AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

In an attempt to move debates over cosmological theories into its own thread, I am starting one specifically for the Big Bang Theory and other cosmological theories out there. -Just as a starting point, here are a few of the models that I am aware of(feel free to add more if you know them):-

Big Bang Theory - George Gamow

Oscillating Universe Theory - George Gamow (Disproved by Robert Jastrow, founder and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies)

Steady State Theory - Fred Hoyle (Also abandoned by Hoyle)

Inflationary Universe Theory - Allan Guth and Paul Steinhardt 1984

ZPE-Plasma Universe Theory - Barry Setterfield

Electric Universe Theories - Many variations

-I have really enjoyed reading through all of these theories over the last several days. I hope this generates some good debates :)-Tony

4589 views

If you really want to go into all the possible alternative theories of cosmology and physics, there is enough out there to last several lifetimes. Here are some links I found a few years ago when I studied the subject. Some probably overlap with those given by B-M. Some links have gone astray. There was one I read in New Scientist a year or so ago that relates the basic particles to a certain mathematical Group, but I forget the details for the mnoment.-Lee Smolin's book on evolving universes is the most convincing alternative I have read. Lee Smolin: Life of the Cosmos: Evolving Universes
http://www.leesmolin.com/-Fitzpatrick's theory of everything
http://www.rbduncan.com/TOEbyFitzpatrick.htm-Milo Wolff's Space Resonance
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Biography.htm-Alan Kazlev Meta-Evolution in Symmetry Breaks
http://www.kheper.net/evolution/symmetry_breaks.html-Anton Zeilinger
"In the beginning was the bit" (link lost)-John barret: Quantum Gravity in 4 dimensions
http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/jwb/qg.4d.html-Edward A. Milne (1896-1950)
Kinematic Relativity-David Brahm, Baryogenesis
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/baryogenesis.html-Donald E. Scott, Electric Cosmos
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/index.htm
(Much of this website seems plausible to start with, but towards the end it becomes dubiously Velikowskian.)-Matti PitkÃ¤nen had a whole site devoted to Topological Geometro-Dynamics:â Quantum TGD includes a theory of consciousness!
(link lost)-Michael Lewis: red shift by photon decay
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/indx-red.htm-John Baez: Topos Theory
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topos.html-H.E.Puthoff: Quantum vacuum fluctuations
http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html-Myron Evans: ECE Theory
http://www.aias.us/-My own theory: The Nonexistent Universe
Does the Universe in fact "exist"? If relativity and quantum uncertainty are accepted as correct then because of the velocity of light the "visible universe" that we can see now is not the "universe now" that we would see if the velocity of light was instantaneous. The only part of the "universe now" that exists, from our point of view, is the "here and now". All other parts of the "universe now" are in the future and do not yet exist. But if we suppose the Andromeda Galaxy, say, continues to evolve for 200 million years the way our's has, then presumably there might be observers there "now" (in the instantaneous sense). But on the other hand there might not, because the future of the Andromeda Galaxy cannot be predicted by us. So there is a sense in which, like Schrodinger's cat, the Andromedans both exist and don't exist "now".

--
GPJ

4491 views

As strange as your theory is, George, I like it. Thanks for posting up more links here. I am looking forward to reading through them.

4486 views


> My own theory: The Nonexistent Universe
> Does the Universe in fact "exist"? If relativity and quantum uncertainty are accepted as correct then because of the velocity of light the "visible universe" that we can see now is not the "universe now" that we would see if the velocity of light was instantaneous. The only part of the "universe now" that exists, from our point of view, is the "here and now". All other parts of the "universe now" are in the future and do not yet exist. But if we suppose the Andromeda Galaxy, say, continues to evolve for 200 million years the way our's has, then presumably there might be observers there "now" (in the instantaneous sense). But on the other hand there might not, because the future of the Andromeda Galaxy cannot be predicted by us. So there is a sense in which, like Schrodinger's cat, the Andromedans both exist and don't exist "now".-I find your theory fascinating. We can see out to 300,000 years after the BB, but we have no idea what the rest of the universe is like going to the edge(?) of space time which really has no edge, beyond what we 'see'. I think the universe exists within that framework, the one we see. The rest of it must exist, but not for us. That is my interpretation of what you have written.

4369 views

George
> My own theory: The Nonexistent Universe
> Does the Universe in fact "exist"? If relativity and quantum uncertainty are accepted as correct then because of the velocity of light the "visible universe" that we can see now is not the "universe now" that we would see if the velocity of light was instantaneous. The only part of the "universe now" that exists, from our point of view, is the "here and now". All other parts of the "universe now" are in the future and do not yet exist. But if we suppose the Andromeda Galaxy, say, continues to evolve for 200 million years the way our's has, then presumably there might be observers there "now" (in the instantaneous sense). But on the other hand there might not, because the future of the Andromeda Galaxy cannot be predicted by us. So there is a sense in which, like Schrodinger's cat, the Andromedans both exist and don't exist "now".-This is... a fantastic theory. And it is also a very good explanation for how "The Cat" works. -You should write more about it.

--
\"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.\"

4426 views

Does this mean we should all have a beer and forget about it? I'm all for a beer right about now, or a whiskey and coke, but I would probably end up talking about something like this anyway :P

4417 views


> Just as a starting point, here are a few of the models that I am aware of(feel free to add more if you know them):
> 
>

Big Bang Theory - George Gamow
>
Oscillating Universe Theory - George Gamow (Disproved by Robert Jastrow, founder and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
>
Steady State Theory - Fred Hoyle (Also abandoned by Hoyle)
>
Inflationary Universe Theory - Allan Guth and Paul Steinhardt 1984
>
ZPE-Plasma Universe Theory - Barry Setterfield
>
Electric Universe Theories - Many variations
>
-> 
> Tony-Steinhardt and Turok have a giant parallel membranes theory. They bang together to start a new cycle. Turok worked with Hawking. Please don't smile. They are serious.

4462 views

Big Bang:-There has been some discussion on the Big Bang, and I know there are a couple of supporters for it, so here are my top reasons for not supporting it, and we can argue about it :P -The beginning


It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing. 

If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.

If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.

Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.

CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed.

-The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..


There are gaps that helium and hydrogen can not cross when changing to other elements. Thus, exploding stars, no matter how many times they exploded, could not create the heavier elements from hydrogen and helium.

Stars would have to go nova/super-nova at an incredible rate in order for them to create the observed mass of the universe. We have not observed this high rate of nova's, even when looking as far back into the past as we can.

There is no 'empty center of the universe' which would be required for the BBT to be true.

As stated in the first list, since explosions in a vacuum lead to straight line trajectories, highly organised elliptical orbits could not form.

BBT requires that older stars have a different physical composition, which does not fit the observed data, particularly in the mass:heavy element ratio.

BBT requires 'Dark Matter' to work, yet DM violates the laws of physics. (it must have mass to have gravity, yet it does not interact with other mass, nor is it in any way directly detectable. It's presence is only inferred by gravitational anomalies that have other explanations.)

-These are just a few. And yes, I know they have been thoroughly discussed else where. I just wanted to state my reasons so that I am not seen as 'just not wanting to believe' in something. There are valid reasons to question the BBT, namely, it does not fit the observed data without inventing untestable, unfalsifiable, and unprovable supporting hypotheses.

4405 views

Big Bang:
> 
> There has been some discussion on the Big Bang, and I know there are a couple of supporters for it, so here are my top reasons for not supporting it, and we can argue about it :P 
> 
> The beginning
>

4432 views

Please be more specific

4435 views

Please be more specific-I can be very specific, but your list of objections suggest that you have no knowledge of the proposed BB theory.- The beginning
>

It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing.-To quote Guth: No one has any idea of what went bang. He does not imply nothing. 
>
> If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.-First there was plasma! Hydrogen an Helium and a little Lithium come later.->
> If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line
through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.-We are discussing plasma.-> Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.-The expansion was not entirely uniform, clumping the gases as they appeared, when plasma cooled. But the universe is 'uniform' over massive distances. How would you form stars?-
> CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed.-Again theory. A slight bit more matter than antimatter, and what we see now is the difference. 
>

> 
> The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..
>


> 
> These are just a few. And yes, I know they have been thoroughly discussed else where. I just wanted to state my reasons so that I am not seen as 'just not wanting to believe' in something. There are valid reasons to question the BBT, namely, it does not fit the observed data without inventing untestable, unfalsifiable, and unprovable supporting hypotheses.-It is still the best fit we have until something else comes along.-But your general feeling about current politicized peer-reviewed science bugs me just as much as you are obviously bugged. I've told the story before of my using the therapeutic approach of the Aussies who discovered H. pyelori as the cause of dudenal ulcers about 20 years before the American GI physcians finally accepted it. And don't get me started on climategate. -I know Matt loves science. I do also, but Matt has not seen the subversion as I have over the years.

4445 views

Please be more specific
> 
> I can be very specific, but your list of objections suggest that you have no knowledge of the proposed BB theory.
> 
> The beginning
> >

It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing.
> 
> To quote Guth: No one has any idea of what went bang. He does not imply nothing. 
> >
> > If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.
> 
> First there was plasma! Hydrogen an Helium and a little Lithium come later.
 
> >
> > If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.
 
 We are discussing plasma.
 
> > Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.
 
 The expansion was not entirely uniform, clumping the gases as they appeared, when plasma cooled. But the universe is 'uniform' over massive distances. How would you form stars?
 
 
> > CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed.- 
Again theory. A slight bit more matter than antimatter, and what we see now is the difference. 
> >

> > 
> > The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..
> >


> > 
> > These are just a few. And yes, I know they have been thoroughly discussed else where. I just wanted to state my reasons so that I am not seen as 'just not wanting to believe' in something. There are valid reasons to question the BBT, namely, it does not fit the observed data without inventing untestable, unfalsifiable, and unprovable supporting hypotheses.
 
It is still the best fit we have until something else comes along.-But your general feeling about current politicized peer-reviewed science bugs me just as much as you are obviously bugged. I've told the story before of my using the therapeutic approach of the Aussies who discovered H. pyelori as the cause of dudenal ulcers about 20 years before the American GI physcians finally accepted it. And don't get me started on climategate. 
 
I know Matt loves science. I do also, but Matt has not seen the subversion as I have over the years.

4408 views

Please be more specific
 
I can be very specific, but your list of objections suggest that you have no knowledge of the proposed BB theory.
> > 
> > The beginning
> > >

It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing.
 
To quote Guth: No one has any idea of what went bang. He does not imply nothing. 
> > >
> > > If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.
 
First there was plasma! Hydrogen an Helium and a little Lithium come later.
> 
> > >
> > > If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.
 
We are discussing plasma.
> 
> > > Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.
 
The expansion was not entirely uniform, clumping the gases as they appeared, when plasma cooled. But the universe is 'uniform' over massive distances. How would you form stars?
> 
> 
> > > CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed.
 
 
Again theory. A slight bit more matter than antimatter, and what we see now is the difference. 
> > >

> > > 
> > > The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..
> > >


> > > 
> > > These are just a few. And yes, I know they have been thoroughly discussed else where. I just wanted to state my reasons so that I am not seen as 'just not wanting to believe' in something. There are valid reasons to question the BBT, namely, it does not fit the observed data without inventing untestable, unfalsifiable, and unprovable supporting hypotheses.
 
It is still the best fit we have until something else comes along.
 
But your general feeling about current politicized peer-reviewed science bugs me just as much as you are obviously bugged. I've told the story before of my using the therapeutic approach of the Aussies who discovered H. pyelori as the cause of dudenal ulcers about 20 years before the American GI physcians finally accepted it. And don't get me started on climategate. 
 
I know Matt loves science. I do also, but Matt has not seen the subversion as I have over the years.

4400 views

Oh, one thing I missed in my other rebuttal. Gases do not clump in a vacuum unless acted upon by something greater than their inertia. Gravity at the molecular level is not enough to make this happen. The argument of clumping gases is putting the cart before the horse.

4457 views

This is how science is supposed to work, hypothesis->predictions->experimentation->refinements to the hypothesis that fit the data.

4429 views

This is how science is supposed to work, hypothesis->predictions->experimentation->refinements to the hypothesis that fit the data.-Of course

4477 views

You asked about the need for nova/supernovas to account for the heavy elements in the universe. Here is the link.-
Nuclear synthesis states that elements above iron in the periodic table cannot be formed in the normal nuclear fusion processes in stars. Up to iron, fusion yields energy and thus can proceed. But since iron is at the peak of the binding energy curve, fusion of elements above iron dramatically absorbs energy. So to produce heavier elements, enormous amounts of energy are needed. Current opinion is that they must be formed in supernovae. In the supernova explosion, a large flux of energetic neutrons is produced and nuclei bombarded by these neutrons build up mass one unit at a time to produce the heavy nuclei. With large neutron excesses, these nuclei would simply disintegrate into smaller nuclei again were it not for the large flux of neutrinos which make possible the conversion of neutrons to protons via the weak interaction in the nuclei. The layers containing the heavy elements are be blown off by the supernova explosion, and provide the raw material of heavy elements in the distant hydrogen clouds which condense to form new stars.-
In order for stars to account for all the heavier elements in the universe, they would have to run through at least one life cycle.-"A star the size of our Sun requires about 50 million years to mature from the beginning of the collapse to adulthood. Our Sun will stay in this mature phase (on the main sequence as shown in the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram) for approximately 10 billion years."-The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The lifecycle of a star, before it goes nova even once, call it avg 10by. 13.7by-10by=3.7by. That would mean that the Age of any planetary body other than stars, since they are comprised of heavier elements, could not be more than 3.7b years old. Even if they were formed directly from the output of a single Supernova. The earth is estimated 4.6b years old. -Is that sufficient to back up the statement I made?

4416 views

The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The lifecycle of a star, before it goes nova even once, call it avg 10by. 13.7by-10by=3.7by. That would mean that the Age of any planetary body other than stars, since they are comprised of heavier elements, could not be more than 3.7b years old. Even if they were formed directly from the output of a single Supernova. The earth is estimated 4.6b years old. 
> 
> Is that sufficient to back up the statement I made?-No! Supernovas are huge, and live a much shorter time than our sun which will be a red giant when it finishes. Your estimate of 10 BYO for a supernova is totally wrong. Our sun will go 10BYO. If a supernova is 20 times sun size it will burn faster and be gone as an s-n 20 times sooner than 10 BYO. That is your theory is way off base.

4421 views

In the ontological thread, someone posted that I thought all stars went nova/supernova at 10by old. That is not what I said at all. I said:-The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The lifecycle of a star, before it goes nova even once, call it avg 10by. 13.7by-10by=3.7by. That would mean that the Age of any planetary body other than stars, since they are comprised of heavier elements, could not be more than 3.7b years old. Even if they were formed directly from the output of a single Supernova. The earth is estimated 4.6b years old.-Some will take much much longer, others not as long. The point was that enough stars had not gone nova to produce the heavier elements in the universe through nucleosynthesis. The equation I posted up above, even though I took a low average, actually works in the the favor of nucleosynthesis, and still shows it to be impossible. -
I posted up a link to a paper on nucleosythesis which explains it in mathematical detail. (If I didn't post the paper directly, it can be found on the list of papers from the cosmological conference which I am sure I posted.)

4383 views

In the ontological thread, someone posted that I thought all stars went nova/supernova at 10by old. That is not what I said at all. I said:
> 
> The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The lifecycle of a star, before it goes nova even once, call it avg 10by. 13.7by-10by=3.7by. That would mean that the Age of any planetary body other than stars, since they are comprised of heavier elements, could not be more than 3.7b years old. Even if they were formed directly from the output of a single Supernova. The earth is estimated 4.6b years old.
> 
> Some will take much much longer, others not as long. -Supernovas are much larger than our sun with its 10 billion year lifetime. Being bigger they blow up much sooner. If the potential supernova is 20 times the mass of our sun it will blow up rougly 20 times sooner. Your formula is completely wrong.-http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html

4469 views

Supernovas are much larger than our sun with its 10 billion year lifetime. Being bigger they blow up much sooner. If the potential supernova is 20 times the mass of our sun it will blow up rougly 20 times sooner. Your formula is completely wrong.
> 
> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.h... is not a type(classification) of a star, it is the action of a larger star that sheds mass once it reaches a certain point in its life cycle. What you are referring to is the Red Giant phase. However, your reference to 20xmass=1/20th of the lifespan is not mentioned anywhere in that article. Do you have a reference for that?-From your link:-"Like low-mass stars, high-mass stars are born in nebulae and evolve and live in the Main Sequence. However, their life cycles start to differ after the red giant phase. A massive star will undergo a supernova explosion. If the remnant of the explosion is 1.4 to about 3 times as massive as our Sun, it will become a neutron star."

4407 views

Supernovas are much larger than our sun with its 10 billion year lifetime. Being bigger they blow up much sooner. If the potential supernova is 20 times the mass of our sun it will blow up rougly 20 times sooner. Your formula is completely wrong.
> > 
> > http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.h... 
> Supernovae is not a type(classification) of a star, it is the action of a larger star that sheds mass once it reaches a certain point in its life cycle. What you are referring to is the Red Giant phase. However, your reference to 20xmass=1/20th of the lifespan is not mentioned anywhere in that article. Do you have a reference for that?-Cannot find exact reference I saw a couple days ago but try these:-http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html--
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/star_life/starlife_equilibrium.html-
In contrast with our sun, which is really a main sequence star, massive stars live very short lives, perhaps only millions of years, before they develop dead iron cores and explode as a supernova. The core of a dying massive star may form a neutron star or black hole, but the outermost parts of the exploded star return to the interstellar medium from which they came.-http://www.telescope.org/pparc/res8.html-
STAR 
A star is a luminous globe of gas producing its own heat and light by nuclear reactions (nuclear fusion). They are born from nebulae and consist mostly of hydrogen and helium gas. Surface temperatures range from 2000ï¿½C to above 30,000ï¿½C, and the corresponding colours from red to blue-white. The brightest stars have masses 100 times that of the Sun and emit as much light as millions of Suns. They live for less than a million years before exploding as supernovae. The faintest stars are the red dwarfs, less than one-thousandth the brightness of the Sun. -http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/rel_stars.html-Since stars have a limited supply of hydrogen in their cores, they have a limited lifetime as main sequence stars. This lifetime is proportional to f M / L, where f is the fraction of the total mass of the star, M, available for nuclear burning in the core and L is the average luminosity of the star during its main sequence lifetime. Because of the strong dependence of luminosity on mass, stellar lifetimes depend sensitively on mass. Thus, it is fortunate that our Sun is not more massive than it is since high mass stars rapidly exhaust their core hydrogen supply. Once a star exhausts its core hydrogen supply, the star becomes redder, larger, and more luminous: it becomes a red giant star. This relationship between mass and lifetime enables astronomers to put a lower limit on the age of the universe.-Quotes are from sites above. I was NOT discussing red giants. Supernovae are of two types. They have their own sequences. Your formula is of no value.-Read in Wikipedia for overall view:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

4425 views

http://www.telescope.org/pparc/res8.html
This link is inaccurate as 'ordinary' stars go nova, not supernova.-
A new star will fall at a specific point on the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, with the main sequence spectral type depending upon the mass of the star. Small, relatively cold, low mass red dwarfs burn hydrogen slowly and will remain on the main sequence for hundreds of billions of years, while massive, hot supergiants will leave the main sequence after just a few million years. A mid-sized star like the Sun will remain on the main sequence for about 10 billion years. The Sun is thought to be in the middle of its lifespan; thus, it is on the main sequence.-Note: This makes no mention of the time it takes to REACH the main sequence, or the subsequent stages after finishing the main sequence BEFORE going nova/supernova.-
Also scientist do not know how old a star is, and it is near impossible for them to tell.-Even IF, it only took 1by years for the largest(also the fewest) stars to reach the point of going super nova, there still would not have been enough supernova to create all the heavier elements in the universe. My little formula was only meant to show, that if you take into account the lifespan of stars (including the necessary time for them to form, become main sequence, go through their main sequence, evolve, go through the next phase, then go supernova, there would not be enough TIME for the heavier elements that they produce to conglomerate into the the planets. And EVEN IF there were enough time for them to form the planets, there would still not be enough time for the earth to evolve along the evolutionary accepted timeline of 3.7by. -Ok, but in all seriousness, and as some who respects your intellect, take the blinders off. I will even give you some help from experts much smarter than me. Don't hold onto a theory because it is comfortable, hold on to a theory because it fits the data.

4512 views

And EVEN IF there were enough time for them to form the planets, there would still not be enough time for the earth to evolve along the evolutionary accepted timeline of 3.7by. -If your reasoning is true, how come all the elements are here, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old by uranium aging?
> 
> Ok, but in all seriousness, and as some who respects your intellect, take the blinders off. I will even give you some- help from experts much smarter than me. Don't hold onto a theory because it is comfortable, hold on to a theory because it fits the data.-I not blinded, you are by skepticism and I believe a lack of broad enough reading. Gamow predicted 6 K, not 40, as your suggested website states:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

4451 views


> If your reasoning is true, how come all the elements are here, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old by uranium aging?
> > -4.5by just reduces the timeline for all the other stuff to happen by .7by. There are other ways for the mass to form, and within the given timeline. That was one of the points of the Plasma model that hooked me. It fits the data.-
> 
> I not blinded, you are by skepticism and I believe a lack of broad enough reading. Gamow predicted 6 K, not 40, as your suggested website states:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation-Even a revised figure of 6k is still well beyond the observations of 2.725k by serious amount. Also, the link I sit quoted "Gamow's upward-revised estimate of 50Â°K made in 1961"-There are a number of papers linked herethat discuss the problems listed on that website in detail.

4441 views


> > If your reasoning is true, how come all the elements are here, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old by uranium aging?
> > > 
> 
> 4.5by just reduces the timeline for all the other stuff to happen by .7by. There are other ways for the mass to form, and within the given timeline. That was one of the points of the Plasma model that hooked me. It fits the data.-
This reasoning was just covered in my last post. There was lots of time for the 92 elements to be present, partially because they are here now. We have no idea how many supermassive stars were present in the beginning. Certainly there not many now, but that makes sense in the standard theory.-As I noted in the past I don't like consensus science, as much as I dislike peer review. but with all the mainline cosmologists and particle physicists agreeing at the 90% level, I can't waste my reading time on an electromagnetic theory that takes in the whole universe instead of the recognized e-m from the sun and all other plasma objects in the universe. Since I started in the early 1980's I'm at 153 books (just counted for sake of argument) and counting, with two new ones ordered. I have no idea how many articles, plus my medical reading until I retired. Then I had time to write two books, one political, the other sciencevsreligion, both published by publishers. Now I am considering attacking Dawkins.

4441 views

As I noted in the past I don't like consensus science, as much as I dislike peer review. but with all the mainline cosmologists and particle physicists agreeing at the 90% level, I can't waste my reading time on an electromagnetic theory that takes in the whole universe instead of the recognized e-m from the sun and all other plasma objects in the universe. Since I started in the early 1980's I'm at 153 books (just counted for sake of argument) and counting, with two new ones ordered. I have no idea how many articles, plus my medical reading until I retired. Then I had time to write two books, one political, the other sciencevsreligion, both published by publishers. Now I am considering attacking Dawkins.--You should really, really review the plasma models before you discredit them. The fact that the BBT had to move to a pseudo plasma model only reinforces that.
Plasma models DO take in the recognized e-m from the sun, they also explain the filamentary structural we see in space, the short timelines needed for creation of stars, the spiral structures of the galaxies, the cellular structure of the universe, the heavy element content of the universe, the lack of mass needed to form the gravitational fields to cause the observable effects, the CMBR, and the list goes on.-(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
 
The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of "viscosity" of space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years. [[18]]-[[17]] (2001), Science 291, 579-581.
[[18]] E.J. Lerner (1991), The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House, New York, pp. 23 & 28.-Oh! Go after Dawkins, I would buy your books just to support you then :P

4439 views


> Note: This makes no mention of the time it takes to REACH the main sequence, or the subsequent stages after finishing the main sequence BEFORE going nova/supernova.-Stars started forming as plasma left the ionized state, early in the first billion years, say at 200 million.
> 
> 
> Also scientist do not know how old a star is, and it is near impossible for them to tell.-Not true: see this website for Wikipedia. Look at age section and then scroll down to "Mass". One theory is that many of the early stars were supermassive:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Age
> 
> Even IF, it only took 1by years for the largest(also the fewest) stars to reach the point of going super nova, there still would not have been enough supernova to create all the heavier elements in the universe. -Wikipedia above refutes that suggestion.-My little formula was only meant to show, that if you take into account the lifespan of stars (including the necessary time for them to form, become main sequence, go through their main sequence, evolve, go through the next phase, then go supernova, there would not be enough TIME for the heavier elements that they produce to conglomerate into the the planets. And EVEN IF there were enough time for them to form the planets, there would still not be enough time for the earth to evolve along the evolutionary accepted timeline of 3.7by.-The Earth is 4.5 byo, by uranium aging.

4412 views

It is actually funny that you mentioned plasma several times, as the plasma model is my current favorite, and I think ultimately the best fit. -
To respond to some of your points:->The expansion was not entirely uniform, clumping the gases as they appeared, when plasma cooled. But the universe is 'uniform' over massive distances. How would you form stars?-Plasma filament and Z pinches.->Haven't you studied Hoyle and molecular resonances?-No, I haven't, I will look it up.-"In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant.
That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question
then is: How can the buildup of elements by neutron capture get by
these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it
spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic
objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of
the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea."â*William
A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation
Science, p. 90.-***removed comment pending references***->Where is the center? No one knows. There are vast empty areas and then there is the 'Great Wall' of galaxies.-Fortunately, according to modern physics, everyplace is expanding away from every other place. If BBT were true, by creating vectors of expansion of at least 3 astral bodies, they should be able to find a center of source where the history of the three vectors intersect. They can't, or they would have already announced it. That is basic of basic spherical trig.->Diffrent stars of different ages have different composition. To have our solar system lots of iron must be present. Not all stars are like ours with ,little or no iron.-Yes, but they do not have consistent compositions that match the predictions of the BBT. Some older stars have more heavy metals than younger stars, some have less. According to the BBT they should all have more heavy metals in their composition. (Because us of the cyclic transmutation of hydrogen and helium to heavier metals.)->I don't know what dark matter is either, but something has unseen marked gravitational effects.-Gravity is a 'weak force' and is unable to account for the phenomena that is being observed. Electromagnetism is a much much greater force, and far more likely a candidate.-And since you recommended Hoyle, here is his statement regarding BBT.-"The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over
holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become
ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation in
saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When
a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows
that the theory rarely recovers."â*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang
Theory under Attack," Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.

4466 views


> >Haven't you studied Hoyle and molecular resonances?
> 
> No, I haven't, I will look it up.
> 
> "In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant.
> That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question
> then is: How can the buildup of elements by neutron capture get by
> these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it
> spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic
> objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of
> the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea."â*William
> A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation
> Science, p. 90.-Hoyle's theory solves all of this. It is widely accepted.-
> They can't, or they would have already announced it. That is basic of basic spherical trig.-I don't buy your objection.Estimates of distances are still estimates in light years. Is the universe a sphere, or does it look like a loaf of raisin bread? Especially since yesterday's discussion pointed out that what is beyond 3oo,000 years after the BB cannot be known to us at this juncture in scientific ability.
> 
> >Diffrent stars of different ages have different composition. To have our solar system lots of iron must be present. Not all stars are like ours with ,little or no iron.
> 
> Yes, but they do not have consistent compositions that match the predictions of the BBT. Some older stars have more heavy metals than younger stars, some have less. According to the BBT they should all have more heavy metals in their composition. (Because us of the cyclic transmutation of hydrogen and helium to heavier metals.)-Again read about Hoyle. Stars do differ, depending on how big they are, how much gravitational force they have and how close they were to a supernova to gets its products.
> 
> >I don't know what dark matter is either, but something has unseen marked gravitational effects.
> 
> Gravity is a 'weak force' and is unable to account for the phenomena that is being observed. Electromagnetism is a much much greater force, and far more likely a candidate.-Not according to current thinking. Gravity from 'something' accounts for unexplained shapes of galaxies, their movements and so forth. Who is measuring eltromagnetism and from where? Sources please.
> 
> And since you recommended Hoyle, here is his statement regarding BBT.
> 
> "The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over
> holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become
> ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation in
> saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When
> a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows
> that the theory rarely recovers."â*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang
> Theory under Attack," Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.-Ancient Hoyle quote. I know he named the BB derisively. He changed his mind later. You need current literature. People do change their opinions.

4454 views

You should check out the links I have posted on the plasma models. A lot of the information I have talked about is covered there. See the OP for the links.

4401 views

The specific form of Hubble's expansion law is important: the speed of recession is proportional to distance. The expanding raisin bread model at left illustrates why this is important. If every portion of the bread expands by the same amount in a given interval of time, then the raisins would recede from each other with exactly a Hubble type expansion law. In a given time interval, a nearby raisin would move relatively little, but a distant raisin would move relatively farther - and the same behavior would be seen from any raisin in the loaf. In other words, the Hubble law is just what one would expect for a homogeneous expanding universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. Moreover no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf where the analogy breaks down.
>
>The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 +/-3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.8 +/- 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc.-WMAP-
By definition, according to the laws of motion, starting from a single point, and every point moving by the amount for the same amount of time, would give you a sphere. Not a loaf of raisin bread. -d=Vit+1/2at^2 where d is displacement, Vi is initial velocity, t is time, and a is acceleration. -If the universe is not homogeneous, the whole BBT breaks down.

4443 views

By definition, according to the laws of motion, starting from a single point, and every point moving by the amount for the same amount of time, would give you a sphere. Not a loaf of raisin bread. -Agreed
> 
> d=Vit+1/2at^2 where d is displacement, Vi is initial velocity, t is time, and a is acceleration. 
> 
> If the universe is not homogeneous, the whole BBT breaks down.-Also agreed, but I still maintain that no one knows the shape of the universe. One can work Hubble constants backward and imagine a point or singularity as Hawking once did, but as I said before mapping the universe has resulted in huge bubble areas, great walls or galaxies, and although it is overall uniform, in localized areas it is not. I don't know of an author who has described it as a perfect sphere.

4389 views


> Also agreed, but I still maintain that no one knows the shape of the universe. One can work Hubble constants backward and imagine a point or singularity as Hawking once did, but as I said before mapping the universe has resulted in huge bubble areas, great walls or galaxies, and although it is overall uniform, in localized areas it is not. I don't know of an author who has described it as a perfect sphere.-I know that no one has described it as a perfect sphere, that is because the model is wrong. My point was that if the BB happened, the universe would, by the laws of motion, have to be a perfect sphere. Since it is not a perfect sphere, which can be determined by measuring the CRMB, then the big bang can not be correct. -Simple logic. 


If a is true, and b is true, then C is true. 

If C is not true, then either a or b must be false. 

If C is not true, and B is true, then a must be false.


4419 views


> > Also agreed, but I still maintain that no one knows the shape of the universe. One can work Hubble constants backward and imagine a point or singularity as Hawking once did, but as I said before mapping the universe has resulted in huge bubble areas, great walls or galaxies, and although it is overall uniform, in localized areas it is not. I don't know of an author who has described it as a perfect sphere.
> 
> I know that no one has described it as a perfect sphere, that is because the model is wrong. My point was that if the BB happened, the universe would, by the laws of motion, have to be a perfect sphere. Since it is not a perfect sphere, which can be determined by measuring the CRMB, then the big bang can not be correct. 
> 
> Simple logic. 
>

If a is true, and b is true, then C is true. 
>
If C is not true, then either a or b must be false. 
>
If C is not true, and B is true, then a must be false.
>
-No! You have no proof that expansion was even. Look at the CRMB curves predicted by inflation by guth. they fit!!!

4368 views

So if C, spherical expansion is not true, then either A(BBT), or (B)Laws of Motion, must be false. The reason being is that in a vacuum, even a near vacuum, the bang would have to be spherical, because there would be no gravity at T=0 to shape it any other way. It is only AFTER the bang, that there could possibly be any gravity that would have an affect, and at that point, it is too late. -The matter on the front wave would always have to be spherical, unless-A)There were something outside the leading boundary of the universe that would impede motion(which we have no way of testing, and btw, our model of quantum physics can not be verified to exist outside of our universe, so no assuming there is matter of any sort outside our universe)-or-B)There was no singularity, which would mean that in essence, there was no bang-The primary reason for that is that gravity, as I have said before is a weak force. The outer most matter would be too sparsely separated to be affected by gravity. The only other force available at that instant that could make it 'lumpy' is EM from plasma, which would be much more likely as it is considered a strong force. That would mean however at T=1, there would have to be plasma and that plasma would have to have generated a strong enough EM field to affect light particles a minimum of 299792.458km away. (Speed of light over one second). This creates another flaw though. IF the EM field was strong enough to slow down particles at T=1, the universe would not have expanded, it would have collapsed in on itself within seconds because as the plasma mass grew the em field would only get stronger. -"If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present
rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the
initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would
have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing.
At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would
have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present massdensity. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would
not have existed long enough to form stars."â*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation
and the Universe (1969), p. 62.-Yes, I know its plasma not a fireball, but the numbers still work.-However, you should read these two articles.-
If you are going to snatch plasma for the Big Bang, you might as well follow through with plasma as it still makes more sense with the available data.(including almost everything the BBT uses to support itself.) This is fun! :)

4582 views

Phew! I've only been gone one day and there are 25 new posts here!-A lot of what B-M says seems to be based on the idea of the "big bang" being like a normal explosion within an existing Euclidean/Newtonian space surrounding the point where the explosion occurs, but this is a complete misunderstanding of the theory, which is that the universe itself is expanding, creating space within itself as it goes (to put it in probably oversimplified terms). It is not matter expanding into pre-existing space.

--
GPJ

4410 views

Phew! I've only been gone one day and there are 25 new posts here!
> 
> A lot of what B-M says seems to be based on the idea of the "big bang" being like a normal explosion within an existing Euclidean/Newtonian space surrounding the point where the explosion occurs, but this is a complete misunderstanding of the theory, which is that the universe itself is expanding, creating space within itself as it goes (to put it in probably oversimplified terms). It is not matter expanding into pre-existing space.-I know it is not a normal explosion, but it is not exactly a membrane inflating itself either. Something had to trigger the expansion. That something would have had to start 'inside' the singularity. Otherwise you would have a implosion, or a pool ball effect, but NOT an expanding universe. If nothing existed 'outside' the singularity, there there would be nothing to resist the singularities expansion, which would lead to a sphere. In order to explain why it is not spherical then, you have to put the effect 'inside' the universe at the moment it began to expand. As gravity is a weak force, and all the gravity at the moment would have been pulling outwards, as that is were the most mass was, that leaves EM at the core due to plasma. At T>0, the EM field would have to be strong enough to attract all the newly expanding matter that was not instantaneously converted to plasma. We know such matter exists because we can see it in the CMBR. But, that would mean that nearly all matter was ionized, except that which escaped and makes up the CMBR, at the moment of expansion. Which brings me right back to the plasma model of the universe.

4381 views

At T>0, the EM field would have to be strong enough to attract all the newly expanding matter that was not instantaneously converted to plasma. We know such matter exists because we can see it in the CMBR. But, that would mean that nearly all matter was ionized, except that which escaped and makes up the CMBR, at the moment of expansion. Which brings me right back to the plasma model of the universe.-The explosion, or whatever, created an ionized plasma. Now we are on the same page partially. Plasma first, matter in a particle form after. Particles appeared as plasma expanded and cooled. Expansion alone would cause cooling.

4456 views

Expansion causes the cooling but it doesn't cause the particles to loose their charge.

4447 views

Expansion causes the cooling but it doesn't cause the particles to loose their charge.-Correct. Ionic plasma is the first stage after the BB. And I closely agree with Matt's explanations. The plasma articles you referred me to are 25 years old which means the underlyig info presented is even older. More up-to-date info is much more important, as concepts change so quickly. All of my cosmologic readings have been from 1990 onward.

4382 views

This site is up to date.

4351 views

Here is a good side by side listing of the differences between BB/PU theories.

4463 views

Here is a good side by side listing of the differences between BB/PU theories.-This table helps greatly in relating to your point of view.

4349 views

One of my biggest problems is that I read through so many darn web papers every day, and don't book mark them. I will try to be a little more diligent in referencing my statements.

4420 views

One of my biggest problems is that I read through so many darn web papers every day, and don't book mark them. I will try to be a little more diligent in referencing my statements.-Coming from a very skeptical position, you need to.

4505 views

This site is up to date.-Thank you. Now I get the point of your plasma proud approach. It looks as if main-stream cosmologists, know the various plasmas are present, but are ignoring the effects. Having only started reading cosmology and particle physics books for laymen in the early 1980's I'd not seen any important discussion of the effect of plasmas in the universe. Obviously there have to be important effects.

4411 views


> If you are going to snatch plasma for the Big Bang, you might as well follow through with plasma as it still makes more sense with the available data.(including almost everything the BBT uses to support itself.) This is fun! :)--I'm not 'snatching' plasma for the BB theory. It is part and parcel of the intial phase of the theory.

4429 views

Thomas Van Flandern's recent paper The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang[67] gives an overview of problems with Big Bang cosmology and concludes,- "The Big Bang (..) no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget, or were never taught, that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with, at most, an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. (..) Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers."
-Read the Rest of the Article:

4411 views

Tony has drawn our attention (6 October at 16.08) to an article which not only discredits the Big Bang Theory but is also scathing about certain other theories and especially about the way in which the scientific establishment behaves generally. Here is the conclusion:-"There is widespread belief among physicists and non-physicists alike that physics has essentially "figured out" the universe. According to this "end of science" argument, all that remains to the great enterprise of science is to connect a few dots and do some fine-tuning. But the evidence discussed in this article suggests that this satisfactory state of affairs is a mere illusion created by the scientific establishment's habit of suppressing or ignoring disconfirming evidence, and that some of the most basic tenets of physics are in need of major revision."-The article is rather long, and I had to skim quite a lot of the detail, but it needs to be read. Just how much science can we take on trust? As Stephen Hawking has shown, you can chuck in any old theory you like (apart from God, of course), so long as you've got the right connections in the science world. If you haven't, no-one will listen. As a non-scientist I find it confusing and depressing, but at the same time there is a kind of perverse pleasure to be derived from the fact that materialism continues to chase its own tail.

4320 views


> The article is rather long, and I had to skim quite a lot of the detail, but it needs to be read. Just how much science can we take on trust? As Stephen Hawking has shown, you can chuck in any old theory you like (apart from God, of course), so long as you've got the right connections in the science world. If you haven't, no-one will listen. As a non-scientist I find it confusing and depressing, but at the same time there is a kind of perverse pleasure to be derived from the fact that materialism continues to chase its own tail.-The article fits the ring-around-the-rosey setup of today's peer review tied into governmednt grants. Scientists work with other peoples' money. not like Darwin. Their depencency creates this mess. There should be a solution, but with tight peer review no way. I lived in a day when I could submit an article (and I did) and the journal was free to accept it or not on its merits, as they saw it.

4380 views


> The article fits the ring-around-the-rosey setup of today's peer review tied into governmednt grants. Scientists work with other peoples' money. not like Darwin. Their depencency creates this mess. There should be a solution, but with tight peer review no way. I lived in a day when I could submit an article (and I did) and the journal was free to accept it or not on its merits, as they saw it.-An excellent review of the fraudulent science problem by a scientist who was caught:-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57738/

4446 views

I hope this serves to underscore the fact that my mistrust of modern science is not because of a disrespect for the field or innate 'holy roller' mentality on my part, but rather due to a recognition of the gross inadequacy of the system, to not only produce quality data, but to approach scientific discoveries with the scientific objectivity that they themselves so ardently preach. -Thank both of you for taking the time to have a read through that article.

4346 views

"Pray let us enjoy the advantages and privileges which come from conversation between friends, especially upon subjects freely chosen and not forced upon us, a matter vastly different from dealing with dead books which give rise to many doubts but remove none. Share with us, therefore, the thoughts which our discussion has suggested to you; for since we are free from urgent business, there will be abundant time to pursue the topics already mentioned,; and in particular the objections raised...ought not be in anywise neglected."-~Galileo - Dialogues Concerning Two Sciences

4404 views

Big Bang:
> 
> There has been some discussion on the Big Bang, and I know there are a couple of supporters for it, so here are my top reasons for not supporting it, and we can argue about it :P 
> 
> The beginning
>

It violates the laws of physics, requiring that something came from nothing. -No... not really. All BBT's begin with a quantum singularity where all energy and mass in the universe existed at a single point. The laws of physics did not exist at this juncture; only after expansion. Think of it the same way that evolution describes life--only after life got here. It has no explanatory power before life's genesis. ->
If there were nothing by hydrogen and helium, what was in the center of the universe to cause enough gravity to condense it all down to a single point of super-dense material. This violates the laws of gravity.-No it doesn't. Even excepting the point that physical laws didn't exist at the singularity, Black Holes do the same thing on a smaller scale: a single teaspoon of a neutron star would have the same mass as our Sun. When you break these particles into their components down into high-energy states, you don't have mass at all in a traditional sense. ->
If it exploded, the resulting matter would travel in a straight line through the vacuum at tremendous speeds, with each subsequent second put particles further beyond the gravitational effects of neighboring particles. Thus, the universe would not have formed as all matter would still be traveling in a straight line.-The only way it would be a straight line, is if you knew the shape--which you couldn't because it was in a quantum superposition. In that moment, just before expansion, it was simultaneously EVERY possible shape in the universe. ->
Gas(helium and hydrogen) expand in a vacuum, not contract. Thus stars could not have formed from helium and hydrogen.-Vacuum was formed after all the bits of material stopped being bigger than the space they were expanding in. In the beginning, it was like having 2 cups of water in a 1 cup container. Until the container increased to a large enough size, you wouldn't have vacuum at all. There was also a variation in temperatures; the temperatures that were on average lower were where quantum particles started to clump. Hydrogen and helium would begin forming and fusing after they had already "found" each other as quantum particles. ->
CERN experiments have shown that matter and anti-matter when created immediately destroy each other. Thus, if matter and anti-matter where created in the big bang, the resulting matter would have been immediately destroyed. 
>

> -This is assuming that antimatter is always created at the exact same moment with the exact same quantities of matter. Under standard models, those universes are predicted, but it simply is not the universe we live in. -> The Middle, supposing the beginning didn't complicate things enough..
>

There are gaps that helium and hydrogen can not cross when changing to other elements. Thus, exploding stars, no matter how many times they exploded, could not create the heavier elements from hydrogen and helium.-The only problem is that since we're talking about 1 and 2-proton atoms, you have all the tools you ever need to build all elements. The numbers 1 and 2 are all that's needed to create every conceivable number, but hell, you can do that with just 1. Couple that with radioactive decay; you have plenty of ways to get every element we know of. You're also assuming that only H gets fused, then only He gets fused. Sometimes an H gets fused to an He creating Li. ->
Stars would have to go nova/super-nova at an incredible rate in order for them to create the observed mass of the universe. We have not observed this high rate of nova's, even when looking as far back into the past as we can.-Stars didn't create the mass. They simply altered its components. I would like to see more about this argument however. ->
There is no 'empty center of the universe' which would be required for the BBT to be true.-The size if the universe is infinite. Aside from that, if, using your own scenario--the universe shot out as a straight line--there would never be a center.->
As stated in the first list, since explosions in a vacuum lead to straight line trajectories, highly organised elliptical orbits could not form.-The crab nebula destroys this concept of a straight-line trajectory being the only possibility in vacuum. ->
BBT requires that older stars have a different physical composition, which does not fit the observed data, particularly in the mass:heavy element ratio.-This part would only be an issue if you're talking about the earliest stars we can find. Otherwise I would say we're seeing what would be expected after 13Bn years of evolution. -(final section answered in a "Part 2")

--
\"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.\"

4364 views

No... not really. All BBT's begin with a quantum singularity where all energy and mass in the universe existed at a single point. The laws of physics did not exist at this juncture; only after expansion. Think of it the same way that evolution describes life--only after life got here. It has no explanatory power before life's genesis.-So we suspend the rules and say that it could happen even though it violates everything we know to be true, but ok, we will just skip that bit and come back to it later.->The only way it would be a straight line, is if you knew the shape--which you couldn't because it was in a quantum superposition. In that moment, just before expansion, it was simultaneously EVERY possible shape in the universe.-A straight line in every possible direction(spherical). We would be talking about a lot of particles, not one. I should have clarified in this post, but I did clarify it later. Apologies.->There was also a variation in temperatures; the temperatures that were on average lower were where quantum particles started to clump. Hydrogen and helium would begin forming and fusing after they had already "found" each other as quantum particles.-If they were in a plasma state, they would no longer be H and He, they would be ionized unbound atoms and electrons. At least according to the definition of plasma. However, assuming they did keep their structure:-
In 1948, Physicist George Gamow hypothesized that all of the elements might have been made in the hot and dense earlyuniverse. He suggested to his student, Ralph Alpher, that he calculate this. Alpher did so for his PhD thesis, with RobertHerman participating in much of the work. Alpher and Herman found that Gamow was wrong: most elements could not havebeen made in the early universe. The problem is with neutron capture. Neutrons decay in about 10 minutes, and their densitydecreases as the universe expands in that time. There just isn't enough time to keep building up to the heavier elements beforethe neutrons are gone. The heavy elements are made later, in stars. Only the lightest elements are built up in the earlyuniverse. -Concerning Anti-matter-Antiparticles are also produced in any environment with a sufficiently high temperature (mean particle energy greater than the pair production threshold). During the period of baryogenesis, when the universe was extremely hot and dense, matter and antimatter were continually produced and annihilated. The presence of remaining matter, and absence of detectable remaining antimatter,[11] also called baryon asymmetry, is attributed to violation of the CP-symmetry relating matter and antimatter. The exact mechanism of this violation during baryogenesis remains a mystery.-There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce
equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter
exists. (Asimov's New Guide to Science, p.343).->Stars didn't create the mass. They simply altered its components. I would like to see more about this argument however.-Sorry for being unclear there. Conversion is a better word. See Gamow and Alpher above.->The size if the universe is infinite. Aside from that, if, using your own scenario--the universe shot out as a straight line--there would never be a center.-Data from the CRMB would disagree with the infinite size of the Universe. It's big, but not infinite. BBT does not speculate about whats on the other side of the CRMB.

4382 views

Balance,
> So we suspend the rules and say that it could happen even though it violates everything we know to be true, but ok, we will just skip that bit and come back to it later.
> -No no no... okay, you've probably heard that "The laws of physics break down near black holes," on any physics show. The exact reason why is because when you get down to the quantum level existence becomes probabilities; and you can't derive any of our basic physical laws (Force, energy, acceleration, heat, etc...) --none of it--at the point of the singularity. In the moment literally just before the big bang there simply were no physical laws. Everything that any physicist surmises about this point is metaphysics. And in fact, some physical laws don't exist for some time after the expansion began. The same thing for evolution; it does nothing at all about explaining origins, only about what has happened since life created. Physics hits an identical barrier here. This is why some physicists prefer the "outdated" view of a purely eternal universe. Any mention you ever see of a "singularity" in physics literally means "anomalies where our physical models make little sense." That's the reason that we need to be directing our societies towards exploration, so we can get a crack at these deep questions. Otherwise we're just sitting here and twiddling our thumbs. -> A straight line in every possible direction(spherical). We would be talking about a lot of particles, not one. I should have clarified in this post, but I did clarify it later. Apologies.
> -But you missed the point that there was still no vacuum. The universe didn't expand into something else under BBT models, nothing existed at all. (Except the singularity.) Vacuum didn't exist until the blobs of matter had enough space to get away from each other. In terms of the shape, there are literally billions of discrete possibilities. We know that ours was relatively spherical. -> If they were in a plasma state, they would no longer be H and He, they would be ionized unbound atoms and electrons. At least according to the definition of plasma. However, assuming they did keep their structure:
> 
You... seem to be reasoning that H and He are not H and He when in plasma states? Before we continue down this line, we need to be on the same page. Chemical properties are different in plasma but they are clearly still H and He even if they are in a heavily charged state--it only means that e- flow freely throughout the plasma mixture. H by itself also couldn't exist until the universe had cooled enough to allow for it. By the time this happened, the varying areas of hot and cold had already formed the basic structure of the universe. (Go to the book "Programming the Universe.") 
> 
> .... Only the lightest elements are built up in the earlyuniverse. 
> -I had always read that most of the matter was made from the fusion in stars. (that link is awesome, btw) All the BBT models I've seen assert that only H existed for... (fuzzy) 300k years until stars formed and began fusing them into heavier elements. -> Concerning Anti-matter
> 
> Antiparticles are also produced in any environment with a sufficiently high temperature (mean particle energy greater than the pair production threshold). During the period of baryogenesis, when the universe was extremely hot and dense, matter and antimatter were continually produced and annihilated. The presence of remaining matter, and absence of detectable remaining antimatter,[11] also called baryon asymmetry, is attributed to violation of the CP-symmetry relating matter and antimatter. The exact mechanism of this violation during baryogenesis remains a mystery.
> 
> There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. A Big Bang would produce
> equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, but only small amounts of antimatter
> exists. (Asimov's New Guide to Science, p.343).
> -You have found one of "the greatest unsolved problems in physics" here. After digging into it, we just don't have an explanation for it for now. The hard part about reasoning at the bleeding edge (as we are doing) as that invariably we will have to resort to some kind of metaphysics to fill the gaps without access to a decent physical model. String Theory purports to solve this and many other problems, but as you'll find I'm not a fan of it. So here, you have stated a known problem of cosmology that must be solved; pointing out the obvious isn't necessarily valid criticism. Unless you're prepared to fight with me to understand Baryonic physics--which I intend to do but realize it will take many years.
> 
> >The size if the universe is infinite. Aside from that, if, using your own scenario--the universe shot out as a straight line--there would never be a center.
> 
> Data from the CRMB would disagree with the infinite size of the Universe. It's big, but not infinite. BBT does not speculate about whats on the other side of the CRMB.-We know the rate of expansion in our universe is 3x the speed of light, out near the edge. Therefore, the universe is infinite in size. The WMAP data confirmed the speed of expansion.

--
\"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.\"

4509 views


> > [*]Stars would have to go nova/super-nova at an incredible rate in order for them to create the observed mass of the universe. We have not observed this high rate of nova's, even when looking as far back into the past as we can.
> 
> Stars didn't create the mass. They simply altered its components. I would like to see more about this argument however. -
Here is more on the argument for the amount of heavy elements in the universe.-If the link doesn't work try here, and select article 14) 1995Ap&SS.227..145L Lerner, Eric J.

4482 views

[*]BBT requires 'Dark Matter' to work, yet DM violates the laws of physics. (it must have mass to have gravity, yet it does not interact with other mass, nor is it in any way directly detectable. It's presence is only inferred by gravitational anomalies that have other explanations.)-Dark matter is currently understood to simply be matter that doesn't emit light; we don't know its composition for sure, but some suspect it's "normal matter." Alternatively, one paper I read said that the Dark Matter we're predicting is actually only due to statistical error if we abandon the notion that matter is distributed evenly throughout the universe.

--
\"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.\"

4400 views


> Dark matter is currently understood to simply be matter that doesn't emit light; we don't know its composition for sure, but some suspect it's "normal matter." Alternatively, one paper I read said that the Dark Matter we're predicting is actually only due to statistical error if we abandon the notion that matter is distributed evenly throughout the universe.-Part of the beauty of the plasma model is that it doesn't require even distribution of matter, so it does not require untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis.

4466 views


> > Dark matter is currently understood to simply be matter that doesn't emit light; we don't know its composition for sure, but some suspect it's "normal matter." Alternatively, one paper I read said that the Dark Matter we're predicting is actually only due to statistical error if we abandon the notion that matter is distributed evenly throughout the universe.
> 
> Part of the beauty of the plasma model is that it doesn't require even distribution of matter, so it does not require untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis.-But getting rid of the "cosmological principle" won't be a fun job for anyone who tries to fight up that hill. -My hat's off to them, though.

--
\"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.\"

4412 views

Just consolidating links for later comers in the thread.-Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation.-Deep Impact Predictions using PU theory.-Supernovae-Life Cycle of a Star-WMAP Official info on Big Bang Theory-Evolution of the Plasma Universe I-Evolution of the Plasma Universe II-www.Plasma-Universe.com - Up to date site for the PU theory-Table differing PU/BB theories-Papers from a cosmological conference, many of which discuss the PU theory.

4434 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum