particles to those areas. (This is 2nd law of thermodynamics.) -As the universe continued expansion, these cooler areas are what began to coalesce into the structures we see today. Mathematical models for the BBT using this theory of cooler areas actually predicts a distribution of matter in the universe eerily like our own. Of course you have the right to be skeptical, but as I said before I care about working explanations... So far the BBT model is the one that best fits what we've described so far. -The problem gravity gives us in the model is that we simply don't have a theory for it in quantum mechanics. We know that gravity is proportionate to mass, but in the quantum world we're talking about particles whose mass is so tiny it essentially doesn't exist. -So the only thing missing in physics, is how to make gravity 'fall out' of the model. Luckily, the WMB data comes to the rescue to verify the model... it matches nature, we just lack a quantum theory of gravity. Certainly not a lynchpin. -> 
> 
> 
> And for goodness sake please do not misconstrue what I said to be saying that the universe expanded in a homogenous spherical shape etc.
> 
> I can't break it down much simpler, but if you can't see the flaws in that then I am not sure what else to say. 
> -Your entire argument is this: Quantum mechanics doesn't explain how gravity came to be, therefore the Big Bang Theory is false. -But when you understand that cooler areas result in more particles, even if you don't have a quantum theory of gravity the combination of inference coupled with the experimental results of classical mechanics that's as good of a verifcation as you will get; -Again:
1. Cooler areas during the initial inflationary period of the big bang result in a distribution of hotter and cooler areas.-2. The distribution of hotter and cooler areas predicts where bodies in classical mechanics should and should not appear. -3. The CMBR is the confirmation that the quantum model predicted in 1 is actually observed in 2. -I still do not know how the EU will explain this any better, but knowing what I know about the math, the only way the CMBR data will coincide with it is if it asserts that all matter began at a single point, hence recreating the Big Bang Theory.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"