Is eeryone happy with the Big Bang? I'm not.

[origin]

Hi, Origin. The Big Bang states that the Cosmos came out of a space less than an atom. Such an object would not, could not have exploded - it would have formed a Black Hole as predicted By GR. Um, you can't evolve much in 13 billion years. Let's say Sol accreted Earth about 5 billion years ago. That seems to agree with current estimates. Now let's say Earth goes on for another 5 billion years (before Sol eats it?). that gives Earth, a planet, a ten billion year life span. I actually think that's a very conservative estimate. Now, because of the red hot ball of iron that composes Earth's core, I suspect that that red hot ball of iron is part of the ejecta of a dead , exploded star. If the Cosmos is 13 billion years old, and Earth can persist for another five billion years giving it a 'ten billion year lifespan', and Earth is already Five billion years old, then that leaves only 8 billion years for the star (from which Earth came) to have compressed down from a hyge Hydrogen cloud, to the point where fusion occurred, then to have lived its complete lifespan right up to its final death - all in 8 billion years? And Earth lasts 10 billion years? Do you see anything wrong with this picture? Please respond.

No. The larger the star the, the hotter the star and the shorter it's life time. The picture looks just fine.

 

[Pete]

I just find it hard to believe, Pete. I'm never gonna believe Planets last longer than Stars, I guess it's just something in me.

That's not an awfully convincing argument, is it?
If you can't point to any rational reason for holding that belief, then why hold on to it? Why not consider the possibility that it's a mistaken belief?
Don't be Ferrous Cranus!

Are you saying, a Star can collect enough Hydrogen to go critical in the center, live its life, die and explode all in 8 billion years?

That's what good science says, astrocat. Based on good old gravity, some hard mathematics, and some careful observations. It is found that the larger a star is, the faster it forms, burns its fuel, and (if large enough) explodes. At the extreme end (eg a Type-O -> LBV -> Wolf Rayet star), it seems that the total life might be as little as a million years.
Seriously, look it up. Why just believe something when you can check the facts?

I just don't understand why you're so inflexible on this point.
Why do you so firmly believe that all stars must live longer than planets?

 

[Pete]

The Big Bang does not describe how the Universe started? It didn't come from a space of less than an atom? The Universe didn't happen suddenly, everywhere at once? The Big Bang evolved? Wow, are you absolutely sure mainstream Science is going to go for that?

Yes, that's what the mainstream Big Bang model says. Check it out on Wikipedia.

My understanding of the Big Bang model is that it does not describe how the Universe came to be.
It just says how the Universe used to be, around 13.7 billion years ago.

After stripping away the pop-sci crap and extrapolations I don't understand, my understanding of the Big Bang is this:

• About 13.7 billion years ago, the universe was an extremely hot (10^9 K) and high pressure cloud of mostly hydrogen with some helium.
• That cloud came from a hotter, denser cloud of more fundamental stuff that I don't understand.
• The ultimate origin of this primordial cloud is not described by the Big Bang model.
• There are various speculative models (Clicky linky!) that go further, but I don't pretend to be able to even describe them, except to say that some of them seem to propose ultimate origins, and some suggest earlier states that are themselves unexplained.

I strongly recommend that you spend some time reading about these things on your own, and asking questions about anything that seems wrong - you could learn much more that way. My amateur summary is not to be relied on.

Alpha, James, prometheus, Ben, Dywyddyr, anyone who know what they're talking about... what's your take on this amateur exposition?

 

[AlexG]

When arguing with Astrocat, we are dealing with a delusional crackpot. There's really no other term for it.

 

[Pete]

The Big Bang does not describe how the Universe started? It didn't come from a space of less than an atom? The Universe didn't happen suddenly, everywhere at once? The Big Bang evolved? Wow, are you absolutely sure mainstream Science is going to go for that?

Yes, that's what the mainstream Big Bang model says. Check it out on Wikipedia.

Even better, check out some mainstream Cosmology texts. There are a few recentish editions available on Google Books.
For example, Cosmological Physics, John Peacock, 1999:

In any case, it is incorrect to extend the classical solution to R=0 and conclude that the universe began in a singularity of infinite density.​

I particularly recommend that you read, or at least skim, this book chapter from Current Issues in Cosmology, 2006:
Cosmology, an overview of the standard model (pdf), Francis Bernardeau.
Extract from Introduction:

As will be discussed in the conclusions, the issue of the "birth" of the Universe is actually beyond the standard cosmological theory. What is left of this idea, however, is that the physical properties of the Universe have rapidly evolved over the course of the cosmological time, leading to a rapid decrease of both the density and the temperature of the Universe.​

Extract from Conclusions:

Finally there are questions that standard cosmology hardly addresses and for which there are certainly no clear answers. For instance standard cosmology does not claim that there actually existed a genuine Big Bang, i.e. a space-time singularity. For instance in "pre-big-bang" or ekpyrotic models there is no such global GR singularity. In essence cosmology is essentially the theory of a fluid expansion, it does not say much about the initial impetus that might be at its origin. Whether the Universe is finite or infinite is also a question which is mainly left unanswered. There might exist compact spatial directions at scale larger than the observable universe which we may never be able to detect. The global space-time structure of the Universe, at scale much beyond the observable universe is also unknowable.​

Note that you should check the context of these quotes in the source documents to be sure I'm not distorting their meaning, and also check them against other recent cosmology texts to be sure I'm accurately presenting the mainstream picture.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Predictions is the first word of your post, and yet you were entirely unable to predict the exponential ad infinitum expansion of the Observable Universe that you think we see tonite.

What are you talking about? The fact Einstein conceived of it decades before evidence validated it demonstrates it was predicted.

I, however, was well aware that the exponential - to a terminal speed - expansion of the Observable Universe would be discovered. I predicted it.

You haven't provided any working model and now you're claiming you had one more than 2 decades ago? Evidence please.

That's what's so good about a forward looking theory compared to a backward looking one. I will further predict that not just the expansion, but the Cooling Down also will eventually, maybe soon, be found to be increasing exponentially. I predict that we are going to be encountering greater and greater masses, as we go, and that there is going to be a revolution in cosmological circles.

Superficial wordy claims without derivation, reason or structure.

You seem to have failed to grasp at least two lengthy explanations of mine about what a model should entail so I'll try another approach, one I've been through before with a few cranks here who claim they have models but only have words and no maths.....

Suppose Einstein had died the day after he published general relativity in 1915. Would others have been able to develop it without him? Yes. In fact major results like black holes were done by other people. The reason others could (and did) develop it without having to always ask Einstein was because Einstein clearly laid out the assumptions, the methodologies and the basic implications of his work. This meant that given the same task two people would independently come to the same conclusions using GR. This is regularly seen in physics where 2 or more people will independently develop a result, the FRW metric was found by 3 people, hence the 3 letters signifying their names (sometimes a fourth is included). This illustrates the GR has a firm and unambiguous framework physicists can work within.

Now suppose you got hit by a truck tomorrow and died. Could anyone develop your work based solely on what you've provided in regards to what you consider your 'models'? No. The only way anyone can know if some conclusion they have is compatible with your 'models' is to ask you. You don't have a model you have a world view which you're claiming is a model. If you can't clearly define your model such that someone can work on it without having to ask you every 2 seconds if its right then you haven't provided enough to be considered 'good science'. I work in physics research and every Friday afternoon is devoted entirely to making meticulous notes of the week's work. This is important so that I can go back and find results I've previously done but more importantly other people in the company can too, should I be ill or no longer working there. If I come up with something I cannot formalise into a coherent explanation which allows others to continue my work then I haven't really done anything useful.

Let the future show who's right and who's wrong. You mock me because of my job? Well, mathematician, that's a two way street, as is everything else in life.

You're trying to mock me for being a mathematician. I've listed for you both the physics based stuff I did in university and the physics based stuff I do now. Since you have trouble remembering things people have said to you let's recap :

University courses with a physics tint I took : Classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, special relativity, general relativity I and II, quantum theory, quantum field theory I and II, the Standard Model, black holes, string theory, supersymmetry, statistical physics, statistical field theory, application of quantum mechanics, electrodynamics.

University courses with a physics tint I taught : Relativity and motion, quantum mechanics.

Physics areas I've covered in my present job : Fluid mechanics, machine learning, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics.

My job title includes the word 'mathematician' but my job is applying mathematical methods to physics problems. Anyone familiar with any kind of large or wealthy industry like the energy sector, aeronautics, defence, logistics, finance etc will know how much a good grasp of mathematics can help things along. For instance our understanding of the Navier-Stokes equations, which govern fluid motion, means we don't have to build expensive prototypes to test aircraft or rocket designs, we can simulate them in a computer. We can use thermodynamics to help design more efficient engines. We can use quantum mechanics to design faster and smaller microchips or new, unbreakable, encryption and data security methods.

I saw a nice example of how mathematics can be a huge benefit on a TV program a few months ago. It was about the initial development of mobile phone networks here in the UK. A few companies were racing to build a viable network of cell towers and to grab what was going to be a huge market in years to come. Here in the UK we have British Telecom, a now private company which used to be state owned and which basically had a monopoly on the ground infrastructure and enough money to kill an elephant at 30 yards. They owned loads of patches of land all over the UK already and put cell towers on many of them. Another company, which went by the name of Racal, had no land initially and only had experience building radios for the military and couldn't just throw money at the problem. Instead they developed a sophisticated model of how cell tower signals would interact with buildings, hills, trees, lakes, all that kind of stuff. Using that model they worked out the optimal places to put their cell towers, vastly reducing the number needed and improving overall signal quality. Due to less construction being needed they went online before BT did and indeed had superior coverage and quality.

I imagine you're thinking "Racal? Who the hell are they?". They are now known as Vodafone, the largest mobile phone company in the world, with a turn over of more than $50 billion last year. BT, despite having a practical monopoly on telecommunications, doesn't have any mobile phone infrastructure now. That illustrates the power and utility of having a mathematical formalism when considering physical problems. And while telecommunications isn't the sort of thing I've worked that's the sort of formulation of mathematical descriptions my job entails. If you think that quantitative predictions and rigorous formalisation of problems isn't an essential part of physics then you're simply wrong. But then you're simply wrong on a lot of things.

And please don't talk to me about predictions anymore.

If you don't want to talk about predictions then you don't want to talk about science.

That said, your posts take me a long time to read

I'm aware that I often make very lengthy posts (not just in this thread but in general) but that's because I feel it important to explain things properly.

as insulting, knowledgable as well as ... I won't say it.

I can be warm and cuddly if I think the person I'm talking to is being honest and capable of heeding advice or correction. I don't see much of that in you and I don't think I should sugar coat it. When I start calling people stupid or dishonest its because a number of back and forth posts have been made and based on that evidence I view said persons as stupid or dishonest. Typically I might restrict this to them being stupid on the topic at hand only but when more posts go by and general attitudes become clear then I might upgrade that to them being stupid in general.

In your case you've demonstrated you haven't looked up anything relevant to the big bang, even Wikipedia pages and that, despite zero personal experience, you are willing to make proclaimations as to the nature of 'good/poor science' and the methods used by physicists and mathematicians. This demonstrates you're not only ignorant on the topic of physics and maths but you're generally a dishonest person. An honest person can be ignorant on a subject but they admit as much. I'm ignorant of a great many things because I haven't the time or the inclination to find out about them but because of that I won't make strong assertions or develop strong opinions on them, as I know I lack the necessary understanding to reach an informed conclusion. I have yet to see you display such an attitude.

Oh, and despite you saying you'd answer any questions and me asking you again the following questions you just ignored them (despite quoting them) :

You said you'd answer any question so answer that one, answer why you think you're in any position to know what expansion does or what poor science is or isn't, given your zero experience, knowledge and understanding of anything relevant, model or observation.

If you're not going to respond to questions don't say you will, quote them and then ignore them. In fact don't bother quoting any part of my posts if you're not going to respond to them. Notice how I break up quotes of your posts and respond to the specific points? Try it.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

"Is everyone happy with the Big Bang?"


No! He still owes me £500.00 that Swind'ling piece of historical past event.


peace.

 

[astrocat]

I have repeatedly asked you to explain why you think you know what is or isn't 'poor science'. Why do you think you know what is or isn't science when you don't even have a high school level understanding of it?

So you admit that repulsive forces are not inherently 'poor science'. So now the issue is why this particular repulsive force is, according to you, 'poor science'. EM repulsion is okay from your PoV because it is 'real'. So what are you defining to be 'real'? Something we can measure, observe and test? We can do that with dark energy, we can observe and measure its effects.

And your choice of phrase, 'made up', illustrates you don't understand how science is done or how hypotheses play a part in it. Einstein developed a model of things we already knew about, gravitational behaviours of the solar system. Armed with that new model he worked out implications such a model would have and used them to make predictions. That is how science works, you say "I have a working model of this system which I know is accurate and I think it also applies to that system. If it does then we should see it do X, Y and Z.". Such a prediction is then tested and the model evaluated. Einstein made predictions about orbital precession, time dilation, photon red shifting and the nature of the time development of the universe as a whole. That is good science because he made predictions, something your 'work' is incapable of doing. He didn't just make up "Hey, how about a cosmic repulsive force!" one day, it was part and parcel of the model he'd developed to explain other phenomena. Its a sign of a good model when you develop it to explain 1 thing and it then turns out to explain 10 things.

Dirac developed quantum field theory to explain things like the Lamb shift and in doing so he found the solutions always came in pairs, implying the electron must have a partner of opposite charge. He had predicted the positron, years before its discovery.

If you can't see the difference between just making something random up (which is how you come to your 'theories') and applying a pre-existing and verified model to new domains then you have a fundamental gap in your understanding of science.

I gave you little more than the quickest of summaries of a particular point of it. You should have already known everything I said if you'd been honest and bothered to do some reading before making your mind up. I shouldn't be having to walk you through basic concepts or correcting such simple misconceptions you have, you should have done some reading yourself.

Why is it dense? We have a quantitative model which makes numerous predictions about a wide range of phenomena which have been tested and validated. That is the very essence of science, following the scientific method.

I see you're either still just trolling or you've not bothered to read things said to you. Newton, the original developer of 'universal gravitation', was a mathematician by profession. In fact I went to the same college and did the same degree as him. Dirac was a mathematician (he went to the college next door). Stokes was a mathematician (same college as Newton). Maxwell was a mathematician (same college again!). Hawking is a mathematician (held the same professorship chair as Newton did). Penrose is a mathematician. Witten got a Fields medal. The governing action of GR is the Einstein-Hilbert action and Hilbert is considered to be one of, if not the best mathematicians ever. Your naive black and white "Mathematicians don't know about the real world" view point is either you trolling or a sign of just how thick and out of touch from actual science you are. Even a short time on Google searching for information on famous people who've contributed to physics will bring up a lot of mathematicians.

So because Lemaitre might not have been a good physicist then no mathematician is?

Because he developed GR alongside other people, such as Hilbert. He didn't just turn up one day and say "I've got this thing called general relativity and it predicts....", he developed it over the course of years, all the time talking and working with other physicists. That's the whole 'research community' thing, people develop ideas by discussing them with others and Einstein's wife wasn't always at his side.

If you want to seriously put forth the claim that Einstein didn't understand his own work and it was due to his wife you're going to have to provide some evidence. Otherwise it looks like you're use clutching at straws.

This is (at least) the third time I've pointed out your analogy is wrong. If you continue to simply ignore things people say and just repeat things you've been corrected on then I'll start reporting your posts because it is little more than trolling.

I can't help but feel you're projecting somewhat. You struggle to understand it and so you assume everyone else is the same and thus they must just be accepting it on blind faith. I hate to break it to you but some of us actually have a working understanding of this stuff and this don't need to take someone else's word for it. I know how to compute the effect such a thing would have on the CMB and its power spectrum or the emission lines of supernova. I know how to construct the FRW metric from the field equations and not just parroting, actually understanding it.

I told you before, I'm not a cosmologist. I know from your point of view its impossible to tell the difference between someone who is a professor of cosmology and someone who did a cosmology course in university but my academic career was not related to cosmology, I worked on the general relativistic/quantum field theoretic description of the compact dimensions in string theory. Such things can be used to model inflation in the big bang model but I only spent a month or two doing that in my first year. If the big bang were kicked over tomorrow it'd have absolutely no bearing on my research. Now my research is outside of academia and not related to cosmology at all. Thus your insinuation I'm defending the BB because I have work invested in it is false. I did say all of this to you before but you obviously didn't remember. Pay attention a little more.

Yes, but when you factor in the plethora of experimental observations pertaining to the universe's state 10+ billion years ago there's very little room to avoid such qualitative things like "The universe was small and hot a while back". If someone could provide an alternative model which successfully explains said observation I'd be interested to see it but as yet there isn't one.

But if you make an answer too succinct as to be wrong then you've made a mistake.

Again, how do you know what mathematicians are or aren't aware of? You don't know what part mathematics plays in science and you don't know the utility of mathematics in physics. Would you like me to list a few famous mathematicians who made huge contributions to physics again or are you capable of scrolling up? I wouldn't want to overtax your brain.....

You keep whining about how mathematicians aren't aware of things yet you've demonstrated you aren't aware things in physics expected of a 16 year old. Trying to insult someone like me for supposedly not knowing about physics methodologies is so laughably hypocritical I really hope you're just trolling because otherwise it means you're very very thick not to notice it.

After all, you're getting schooled in basic physics by me, someone whose job description is literally 'mathematician'. If mathematicians are so clueless when it comes to physics what does that say about you?

From your general attitude you appear to think you don't need honesty and understanding either. I guess those just get in the way of self delusions.

You haven't looked at the evidence, you haven't tried to find anything out about it, you haven't got any understanding of it, you haven't got any wish to even try to understand it and you haven't got a single iota of intellectual honesty. You've decided you're 'not totally convinced' without finding out anything about. How honest is that?

I have, repeatedly. The problem is you won't look. If you were really interested you'd have done by any 6 year old would do and type something like "Evidence for the big bang" into Google. Even kids know to do that when they want to find something out. You thought a picture from Wikipedia was PhD level in complexity so even if I were to try to explain the specifics to you you obviously lack the basic understanding of physics to understand it. I'd say you also lack the basic brain capacity too. Perhaps you think so too and that's why you've made no attempt to find any information for yourself, you don't want to face up to the fact you're simply too thick. That'd explain why you keep saying "Things should be simpler! That's too complex!!", you don't want to face up to the fact there's something about the world you can't grasp.

No, you assert you have an explanation but you don't. You keep using the word 'model' but you can't model anything. I guess you didn't understand even my high school level explanation.

I've answered this. I explained why your 'models' aren't models because they don't model anything. You quoted the post so either you're exceedingly thick or exceedingly dishonest. Probably both.

If you're unable or unwilling to listen when someone who understands something you don't corrected you on it (in regards to this 'raisin cake' label) then simply stop talking about it, else you're just trolling. I've given you plenty of lengthy explanations about your mistakes but you keep ignoring them and then repeating the same mistakes or asking the same inane questions. The post of yours I'm replying to is an example, you went back and replied to a post from further back in the thread, ignoring the newest reply I'd posted. Why? I imagine it was something to do with avoiding answering questions I ask you or facing up to mistakes I correct.

If your 'model' is so great and your grasp of physics so brilliant surely answering direct questions isn't too hard? Can't you manage an honest discussion with a mathematician? Is your grasp of physics so poor?


It isn't a model, it doesn't model anything. If you claim otherwise then please reply to this DIRECT question, which I previously asked and you ignored :

Name one phenomenon on the real world which you have developed a working quantitative model for. Show how you derived such a model, clearly stating your starting assumptions. Using the results you derive make precise, testable, predictions about said phenomenon and compare them to the current mainstream model's predictions and experimental results.

If you won't reply to that direct question then I won't discuss your 'models'. Answering basic things like that is a necessary part of 'good science'. Being unwilling to answer them is a sign of 'poor science'. If you want to discuss your ideas then you've got to be willing to answer questions other people ask, not just spout set pieces.

Going around making up Repulsive Forces is poor science and nothing you can say or do is going to change my mind on that. There are repulsive forces in elecctro-magneticism, but these forces were not dreamed up by anyone - they are real. That's that. Dark Energy, you finally mention it. It's my contention that when you push something, and keep pushing, you're going to get compression and compaction. These are both warming effects. However, when you pull something there is always a danger you're going to pull it apart, the thing you're pulling might expand and lose pressure - all cooling effects. I'm not impressed with your Dark Energy (manufactured in 1998) that has suddenly got the expansion speeding up, I think there are only two kinds of expansion - the kind that starts fast and slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and speeds up. But you have this hill with the universe going up one side and coming down the other... Please! The kind that starts fast and slows down is your Outward Expansion - your big Bang, your explosion. Your theory was totally unable to predict that the expansion of the observable Universe was of the second kind (mine was) the kind that starts slowly and Speeds Up. That second kind, that's an inward expansion, easily demonstrated by a working central Vac in the center of a room. Another example? A snowball rolling down a snowy hill. Everytime you breathe in, you speed the air up as it enters you, and it loses pressure and expands - inwardly. Your lungs, of course, mimic a black hole, where the air slows and stops, warms up and compresses and compacts. I just can't believe as you do that the Universe arrived in an instant, as it says in the page called Big Bang in Wiki - 3rd paragraph, line 6. You can tell they're more than a little embarrassed by this instant Universe thing - and who can blame them. You and the Village witch doctor in darkest Africa both believe the same thing. And you think that's fine. Well me and that witch doctor are 180 degrees apart.

 

[astrocat]

That's not an awfully convincing argument, is it?
If you can't point to any rational reason for holding that belief, then why hold on to it? Why not consider the possibility that it's a mistaken belief?
Don't be Ferrous Cranus!


That's what good science says, astrocat. Based on good old gravity, some hard mathematics, and some careful observations. It is found that the larger a star is, the faster it forms, burns its fuel, and (if large enough) explodes. At the extreme end (eg a Type-O -> LBV -> Wolf Rayet star), it seems that the total life might be as little as a million years.
Seriously, look it up. Why just believe something when you can check the facts?

I just don't understand why you're so inflexible on this point.
Why do you so firmly believe that all stars must live longer than planets?

I believe some of the youngest stars are between 20 and 40 billion years old. I don't know how long planets last, but I don't think it's as long as a star. Your facts have been altered to agree with the Big Bang. Sure, if there was a Big Bang, you would have to have stars being born, dying and exploding within a billion years. That sounds about right, for that theory. In my theory things don't happen that fast, it took trillions of years for the Cosmos to form to the way it is tonite. Evolution is a long, drawn out thing, in Cosmology. You see, I don't believe there ever was a Big Bang, I think it was dreamed up. I don't believe in Dark Energy either - even if the math checks out. The math for the Big Bang (remember) was totally unable to predict that the expansion was speeding up. I knew it from years before, and it was confirmation, to me. I didn't follow your lines but I will. I only know I won't like what I read there about these short-lived stars.

 

[astrocat]

No. The larger the star the, the hotter the star and the shorter it's life time. The picture looks just fine.

Well, I just don't accept that. It takes far longer than 8 billion years for a star to live and die. You have been misinformed.

 

[astrocat]

Yes, that's what the mainstream Big Bang model says. Check it out on Wikipedia.

My understanding of the Big Bang model is that it does not describe how the Universe came to be.
It just says how the Universe used to be, around 13.7 billion years ago.

After stripping away the pop-sci crap and extrapolations I don't understand, my understanding of the Big Bang is this:

• About 13.7 billion years ago, the universe was an extremely hot (10^9 K) and high pressure cloud of mostly hydrogen with some helium.
• That cloud came from a hotter, denser cloud of more fundamental stuff that I don't understand.
• The ultimate origin of this primordial cloud is not described by the Big Bang model.
• There are various speculative models (Clicky linky!) that go further, but I don't pretend to be able to even describe them, except to say that some of them seem to propose ultimate origins, and some suggest earlier states that are themselves unexplained.

I strongly recommend that you spend some time reading about these things on your own, and asking questions about anything that seems wrong - you could learn much more that way. My amateur summary is not to be relied on.

Alpha, James, prometheus, Ben, Dywyddyr, anyone who know what they're talking about... what's your take on this amateur exposition?

It saright there, in paragraph 3, line 6 that the Universe had an instant start. How can we be arguing while looking at the same information? But it does describe how the Universe came to be - "instantly." Something is wrong here.
You reccommend I read these things, butwhy don't you, Pete? If the Original Cloud was Hydrogen, then it would have compressed down, and there would have been heat, especially at the center - less and less moving outwards, outwards to the very edges? Well, in 1964 they found out that the temperature at the edges (the CMBR) was at around 3 Kelvin degrees. There are all kinds of complicated reasons for why this Warm Smooth Soup (of the early universe) exists, but my reason, of course, is Gravity. Where did that original hydrogen come from? I suspect the spirit world...

 

[astrocat]

That's not an awfully convincing argument, is it?
If you can't point to any rational reason for holding that belief, then why hold on to it? Why not consider the possibility that it's a mistaken belief?
Don't be Ferrous Cranus!


That's what good science says, astrocat. Based on good old gravity, some hard mathematics, and some careful observations. It is found that the larger a star is, the faster it forms, burns its fuel, and (if large enough) explodes. At the extreme end (eg a Type-O -> LBV -> Wolf Rayet star), it seems that the total life might be as little as a million years.
Seriously, look it up. Why just believe something when you can check the facts?

I just don't understand why you're so inflexible on this point.
Why do you so firmly believe that all stars must live longer than planets?

I folowed your link to WR stars, but nowhere did I read they only last a bilion years. Mabe I missed it. Please direct me. And now I see that you didn't say billion but million. Wow, that's a shocker. Can you help me find that?

 

[astrocat]

Even better, check out some mainstream Cosmology texts. There are a few recentish editions available on Google Books.
For example, Cosmological Physics, John Peacock, 1999:

In any case, it is incorrect to extend the classical solution to R=0 and conclude that the universe began in a singularity of infinite density.​

I particularly recommend that you read, or at least skim, this book chapter from Current Issues in Cosmology, 2006:
Cosmology, an overview of the standard model (pdf), Francis Bernardeau.
Extract from Introduction:

As will be discussed in the conclusions, the issue of the "birth" of the Universe is actually beyond the standard cosmological theory. What is left of this idea, however, is that the physical properties of the Universe have rapidly evolved over the course of the cosmological time, leading to a rapid decrease of both the density and the temperature of the Universe.​

Extract from Conclusions:

Finally there are questions that standard cosmology hardly addresses and for which there are certainly no clear answers. For instance standard cosmology does not claim that there actually existed a genuine Big Bang, i.e. a space-time singularity. For instance in "pre-big-bang" or ekpyrotic models there is no such global GR singularity. In essence cosmology is essentially the theory of a fluid expansion, it does not say much about the initial impetus that might be at its origin. Whether the Universe is finite or infinite is also a question which is mainly left unanswered. There might exist compact spatial directions at scale larger than the observable universe which we may never be able to detect. The global space-time structure of the Universe, at scale much beyond the observable universe is also unknowable.​

Note that you should check the context of these quotes in the source documents to be sure I'm not distorting their meaning, and also check them against other recent cosmology texts to be sure I'm accurately presenting the mainstream picture.

I went to your links, all about different opinions on the Big Bang. I like te last sentence of the last thing you have there, 'The standard Space-time of the Universe, much beyond the Observable Universe, is not knowable. Something like that. There is just too much structure in the Observable Universe for the Cosmological Principal to apply. Neither is the Observable Universe homogeneous, and isotropic. Observations have put the Cosmological Principal to bed. There is so much wrong with this Big Bang model amazed intelligent people don't question it.

 

[astrocat]

What are you talking about? The fact Einstein conceived of it decades before evidence validated it demonstrates it was predicted.

You haven't provided any working model and now you're claiming you had one more than 2 decades ago? Evidence please.

Superficial wordy claims without derivation, reason or structure.

You seem to have failed to grasp at least two lengthy explanations of mine about what a model should entail so I'll try another approach, one I've been through before with a few cranks here who claim they have models but only have words and no maths.....

Suppose Einstein had died the day after he published general relativity in 1915. Would others have been able to develop it without him? Yes. In fact major results like black holes were done by other people. The reason others could (and did) develop it without having to always ask Einstein was because Einstein clearly laid out the assumptions, the methodologies and the basic implications of his work. This meant that given the same task two people would independently come to the same conclusions using GR. This is regularly seen in physics where 2 or more people will independently develop a result, the FRW metric was found by 3 people, hence the 3 letters signifying their names (sometimes a fourth is included). This illustrates the GR has a firm and unambiguous framework physicists can work within.

Now suppose you got hit by a truck tomorrow and died. Could anyone develop your work based solely on what you've provided in regards to what you consider your 'models'? No. The only way anyone can know if some conclusion they have is compatible with your 'models' is to ask you. You don't have a model you have a world view which you're claiming is a model. If you can't clearly define your model such that someone can work on it without having to ask you every 2 seconds if its right then you haven't provided enough to be considered 'good science'. I work in physics research and every Friday afternoon is devoted entirely to making meticulous notes of the week's work. This is important so that I can go back and find results I've previously done but more importantly other people in the company can too, should I be ill or no longer working there. If I come up with something I cannot formalise into a coherent explanation which allows others to continue my work then I haven't really done anything useful.

You're trying to mock me for being a mathematician. I've listed for you both the physics based stuff I did in university and the physics based stuff I do now. Since you have trouble remembering things people have said to you let's recap :

University courses with a physics tint I took : Classical dynamics, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, electromagnetism, special relativity, general relativity I and II, quantum theory, quantum field theory I and II, the Standard Model, black holes, string theory, supersymmetry, statistical physics, statistical field theory, application of quantum mechanics, electrodynamics.

University courses with a physics tint I taught : Relativity and motion, quantum mechanics.

Physics areas I've covered in my present job : Fluid mechanics, machine learning, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics.

My job title includes the word 'mathematician' but my job is applying mathematical methods to physics problems. Anyone familiar with any kind of large or wealthy industry like the energy sector, aeronautics, defence, logistics, finance etc will know how much a good grasp of mathematics can help things along. For instance our understanding of the Navier-Stokes equations, which govern fluid motion, means we don't have to build expensive prototypes to test aircraft or rocket designs, we can simulate them in a computer. We can use thermodynamics to help design more efficient engines. We can use quantum mechanics to design faster and smaller microchips or new, unbreakable, encryption and data security methods.

I saw a nice example of how mathematics can be a huge benefit on a TV program a few months ago. It was about the initial development of mobile phone networks here in the UK. A few companies were racing to build a viable network of cell towers and to grab what was going to be a huge market in years to come. Here in the UK we have British Telecom, a now private company which used to be state owned and which basically had a monopoly on the ground infrastructure and enough money to kill an elephant at 30 yards. They owned loads of patches of land all over the UK already and put cell towers on many of them. Another company, which went by the name of Racal, had no land initially and only had experience building radios for the military and couldn't just throw money at the problem. Instead they developed a sophisticated model of how cell tower signals would interact with buildings, hills, trees, lakes, all that kind of stuff. Using that model they worked out the optimal places to put their cell towers, vastly reducing the number needed and improving overall signal quality. Due to less construction being needed they went online before BT did and indeed had superior coverage and quality.

I imagine you're thinking "Racal? Who the hell are they?". They are now known as Vodafone, the largest mobile phone company in the world, with a turn over of more than $50 billion last year. BT, despite having a practical monopoly on telecommunications, doesn't have any mobile phone infrastructure now. That illustrates the power and utility of having a mathematical formalism when considering physical problems. And while telecommunications isn't the sort of thing I've worked that's the sort of formulation of mathematical descriptions my job entails. If you think that quantitative predictions and rigorous formalisation of problems isn't an essential part of physics then you're simply wrong. But then you're simply wrong on a lot of things.

If you don't want to talk about predictions then you don't want to talk about science.

I'm aware that I often make very lengthy posts (not just in this thread but in general) but that's because I feel it important to explain things properly.

I can be warm and cuddly if I think the person I'm talking to is being honest and capable of heeding advice or correction. I don't see much of that in you and I don't think I should sugar coat it. When I start calling people stupid or dishonest its because a number of back and forth posts have been made and based on that evidence I view said persons as stupid or dishonest. Typically I might restrict this to them being stupid on the topic at hand only but when more posts go by and general attitudes become clear then I might upgrade that to them being stupid in general.

In your case you've demonstrated you haven't looked up anything relevant to the big bang, even Wikipedia pages and that, despite zero personal experience, you are willing to make proclaimations as to the nature of 'good/poor science' and the methods used by physicists and mathematicians. This demonstrates you're not only ignorant on the topic of physics and maths but you're generally a dishonest person. An honest person can be ignorant on a subject but they admit as much. I'm ignorant of a great many things because I haven't the time or the inclination to find out about them but because of that I won't make strong assertions or develop strong opinions on them, as I know I lack the necessary understanding to reach an informed conclusion. I have yet to see you display such an attitude.

Oh, and despite you saying you'd answer any questions and me asking you again the following questions you just ignored them (despite quoting them) :

You said you'd answer any question so answer that one, answer why you think you're in any position to know what expansion does or what poor science is or isn't, given your zero experience, knowledge and understanding of anything relevant, model or observation.

If you're not going to respond to questions don't say you will, quote them and then ignore them. In fact don't bother quoting any part of my posts if you're not going to respond to them. Notice how I break up quotes of your posts and respond to the specific points? Try it.

Einstein predicted that the speeding up of the expansion of the Universe would start in 1998?
I don't think so. I think, when the expansion of the Observable Universe was found to be speeding up, Modern Scientists were completely caught off balance. There was simply no way for them to envisage this fact - it came as a total surprise. It had not been predicted - not on any scale, except by me and other knowledgable people. Your models are mathematical, of doubtful origin and they fly in the face of Gravity. My models are real world models, that demonstrate what is happening to the Observable Universe and why. You're a mathematician so my models are no good. I'm a a real world person and I much prefer my models over yours. I don't break up your quotes because they are already pretty broken up from you repling to me. Thanks tho' for your pages on Newton and GR. I copied them down. It'll take a while. Your FRW metric leaves a lot to be desired - in my opinion. And no, I haven't taken a single phenomenon and quatitatively studied it. I know what I know, I can learn, to me that's enough. And I know all about Vodaphone from their ads. You certainly know a lot, and it surprises me that you can't see past your Big Bang.

 

[astrocat]

"Is everyone happy with the Big Bang?"


No! He still owes me £500.00 that Swind'ling piece of historical past event.


peace.

I'm just glad you got a sense of humour.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Going around making up Repulsive Forces is poor science and nothing you can say or do is going to change my mind on that.

If you're having to resort to making up your own definitions of 'science' then its a sign you've got no real argument. You call it 'poor science' because you don't understand it, that way you can convince yourself its okay you don't understand it, its not worth understanding.

There are repulsive forces in elecctro-magneticism, but these forces were not dreamed up by anyone - they are real.

What's your definition of 'real' here? If it's "A measurable, observable phenomenon" then the speeding up of the expansion of the universe is 'real'.

That's that.

Simply asserting something doesn't make it true.

It's my contention that when you push something, and keep pushing, you're going to get compression and compaction. These are both warming effects. However, when you pull something there is always a danger you're going to pull it apart, the thing you're pulling might expand and lose pressure - all cooling effects.

You're assuming everything in the universe follows a few things in the everyday world you experience. Its naive and its arrogant, as it assumes somehow you experience enough in your little corner of this planet to understand everything else.

A simple example of something which expands when you cool it is water. Water's maximum density is at 4C. When you cool it further and it freezes it expands.

I'm not impressed with your Dark Energy

You don't know anything about it. You haven't looked up any information, you haven't tried to find any information, you haven't got any experience with the relevant areas of physics, you haven't got any understanding of the models and you don't know any experimental data.

Why do you think you're in any position to evaluate such models?

I think there are only two kinds of expansion - the kind that starts fast and slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and speeds up.

And Einstein thought there were only 2 forces in nature, doesn't make it so.

Your theory was totally unable to predict that the expansion of the observable Universe was of the second kind (mine was) the kind that starts slowly and Speeds Up.

The big bang cosmological model based around the FRW metric can model such things. I'd be able to explain the specifics of it to you if you had the mathematical capabilities of a 1st year undergrad but you don't so once again we're left with you having insufficient knowledge to properly evaluate things.

That second kind, that's an inward expansion, easily demonstrated by a working central Vac in the center of a room. Another example? A snowball rolling down a snowy hill. Everytime you breathe in, you speed the air up as it enters you, and it loses pressure and expands - inwardly.

Its funny how cranks so often make the mistakes they accuse others of making. You're trying to phrase things outside of your experience in terms of things which you've experienced. That might be fine for simple things relating to our everyday lives but its extremely bad guidance when it comes to the more unfamiliar phenomena of the universe. By trying to phrase things in terms of everyday processes you close your mind to the possibilities which aren't analogous to something in everyday life. That is poor science.

Your lungs, of course, mimic a black hole, where the air slows and stops, warms up and compresses and compacts.

No, they don't. Air doesn't get 'sucked' into your lungs, it gets pushed into them by atmospheric pressure. When you make your chest expand the pressure in your lungs drops and thus the atmospheric pressure is higher than it and pushes itself into your lungs until the pressure is equal. A black hole 'sucks', in the sense that it pulls in objects rather than the objects forcing themselves towards it.

And another thing about black holes and temperature is that the more energy you put into them the colder they get.

I just can't believe as you do that the Universe arrived in an instant, as it says in the page called Big Bang in Wiki - 3rd paragraph, line 6.

The evidence points to the universe once being very hot and very small. If you wind the clock back from now we understand the dynamics of things until about a trillionth of a second into the existence of the universe as we now see it. These models have made testable predictions and those predictions have been verified. What was going at the instant in question is still unknown and the universe may well not have been a singular point but something else. There's plenty of speculation about what happened precisely at that instant but its just speculation. Once you wind the clock forward to 0.000000000001 seconds after that then the dynamics are understandable in terms of current physics.

You and the Village witch doctor in darkest Africa both believe the same thing. And you think that's fine. Well me and that witch doctor are 180 degrees apart.

Except the witch doctor doesn't make quantitative testable predictions which then stand up to scrutiny, the BB model does. Instead the witch doctor will make proclamations about the nature of the universe, even when he knows nothing about it. Sorta like what you're doing.

Einstein predicted that the speeding up of the expansion of the Universe would start in 1998?

You've once again demonstrated you don't know what any science actually says on this. When physicists say "The expansion has just started speeding up" they didn't mean literally right now but rather its very close to the cross over point and its happened some time in the last few hundred million years (or will happen in the next few hundred million years). No one has said "The universe's expansion started speeding up on July 17th 1998" or the like. It was realised the expansion rate isn't constant in the 90s because technology got to the point where a detailed analysis of supernovae could be done. Before that we didn't have the right equipment to examine the universe properly.

Yet again you've shown you haven't got any clue about what science is saying. When are you going to realise you're simply too ill informed to be making such proclamations?

I don't think so. I think, when the expansion of the Observable Universe was found to be speeding up, Modern Scientists were completely caught off balance.

Yes, it was a surprise but that's when it was realised the reasoning Einstein had made was actually a lot more viable than originally thought.

It had not been predicted - not on any scale, except by me and other knowledgable people.

Firstly I'd like to see some evidence you predicted it pre-1998. Secondly I'd like to see you provide a working model which makes quantitative predictions about the dynamics of the red shifts used to determine the expansion rate increase. Thirdly your phrasing implies you think you're a knowledgeable person. You've just demonstrated you aren't, as you don't even know what is being said
by physicists!

Your models are mathematical, of doubtful origin and they fly in the face of Gravity. My models are real world models, that demonstrate what is happening to the Observable Universe and why.

What is your definition of 'real world model'? If its one which allows for an accurate description of the phenomena, which allows us to understand dynamics and which can be tested then your work isn't a real world model, as it doesn't model anything. Furthermore the BB model is a 'real world model' as it describes the real world.

You're a mathematician so my models are no good.

Your models can't model anything so they aren't models. They are superficial explanations you've given yourself for things you know nothing about.

I'm a a real world person and I much prefer my models over yours.

Provide one working, testable, accurate model of yours for a single phenomenon in the universe, as you've yet to provide any.

The models of mainstream physics are written in the language of mathematics but they are applied to the real world by associating physical quantities to the mathematical objects. When engineers want to know how much force a bridge must withstand from traffic or the lift an aeroplane wing will produce they work it out using mathematical models of those physical systems. The use of maths in physics is to turn superficial descriptions into concrete models which can then be applied to the real world accurately. Your notion there's this dividing line between "mathematicians using mathematics" and "physicists not using mathematics" is simply wrong. Open any textbook on any kind of engineering or physics and you'll find it filled with mathematics because its how you make sure your descriptions are accurate. Could you put a man on the Moon without using any mathematics? Not a chance, because you need to know things like how much thrust a rocket design can produce, how much aerodynamical friction is involved, the amount of fuel required, the trajectory the rocket moves along under the gravitational effects of the Earth and Moon. Without having precise models of these things you can't put a man on the Moon and the same applies to all areas of physics and engineering.

Your FRW metric leaves a lot to be desired - in my opinion.

Come on, you must be trolling. You didn't understand a picture from Wikipedia, saying it'd need a PhD in maths to understand, and now you're able to evaluate the worth of a specific solution to the Einstein field equations in general relativity?

Either you're a troll or staggeringly deluded about your ability and utterly ignorant of just how little you understand.

And no, I haven't taken a single phenomenon and quatitatively studied it.

Then you have nothing on which to base your claims.

And I know all about Vodaphone from their ads.

Now you must be trolling. No one with even the slightest grasp of reality would be moronic enough to think watching adverts for Vodafone means they know 'all about' the company, its origins and the mathematical models of electromagnetic interactions developed by it decades ago. You must be a troll because the alternative makes me despair for humanity.

You certainly know a lot, and it surprises me that you can't see past your Big Bang.

It surprises me you can't even manage to use Google. 5 year olds can do better reading around than you.

/edit

And since you seem to have an issue with answering my questions, despite saying you'd answer them, I'll highlight ones I specifically want you to answer in red from now on. That way you have no excuse.

 

[Pete]

It saright there, in paragraph 3, line 6 that the Universe had an instant start. How can we be arguing while looking at the same information? But it does describe how the Universe came to be - "instantly." Something is wrong here.

Quoting paragraph three (which is not the paragraph I linked, by the way, but an broad introductory section):

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.​

Are you really reading what I'm reading?
I thought that perhaps someone edited that section since you looked at it, but I see from the history that it's been that way at least since September.

Where did that original hydrogen come from? I suspect the spirit world...

So it arrived, *poof*, just like that?

I believe some of the youngest stars are between 20 and 40 billion years old.

Why?

Your facts have been altered to agree with the Big Bang.

Why do you think that?
When confronted with facts that conflict with their ideas, a True Scientist will check those facts, and discard the idea if the facts check out.
Ferrous Cranus, on the other hand, will simply dismiss those facts because he just knows he's right, so any evidence to the contrary must be contrived.

I folowed your link to WR stars, but nowhere did I read they only last a bilion years. Mabe I missed it. Please direct me. And now I see that you didn't say billion but million. Wow, that's a shocker. Can you help me find that?

Sure I can help you find it, but doing your research for you is getting a little tedious. Maybe you jsut didn't read far enough. You have the Internet at your fingertips - why not use it? Or perhaps you could visit a library?

And yes, I said a million years. Quoting from the link: Bok estimated their age to lie between 10^5 and 10^6 years.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you to find out how that age is estimated (it's got nothing to do with the Big Bang), and how long a Wolf Rayet star lasts before exploding.

I went to your links, all about different opinions on the Big Bang. I like te last sentence of the last thing you have there, 'The standard Space-time of the Universe, much beyond the Observable Universe, is not knowable. Something like that.

Those links are mainstream texts about cosmology. They're not just opinion, they're the accepted best knowledge, and they say exactly what you questioned me about, remember:

The Big Bang does not describe how the Universe started? It didn't come from a space of less than an atom? The Universe didn't happen suddenly, everywhere at once? The Big Bang evolved? Wow, are you absolutely sure mainstream Science is going to go for that?

So, yes. As demonstrated, mainstream Science does go for that. Thats where I got it from.

There is so much wrong with this Big Bang model amazed intelligent people don't question it.

Mainstream science does question it. Read that Chapter from Current Issues in Cosmology. Read the whole book. It's full of questions about the evolution of the Universe, particularly about the hot dense state called the Big Bang.

 

[AlexG]

Astrocat is clearly a delusional wacko. Why do knowledgeable posters keep arguing with him. He as already stated he has no basis for his beliefs, they are simply beliefs. You can't change his mind, as he apparently doesn't have one.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Where did that original hydrogen come from? I suspect the spirit world...

There is no "spirit world".
You're a delusional crank.

 

[astrocat]

If you're having to resort to making up your own definitions of 'science' then its a sign you've got no real argument. You call it 'poor science' because you don't understand it, that way you can convince yourself its okay you don't understand it, its not worth understanding.

What's your definition of 'real' here? If it's "A measurable, observable phenomenon" then the speeding up of the expansion of the universe is 'real'.

Simply asserting something doesn't make it true.

You're assuming everything in the universe follows a few things in the everyday world you experience. Its naive and its arrogant, as it assumes somehow you experience enough in your little corner of this planet to understand everything else.

A simple example of something which expands when you cool it is water. Water's maximum density is at 4C. When you cool it further and it freezes it expands.

You don't know anything about it. You haven't looked up any information, you haven't tried to find any information, you haven't got any experience with the relevant areas of physics, you haven't got any understanding of the models and you don't know any experimental data.

Why do you think you're in any position to evaluate such models?

And Einstein thought there were only 2 forces in nature, doesn't make it so.

The big bang cosmological model based around the FRW metric can model such things. I'd be able to explain the specifics of it to you if you had the mathematical capabilities of a 1st year undergrad but you don't so once again we're left with you having insufficient knowledge to properly evaluate things.

Its funny how cranks so often make the mistakes they accuse others of making. You're trying to phrase things outside of your experience in terms of things which you've experienced. That might be fine for simple things relating to our everyday lives but its extremely bad guidance when it comes to the more unfamiliar phenomena of the universe. By trying to phrase things in terms of everyday processes you close your mind to the possibilities which aren't analogous to something in everyday life. That is poor science.

No, they don't. Air doesn't get 'sucked' into your lungs, it gets pushed into them by atmospheric pressure. When you make your chest expand the pressure in your lungs drops and thus the atmospheric pressure is higher than it and pushes itself into your lungs until the pressure is equal. A black hole 'sucks', in the sense that it pulls in objects rather than the objects forcing themselves towards it.

And another thing about black holes and temperature is that the more energy you put into them the colder they get.

The evidence points to the universe once being very hot and very small. If you wind the clock back from now we understand the dynamics of things until about a trillionth of a second into the existence of the universe as we now see it. These models have made testable predictions and those predictions have been verified. What was going at the instant in question is still unknown and the universe may well not have been a singular point but something else. There's plenty of speculation about what happened precisely at that instant but its just speculation. Once you wind the clock forward to 0.000000000001 seconds after that then the dynamics are understandable in terms of current physics.

Except the witch doctor doesn't make quantitative testable predictions which then stand up to scrutiny, the BB model does. Instead the witch doctor will make proclamations about the nature of the universe, even when he knows nothing about it. Sorta like what you're doing.

You've once again demonstrated you don't know what any science actually says on this. When physicists say "The expansion has just started speeding up" they didn't mean literally right now but rather its very close to the cross over point and its happened some time in the last few hundred million years (or will happen in the next few hundred million years). No one has said "The universe's expansion started speeding up on July 17th 1998" or the like. It was realised the expansion rate isn't constant in the 90s because technology got to the point where a detailed analysis of supernovae could be done. Before that we didn't have the right equipment to examine the universe properly.

Yet again you've shown you haven't got any clue about what science is saying. When are you going to realise you're simply too ill informed to be making such proclamations?

Yes, it was a surprise but that's when it was realised the reasoning Einstein had made was actually a lot more viable than originally thought.

Firstly I'd like to see some evidence you predicted it pre-1998. Secondly I'd like to see you provide a working model which makes quantitative predictions about the dynamics of the red shifts used to determine the expansion rate increase. Thirdly your phrasing implies you think you're a knowledgeable person. You've just demonstrated you aren't, as you don't even know what is being said
by physicists!

What is your definition of 'real world model'? If its one which allows for an accurate description of the phenomena, which allows us to understand dynamics and which can be tested then your work isn't a real world model, as it doesn't model anything. Furthermore the BB model is a 'real world model' as it describes the real world.

Your models can't model anything so they aren't models. They are superficial explanations you've given yourself for things you know nothing about.

Provide one working, testable, accurate model of yours for a single phenomenon in the universe, as you've yet to provide any.

The models of mainstream physics are written in the language of mathematics but they are applied to the real world by associating physical quantities to the mathematical objects. When engineers want to know how much force a bridge must withstand from traffic or the lift an aeroplane wing will produce they work it out using mathematical models of those physical systems. The use of maths in physics is to turn superficial descriptions into concrete models which can then be applied to the real world accurately. Your notion there's this dividing line between "mathematicians using mathematics" and "physicists not using mathematics" is simply wrong. Open any textbook on any kind of engineering or physics and you'll find it filled with mathematics because its how you make sure your descriptions are accurate. Could you put a man on the Moon without using any mathematics? Not a chance, because you need to know things like how much thrust a rocket design can produce, how much aerodynamical friction is involved, the amount of fuel required, the trajectory the rocket moves along under the gravitational effects of the Earth and Moon. Without having precise models of these things you can't put a man on the Moon and the same applies to all areas of physics and engineering.

Come on, you must be trolling. You didn't understand a picture from Wikipedia, saying it'd need a PhD in maths to understand, and now you're able to evaluate the worth of a specific solution to the Einstein field equations in general relativity?

Either you're a troll or staggeringly deluded about your ability and utterly ignorant of just how little you understand.

Then you have nothing on which to base your claims.

Now you must be trolling. No one with even the slightest grasp of reality would be moronic enough to think watching adverts for Vodafone means they know 'all about' the company, its origins and the mathematical models of electromagnetic interactions developed by it decades ago. You must be a troll because the alternative makes me despair for humanity.

It surprises me you can't even manage to use Google. 5 year olds can do better reading around than you.

/edit

And since you seem to have an issue with answering my questions, despite saying you'd answer them, I'll highlight ones I specifically want you to answer in red from now on. That way you have no excuse.

I'm drawn back to your Post#393, where youtalk about a ball being kicked uphill. A ball being kicked uphill will slow down, and interestingly, you use Gravity to make it Speed Up again. In 1976, a Mount Palomar astronomer, Allan Sandage, claimed to have observed that the expansion of the Observable Universe was slowing down. A Caltech astronomer, James Gunn, picked up on this, and showed conclusively that no such observation had been made, that there was no evidence the expansion of the Observable Universe was slowing down. "A terrible surprise," was Sandage's reaction to this news. This slowing down of the exansion of the Observable Universe is fiction, and without evidence. It's for this reason - the fact that the expansion has been increasing all the time (that's what the evidence says) is the reason experienced astronomers refer to the beginning of the Universe as "The Big Wheeze." If, as the evidence suggests, the expansion is the kind that starts slowly and speeds up, that makes it an 'Inward Expansion.' All inward expansions start slowly and speed up, as opposed to an outward expansion which starts fast and slows down. The Observable Universe is expanding inwardly - we're going in, not out. The Cosmos has a negative curvature, as I've said before, and the Math for this has been done by Freidy. Just as in my Vacuum Cleaner model, we are Speeding Up to a terminal Speed, Cooling Down, Expanding exponentially and Losing Pressure. There is no ball being kicked uphill, Alpha, and you are right, the ball is being pulled down the hill by Gravity. At least you got that part right.