Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.
- Thread starter astrocat
- Start date
- Status
Do you need a dictionary? Its just your 'model' isn't able to model anything, its a wordy, unjustified, plucked from nowhere hypothesis which cannot make testable quantitative predictions.
The big bang model predicts the CMB temperature profile, the relative abundances of light isotopes, that sort of thing. Those are quantitative and testable.
Provide evidence. No one in science knows of your 'work', you haven't got it published anywhere, it doesn't predict or model anything, it isn't science.
Can you provide evidence 'science does' like your work? Acceptable evidence is it being published in a reputable journal and gathering citations. You simply saying "Its great" isn't.
The curves all intersect at "now" because we have a definite value for the average separation of galaxies "now" - it's what we observe when we look around (well, roughly speaking...)
The time axis is arbitrary: it doesn't specify where t=0 is. So, for each particular model, t=0 corresponds to the intersection of the relevant curve with the time axis (because at that point the distance between galaxies is zero, which means we're at the big bang). The time between "now" and the big bang varies with different models, as you can see.
I'm not sure why the "accelerating" curve would have a point of inflexion at "now" either.
I could if I knew how. But I think you've probably found it by now- why don't you tell me what you think of it, Dywyddr?
Please.
Now that's a contribution. And you told me you're only here to denigrate.
No, I haven't found it.
Incapable of posting a link?
Are you also incapable of correctly referencing the relevant Wiki page?
However, if you're referring to the graphic that Pete posted in post 312 could you tell me where you got the specific date of 1998 from?
Could you tell me how you know exactly which particular year it intends to convey, as opposed to that blob covering, for example, the entirety of human history? Or any other period/ date in time?
That's a contribution, Pete. And you told me you were only here to denigrate.
Your model, the raisin cake baking in an oven, is kinda good but only kinda. The Cosmos isn't Warming, it's cooling down. Your model completely fails to show this Exponentially and ad infinitum Expansion. It fails on many fronts. The surface of a balloon, please. In what way does the syrface of a balloon represent the Cosmos, I'd like to know. A balloon sure doesn't expand ad infinitum. Actually, nothing does. So much for your models. So now you're going to tell me they're not models... Please.
So now you're going to wriggle out of it. Or are you admitting you're not clear on it, either. Different models? Of the Big Bang? Please.
Look, I certainly don't agree that Planets last longer than Stars, and you're not right, because Systems, and the Observable Universe can be thought of as a System - Systems tend to expand evenly, it's one of those laws of Physics. But Galxies to the side might well approach us - I suggest the giant Andromeda Galaxy might be a good candidate. As for Speed in a certain direction, any real infra-red photograph of the CMBR will show one end darker than the other. It's called the Doppler Effect, actually. And 'things in a non-uniform Gravitational field...' are we talking about Sphagettification? That's another of Steven Hawkings ideas, isn't it?
I have to come back to this... Of course the CMBR is going to be warm. It's simply the heat of Compression. Of course the lighter isotopes are going to be on the outer edges of the Cosmos. Hydrogen abounds here. What's your problem? If you want heavier elements, go to the center - which has evolved fastest. Yes, Alpha Numeric, my Cosmos evolved slowly, over trillions of years. Yours, of course, arrived instantly. Ah well.....
It isn't 'my' model, its the model obtained from thousands, if not millions, of man-years of work by experimentalists and theorists iterating their work as new data and modelling techniques are developed in order to model as many cosmological phenomena as possible.
Where did I or anyone else say it was warming up?
The thermal profile of the CMB is one of the most tested and accurate parts of the big bang model.
Do you have any intellectual honesty at all? The balloon example is an analogy, its not perfect (analogies by their very nature never are). If you had any honesty or curiosity you'd have looked up the actual detailed models used by cosmologists and tried to understand them. Instead you dismiss it because you don't understand.
And the big bang model is a model because it models things. The FRW metric can be used to model Hubble expansion dynamics in red shifts. It can be used to model photon scattering in interstellar space due to vacuum fluctuations. It can be used to model galaxy formation due to seeding by inflation enlarged density perturbations. All of this are modelled and tested. You haven't provided anything even close to a model.
No, it isn't. Photons in a box don't 'compress' like a box full of air, they can be packed into arbitrarily high number densities, its one of the defining properties of bosons.
And if its so simple why don't you provide a working model of cosmological dynamics which correctly predicts its power spectrum. That diagram shows the excellent agreement prediction the predictions of the big bang model and the observed CMB. Can you provide a model which accurately leads to that?
Thanks for demonstrating you haven't even looked up what the evidence for the big bang is, despite being told about it many times. This just illustrates you're dishonest, you dismiss things without make any effort to find out about them. The isotope evidence for the BB isn't that light elements are 'on the outer edges', that doesn't even make sense in the context of the BB. The BB predicts the relative abundances of various light isotopes which are pretty much homogeneously distributed throughout the universe.
I actually care whether or not what I say is true. I care about honesty in science. I care about honesty in people. I'm sure from your point of view these are 'problems', as you clearly don't share said 'problems' with me.
And where is this 'center'? Provide a model, a quantitative model, of your own devising from which the distribution of elements in the universe can be obtained. Specifically I want a derivation of a function which provides relative abundances of elements as a function of distance from this center of which you speak. If you can't provide that at least have the decency to admit it.
I really wonder about some people's thought processes sometimes. You know you haven't looked up anything about the big bang or cosmology in general. You know I have. Yet you still attempt to misrepresent said cosmology, to make straw men on topics you're aware that the person you're talking to has, unlike yourself, opened a book or two on.
If you're going to misrepresent mainstream science at least don't be so thick as to try to lie about it to someone who does it for a living. The fact people like you and Reiku are daft enough to come to a physics forum you know has professional scientists on and to then try to BS about science doesn't really say very good things about you and your ilk.
Then why did you say you did?
Do you dispute that large stars have short lifetimes? Why?
What "law of physics" do you specifically have in mind?
Isn't the whole point of your idea that the apparent local expansion is because the larger Universe is falling into a giant black hole? Why should that would produce even expansion?
The Andromeda galaxy close enough that local gravity dominates over cosmological expansion.
Think it through - if everything is falling into a giant black hole, it's clear that we should see all distant galaxies at right angle to the direction of the giant black hole approaching us, right?
Not darker so much as redder. See [post=830008]this post from a few years ago.[/post]
In your idea, this suggests that the giant black hole is in the blue-shifted direction, right?
Spaghettification is the extreme case of the highly non-uniform field around a black hole.
The idea of tidal forces compressing and stretching is not novel - that's how the tides work. Low tide = compression, High tide = stretching.
Did you look at that link? Here it is again: Tidal force. Please feel free to ask questions about it. I don't pretend to know enough that I'll be able to answer anything, but there are others around who do.
We can learn together.
Last edited:
Wriggle out of what? That someone random Wikipedian posted up an ambiguous graph, from which you are drawing unsupported conclusions?
The graph is not at all clear. Why should admitting that be a problem?
Please? What are you asking for?
Do you have a problem with the idea of different models that can be tested against measurements to find out which one fits best?
Liar.
What ever made you imagine I was talking to you?
Don't you know there are a number of adjustable parameters of various big bang theories?
They mostly come at night..... mostly.
Astrocat doesn't even seem to have read the Wikipedia page on the big bang, or even have the understanding I'd expect of a 15 year old in high school. The notion there's various parameters in BB models is obviously beyond him.
Please, just go away.
- Status