| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> Big Bang? | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: c. r Posted On: Nov 13, 2003 Views: 988 | RE: Big Bang? Yicheng, it's not a question of whether or not a theory has flaws in it, but why some of you people can't see the flaws! To quote Neil "People always seem to miss the point, about the big bang theory, the operative word being 'theory', it may be [considered] the best one around [at the moment], but that doesn't mean it is correct, in fact taking into account how many previously accepted theories have been proven wrong and replaced by another, better theory, it is naive to assume that any theory is 100% correct, especially one as shaky as this one." Words in [] are added. I guarantee you the BBT is very shaky and totally agree with Neil! You say "Scientists have looked at it, tested it, analyzed it, whatever, for THIS LONG". Do you think that means it's not a theory any more? I hope not! It's not a question of like or dislike, but flaws or no flaws, and since it's ONLY a theory, it MUST have flaws! The big bang theory has many, many flaws! [I afraid that if your beliefs are getting in the way of you realising or finding out what those flaws are, then that's the first problem you have]. |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 20, 2004 Views: 974 | RE: Big Bang? The Big Bang was derived from Einsteins equations. Georges-Henri Lemaître, an astrophysicists and monsignor in the Catholic Church, was credited with proposing the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. With his beginnings as a Jesuit priest, Lemaître was interested in bringing religion into scientific terms. Our "scientific" views of the nature of the world have always been inextricably entangled with our circumstances, politics, personality and religious beliefs. An infinite unbounded universe, knowable by experiment and experience, is compatible with more liberal social systems. A universe with beginning and end in time and/or space, knowable by thought or revelation, is more compatible with authoritarian hierachical social systems. The Big Bang theory is based on a thought experiment. By mentally reversing the "arrow" of time, the invalid observation that space is expanding becomes space is contracting. The "inflation" or "expanding universe" postulate is based on an erroneous interpretation of the red shift data. When the supporters of the theory say that the theory predicted several outcomes, that's not true. The strength of a theory is in its ability to predict. The Big Bang theory predicted nothing that was not already given in its thought experiment. In the thought experiment, we imagine the universe shrinking backwards, like a film in reverse, the density of matter and energy rises towards infinity as we approach the moment of origin. Starting with the existing temperature of the vacuum of space of about 2.7 K, the contracting space of our thought experiment heats up. At extreme temperatures everything loses its identity, melting into a hot, very excited soup. They (BBT cosmologists) can't go beyond this primordial soup in their experiment, because this is the limit to where the laws of physics can take them. Space and time dissolve into a quantum "foam", taking our rulers and our clocks with it. Most BB theorists stop when they reach a small seed that contains everything that's in the current universe in maximum possible condensed form. The small seed is a hot soup, not a small particle. The 2.7 K measurements of the CMBR, the perfect black body curve and the observed certain percentages for the elements are givens; they exist today. Thus, each was in place in the universe before the BBT thought experiment starts to reverse the arrow of time that condensed the universe into the hot soupy seed that's considered the origin of the Big Bang. They are observations that support the BBT, not observations predicted by it. Therefore, it's no surprise that if a hot soupy seed of 1000s of degrees K were to expand to the size of the current universe, the temperature of the CMBR would fall to 2.7 K. The observations from NASA's COBE satellite merely show that the CMB is that of a blackbody having a temperature of 2.7 K. That doesn't in itself prove the source was the remnant of the Big Bang. There never was a hot soupy seed, or "Big Bang" inflation. When one assumes that our observable universe is the result of an expansion comparable to a huge explosion starting from a central point, and that this includes the origin of space and time, then one is being contradictory as to the definition of the word "point"! The BBT assumes the existence of a central point, whereas the BBT assumes space and time were non-existent prior to the explosion. This is an obvious contradiction! A point is an undefined geometrical element located in space and time. The singularity, central point, cosmic egg, seed or whatever you call it, imply a specific location in space and time. Thus, it's science fiction to say space and time came into existence in the explosion of the singularity. Assuming there was an explosion, it was merely a change in the universe, not its beginning. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 21, 2004 Views: 971 | RE: Big Bang? Hello field day, you say in your argument above that: "The singularity, central point, cosmic egg, seed or whatever you call it, imply a specific location in space and time. Thus, it's science fiction to say space and time came into existence in the explosion of the singularity. Assuming there was an explosion, it was merely a change in the universe, not its beginning." I have to say that from what you say in that remark you do not understand the BBT. The singularity was NOT a 'specific location in space and time' nor was it 'merely a change in the universe'. The Big Bang CREATED the universe and time, before that there ws nothing, at least as far as we are concerned there was nothing. Our universe is what exists inside the expanding Big Bang, the Big Bang did not happen within a pre-existing universe, at least not our universe, and that is all we are able to discuss in scientific terms. You also claim, again incorrectly, that 'The Big Bang theory predicted nothing that was not already given in its thought experiment.' Not so. The BBT predicted that there should be a relic of the Big Bang, the microwave background radiation, that was not known to exist at the time. It took years before it was (accidentally) discovered, thus confirming the prediction. I'm afraid you have got your facts wrong. |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 21, 2004 Views: 967 | RE: Big Bang? Hi Keith, Quote: "The singularity was NOT a 'specific location in space and time' nor was it 'merely a change in the universe'." From what I understand, the definition of a singularity is that of a point of infinite smallness and infinity density. If something has a dimensional structure, doesn't that mean it must have finite dimensions of greater than infinitesimal smallness or infinitely large dimensions? I'm quite sure that a point has no spatial dimensions. If something is infinitely small, it's a point and has no dimensions (length, height, width). If it has no dimensions, doesn't have mean nothing can exist in it, and therefore that it has no density? If it's not a point, then it's either finite or infinitely large. Quote: "The Big Bang CREATED the universe and time, before that there ws nothing, at least as far as we are concerned there was nothing. Our universe is what exists inside the expanding Big Bang, the Big Bang did not happen within a pre-existing universe, at least not our universe, and that is all we are able to discuss in scientific terms." If there was nothing, how could there be something? According to the dictionary, nothing means that which has no existence, absolutely none. Your re-definition of nothing means that there was something, but how do you know that? If something existed beforehand, how can you be sure it did of you have no evidence of it? If we can have no knowledge of what was before the Big Bang, how can we assume there was anything before it? Isn't this entering into the realm of metaphysics, which is not science. You say we cannot discuss further in scientific terms, why not? Is there a lack of evidence, knowledge, understanding, what? Surely if the Big Bang is right, scientifically, we can discuss it at length, scientifically. We have no evidence of any other universes. Also, as I understand, the word universe mean "all that is", both known and unknown, so I don't see how anything other than what exists in the expanding Big Bang could exist. How can space expand into nothing of there is nothing to expand into? Quote: "The BBT predicted that there should be a relic of the Big Bang, the microwave background radiation, that was not known to exist at the time. It took years before it was (accidentally) discovered, thus confirming the prediction." It predicted a relic, yes, but it did not predict that the accidentally discovered CMBR would be that relic. It predicted a Big Bang relic of its own. They did not even know the CMBR measured existed, as you say. Can you see? If they did not know the CMBR existed beforehand, how could they be sure their CMBR is that CMBR measured. The connection between the CMBR relic and the one measured was only made once it was measured. That does not mean they are one and the same thing. How can they be sure it was the relic of they have no evidence that it is indeed the residue of the Big Bang? Surely it's common sense that if you want to make a link between A and B, you have to show evidence that B resulted from A, not just state it did. If we cannot measure A, how can we know B was the result of A? For example: If you find an impact crater, you cannot simply assume, based on what you have been taught, that the impact crater resulted from a meteor impact. You cannot simply say, given a simulation of such an impact with a meteor, that it is a fact that the meteor caused the crater. It could have been a comet or some other unknown object, but you cannot automatically assume a meteor caused it if other, a yet unknown phenomena, will in the future show correlations, through the same simulations, with the formation of the impact crater. There is nothing to show a comet or other unknown phenomena could not caused such an impact today. And on time, how could the Big Bang "happen" if time did not exist beforehand and if we can have no knowledge of the beforehand? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 22, 2004 Views: 963 | RE: Big Bang? "Do you understand what I'm trying to say?" To be honest, no I don't! For example: The questions you now raise regarding if a singularity is a point or not, has nothing to do with the first point of yours raised, and that is the one that I was answering. You said the Big Bang began WITHIN the universe. All I did was explain that it most certainly did not. The singularity's 'dimensions' has nothing to do with either your question or my answer, it's just a diversion from the topic under discussion. As for where did the BB come from, and what it is it's expanding into, that is indeed entering the realm of metaphysics and philosphy. The BBT says that the universe began with the BB, and makes no attempt, because it's impossible, to describe what came before it, or what is beyond its bounds. As far as a BBT prediction, I have no idea at all of what you are going on about. As I said, the BBT predicted that there should be a microwave background radiation relic of the BB and calculated its temperatue. It was eventually discovered and the temperature was as predicted. How on earth do you manage to claim that was not a predicion of the BBT is totally beyond me. Claiming that the micowave background radiation dicovered may not be the one predicted is simply ludicrous in the extreme! How many identical ones do you think there are out there? That's as daft as cosmologists, using mathematics and relativity, calculating that a planet of a given mass must be orbiting a star at a given distance, and when astronomers find a planet of the exact mass at the exact distance from the named star you come along and claim it may not be the one predicted! Madness or what? As for how could the BB happen before time existed, that is outside of the scope of the BBT. the BBT describes what happened AFTER the 'explosion' of the singularity, it is not possible to have any knowledge of what came before. |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 22, 2004 Views: 957 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: "You said the Big Bang began WITHIN the universe. All I did was explain that it most certainly did not." And in my second comment I acknowledged that and explained further about my queries. Quote: "The singularity's 'dimensions' has nothing to do with either your question or my answer, it's just a diversion from the topic under discussion." I can also understand that a singularity HAS no dimensions, as pointed out. However, on your page on the theory you say: Quote: "Einstein's equations actually go further back then that, to a time when all the matter and energy of the universe emerged from a single point of zero size, a singularity." Which means my points about singularities as physical objects, about them not being able to contain anything, and that about the density of a singularity are relevant. I also point out that since a singularity has no dimensions, making it physically undefinable, it cannot exist, as quoted, because it has no size, as you say. Quote: " The BBT says that the universe began with the BB, and makes no attempt, because it's impossible, to describe what came before it, or what is beyond its bounds." And, as I pointed out, if "the" universe "began" with a big bang, the big bang "happened", and therefore, if time did not exist because time was coming into existence as part of "the" universe, "the" universe could not have "began" or "happened". So I ask again, how could the universe ("the" universe) come into existence (begin, happen), if time did not exist to begin with? To say it began, happened, etc, is a reference to the time at which it began happen (13 billion years ago or whatever). If it did not "happen" at a certain "time", it did not happen. You also now say it has bounds. How do you know "the" universe has bounds? Have you observed them? Again, you need evidence, if you have observed these bounds, that they are what you claim them to be. If you have no knowledge of what lies beyond these bounds, how can you say whether there is or is not anything beyond them? Note that "the" universe is not the "observable" universe. The observable (known) universe is only part of the whole universe, so how can you extrapolate beyond what you know and observe with any certainty without evidence of the unknown? Quote: "As I said, the BBT predicted that there should be a microwave background radiation relic of the BB and calculated its temperature. It was eventually discovered and the temperature was as predicted. How on earth do you manage to claim that was not a prediction of the BBT is totally beyond me." As you say, it claims that. It claims that the CMBR glow was emitted by the entire (known and unknown) universe 300,000 years after the big bang happened. It says that we cannot see any further in space and time beyond this glow because beyond this glow the universe was a hot, opaque plasma. Now, what I would ask is that if they cannot see beyond B (CMBR), how can they claim A (the big bang) with any certainty? Like with your bounds, you need evidence, if you have observed this plaque plasma, that the CMBR is indeed what you claim it to be. If you have no knowledge of what lied beyond the CMBR, how can you say whether there was or was not anything prior to it with any certainty? Also, on the big bang theory page, you make some claims under red shift: Quote: "The galaxy is moving away from us, this is known as the Doppler effect. In the 1920's Edwin Hubble observed that all galaxies (apart from a few local ones attracted towards our own and showing blueshift) show red shift. This indicates that the galaxies are all flying away from us, as in a Big Bang explosion." It is thought that this is the result of the Doppler Effect, but have other possibilities been investigated? Have you considered the possibility that galaxies may have an intrinsic red shift component? Quote: "Einstein's famous equations show that the universe should be expanding, not because the galaxies were moving through space, but because the 'empty' space between them (spacetime) is expanding. This cosmological redshift results because the light from the distant galaxies is stretched by the amount that space expands while the light is en route to us." Hmm. I cannot agree with that. Einstein first examined the propagation the light signal needs to travel a given distance x in the system of the source, which is given by x(t) = c*t, where t is the time and c is the speed of light. Here the speed of light is c = dx(t)/dt, as required. Then he considered the propagation in a system moving with speed v relative to the source, i.e. x'(t) = c*t - v*t =(c - v)*t. Here the speed is obviously c - v = dx'(t)/dt, which contradicts the requirement that it should have the same value c in all reference frames. In order to resolve the situation, Einstein concluded that the space and time coordinates have to be re-scaled (dependent on the velocity), which leads to the well known formulae identical to the Lorentz Transformation. This re-definition of the original length and time units in order to be able apply the usual addition of velocities (the third equation) is clearly invalid. Believing that it is correct is like believing you can fit a bus into a metre-wide parking space just by measuring it with a correspondingly expanded ruler unit. You cannot "scale" space and time. Space is space and time is time, that is it! Obviously, the propagation of light signals has to be described by a completely different concept of "speed" than the usual one applied by Einstein: the invariance of c can only mean that the time T for a light signal to travel from the source to the observer does not depend on the velocity of either of them but only on their distance x(t=0) at the time of the emission, T = x(t=0)/c . I believe the mental picture of light as an entity travelling independently through space is wrong. If you wants c to really be invariant, there can only be a moment of emission and a moment of detection, and the "speed" of light is simply given by the difference between the two and the distance at the time of emission. The invariance of c is generally displayed merely as an experimental fact, but if one accepts that light is an electromagnetic wave, it is indeed a theoretical necessity. A light wave cannot possibly require a physical carrier medium. If it did, it could not propagate through empty space; on the other hand, without an "ether", the speed of light has to be constant with regard to source and receiver, otherwise it would be completely undefined. The point is in fact that a light wave needs no carrying medium as it carries itself. To be more accurate, according to Maxwell's Equations, the electric wave carries the magnetic wave and vice versa. Just make a note that a theory actually has to come into accord with all observations and not the other way around. If you can doubt the big bang theory simply by considering the possibility that it is wrong, then it is possible that it is wrong! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 23, 2004 Views: 955 | RE: Big Bang? I'm sorry but I just can't make it any clearer. The BBT does NOT offer any explanation as to how the BB came into being, with or without time or anything else come to that. It explains what happened AFTER the BB. To keep going on about how could it come into existence is nothing whatever to do with the BB. Okay? As for how do I know the universe is bounded when it isn't possible to see that far, it's really very simple. We know the universe is expanding, as its expanding it is growing and therefore cannot be infinite, and must therefore be bounded. QED. Simple isn't it! If you disagree with the principle of redshift proving expansion, that's your own personal choice, but it happens to be out of step with every scientist on the planet. As for your arguments against Einstein, well, if you think you know better than him why not tell the world (you will need solid maths of course) and you will no doubt have ever lasting fame and fortune and win a Nobel prize. Makes more sense then posting your ideas on a silly internet mesage board. |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 25, 2004 Views: 946 | RE: Big Bang? You are right, it is a silly message board. As if I'd be naive enough to think that people on this discussion board would even want to understand! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 25, 2004 Views: 944 | RE: Big Bang? Of course its just a silly internet message board! What did you think it was? A way of publishing scientific papers revealing your wonderful new theory that 'proves' that Einstein is wrong? A short-cut to everlasting fame and fortune? A place where scientists around the world sit glued to their screens eagerly awaiting exciting new theories? Nope! It's just a message board where, with amazing regularity, someone will come along and say they 'know' Einstein is wrong. I wish I had a dollar for every time some fruitcake told me that they 'knew' Einstein was wrong! I would be a very rich man. |
| Posted By: Principal Skinner Posted On: May 25, 2004 Views: 936 | RE: Big Bang? Hmmm and how do you know he is right? |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 25, 2004 Views: 935 | RE: Big Bang? I also wish I had a dollar for every time some fruitcake told me that they 'knew' Einstein was right! |
| Posted By: Principal Skinner Posted On: May 25, 2004 Views: 933 | RE: Big Bang? Yes we'd all retire billionares field day, then we'd have our 'fame and fortune' Cheers Keith! |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 25, 2004 Views: 931 | RE: Big Bang? Touché! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 25, 2004 Views: 928 | RE: Big Bang? The thing is field day, that Einstein provided a comprehensive and detailed mathematical model that answered the then problem of why the planet Mercury did not orbit the sun as per Newton's theory of gravity, the timing was a little bit off. The theory of relativity refined Newton's theory. Einstein's theory of relativity made a number of predictions which have been tested to the limits of today's technology and found to be exactly correct. Relativity is used to calculate the trajectories of space craft, and if the theory was not used, or if it was wrong, then the craft would miss their targets. Nothing has been found wrong with the theory, not a sausage! How then can it be wrong? So when people come along, as they do every now and again, and claim that Einstein is wrong, do not be surprised when I laugh! If you 'know' its wrong, then the answer is simple. PROVE IT, AS EINSTEIN DID! He didn't just say I think this and think that! Personally, I very much doubt if you have even read through Einstein's mathematical model of relativity, let alone even have the advanced maths to understand it, let alone find errors in it! If I am wrong, then it will be a simple matter for you to supply your proof. If no proof is forthcoming, I will continue to regard you as a fruitcake, along with all the others. What could be fairer? Over to you. |
| Posted By: field day Posted On: May 27, 2004 Views: 921 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: Relativity is used to calculate the trajectories of space craft, and if the theory was not used, or if it was wrong, then the craft would miss their targets. As I have already implied, it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons. The calculations may be accurate, but it does not mean that the underlying model assumptions of the calculations are right. Things do not go wrong because the assumptions of theories are wrong. I have already explained myself adequately with regards to relativity theory. If you cannot see that, that is your problem! I also understand that Big Bang theory models are highly flexible. If we continue to allow mathematical theorists to dominate cosmology, this kind of thing will happen more frequently: http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html Einsteins theory has a flawed foundation, seriously! Get over it Keith! If anything, I blame the conformatory biase of Big Bang theorists and their associates attitudes for their inability to see sense, stop wasting money and leave the metaphysical realm! |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next Page -> |