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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pete said:
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.

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


Why?

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.


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.


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:

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

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.
Click to expand...
Pete, paragraph 3 explains the 'instant' birth of the Cosmos. (Poof, just like that.) My Hydrogen collected only slowly, over trillions of years. My universe evolved. And it turns out I'm right, there is no evidence for the slowing Down of the Big Bang, only evidence that the expansion has been speeding up. Last night I had a brainstorm, I remembered something from 1976, where a scientist claimed to have evidence of this slowing down, but who later recanted. Nobody has ever observed this slowing down - it's fiction. Now, if the expansion has been speeding up all the time (and that's what the evidence suggests, there certainly wasn't any Big Bang. A Big Wheeze is far more likely, but even that is not what happened. If the expansion of the Observable Universe has always been speeding up, that makes it an inward expansion. Please let me know what you think of that.
 
astrocat, I asked you several direct questions. You said you'd answer questions but despite you quoting my questions several times you ignored them.

If you can't show even an ounce of honesty then you demonstrate that you don't really believe your claims, else you'd be willing to defend them. I've answered plenty of questions of yours and I've provided lengthy explanations. I have nothing to fear replying to your posts but if you can't engage in honest discussion then you're wasting everyone's time, particularly your own. Its no skin off my nose if you want to remain ignorant but I suggest you reflect on how far that's got you.
 
Sorry, astrocat, I know you're really attached to your "inward expansion" idea, but that's not an excuse to just ignore facts you don't like.

These are facts that I have demonstrated for you which you seem to be ignoring or simply denying without explanation:
  • In mainstream cosmology, the Standard Model (the hot big bang model) describes the evolution of the Universe from a hot, high pressure state. It does not claim that this state is the ultimate origin of the Universe.
    This is supported by the Wikipedia article you quote and cosmology textbooks.
  • There are other models that explore possible development of the Universe before the Standard Model. Some explore possible ultimate origins, some do not.
    Again, Wikipedia and cosmology texts.
  • Generally speaking, larger stars burn out faster than small stars. The largest stars may explode in as little as a million years after formation.
    Textbooks, Wikipedia, popular science...
  • Your idea of 'inward expansion' idea is in fact the same idea behind the meainstream concept of Tidal forces. If you follow it through, you find that it means stretching in one direction and compression in the other.
  • Good science involves hard mathematics. I can see that you're ignoring facts you don't like in AlphaNumeric's posts, just as you're ignoring facts in mine.

I wish you the best of luck with your future, astrocat. I encourage you to keep dreaming up ideas.

I leave you now with this reminder of what True Science is about:
All new ideas are thoroughly hammered at this (post-brainstorming) stage, and most are subsequently discarded. That's the only way to filter out the crap and find the quality gems.
True scientists are smart enough to brush away the rubbish, alert enough to spot the promising rocks, patient enough to polish them up and search for flaws, pragmatic enough to throw away the fractured stones and fools gold, smart enough to enlist and accept critical assistance, hardworking enough to collect a reasonable cache of small jewels over their career, hopeful enough to think that maybe one day they'll be at the coffee table when a flawless diamond shows up, and realistic enough to know that it's probably never going to happen to them.

  • Be humble. Accept that the chance of any given crazy idea (including your own) being worth publishing is low, even for the professionals.
  • Expect your idea to be hammered during discussion. Accept this as a mark of respect, not as an attack on your intelligence.
  • Don't ever stop thinking up crazy ideas. Just be sure to examine them carefully and critically, and discard the flawed ones without mercy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top