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

[Red Devil]

It matters not now, I am history. All they eras I have been here and get a bollocking for trying to raise a topical subject - bye - see you hyper, and SAM in another life.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It matters not now, I am history. All they eras I have been here and get a bollocking for trying to raise a topical subject - bye - see you hyper, and SAM in another life.

He says he can't understand math, and he wonders why his input is held in low esteem in a discipline which is virtually all math???

 

[astrocat]

Mathematics is far more than "handy", mathematics is what collates theory to fact. Yes, numbers can be juggled around to "fit", however Mathematicians and Scientists alike do not stop at fitting a number, they need to know WHY it fits not just how it fits.

In understanding cosmology, Scientists create models with mathematics in an attempt to replicate various effects, these have then led on to greater more physical projects like for instance the LHC at CERN. Without mathematics, such projects wouldn't be possible for many reasons, from the absence of a team being able to identify an objective, to actual apparatus not being considered.

The most interesting thing that I find however is the fact that these "virtual models" (which are mathematical or computational) are created to try and understand the universe, but it's neglected that the models themselves are as much a part of the universes make up as what is being studied.

This is one of the main reasons my attention has been shifting more towards the universe being one giant composite emulation. (In fact I have a whole model that applies super-symmetry, relatively and multiworld's just on the face of it, where a universe could be born from a "finite" resource. )

The problem is that it's not the easiest thing to document, mainly for the absence of open discussion on the subject with people from the fields of inquiry that "know more than myself" on their various specialised subjects.

Hi, Stryder - nice of you to contribute. I take it you're a mathematician, and I'm sure you will agreee that Math is not a Science. I enjoyed reading about your Universe. Do I take it you think the Universe could be born of a "finite" resource. Myself, I believe that God created the Universe - it had to come from somewhere.
Only thing is, I don't believe the Universe is a good thing, imperfect as it is. And about the Universe being hard to document - I don't find that at all.
We have to assemble all the information we can get, and from that, form an opinion. For a start, there is absolutely no evidence at all to show that the Universe is expanding. It's only the Observable Universe (OU) that has been seen to be expanding. To go from an expanding OU, to an expanding universe is an assumption, I hope you can see that, and we all know the dangers of assumptions, in Science.
We know, for example, that the Universe is Speeding Up, Cooling Down, Expanding and Losing Pressure. In addition, I think we can say the Universe is Clumping Up. Can we ageree on that, Stryder? If we talk again, we can go from there...

 

[astrocat]

While I don't agree with most of your points, you raise a valid point here.

It is a problem when you turn people loose with math, virtually anything can be made of it.

I always think of Tesla's words on the subject when a point like this comes up:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. " - Nikola Tesla

This is, what, the 10,000th 'Big Bang' thread here? We don't know nearly as much as many try to pretend we do about the universe. But we form a theory and proceed on that until we know more.

As incorrect as it was, without Ptolemy putting so much thought into his model, Copernicus would not have made his discovery, and so on. So even an incorrect theory can lead to a better understanding given time, and one or two thinkers who are able to see past socially/scientifically conditioned dogma.

As to 'Big Bang' stuff, this is a quote I often recall when considering this subject:

"I personally feel it is presumptuous to believe that man can determine the whole temporal structure of the universe, its evolution, development and ultimate fate from the first nanosecond of creation to the last 10^10 years, on the basis of three or four facts which are not very accurately known and are disputed among the experts." - J. Bahcall, senior astrophysicist, Institute for Advanced Study

Thanks Doctor. And above all, thanks for the quote from Tesla. What a man he was ! But the quote from J. Bahcall, I disagree with. The Universe is a challenge to be answered.

Because the Observable Universe (ou) had been found - by Hubble among othere, to be expanding - I don't think it's good Science to go from there to an expanding universe, when there is absolutely no evidence for this.

Besides being the only thing in existence that has Mass, but no center of that Mass, and the only thing that was born "everywhere" when everything else starts from a point, the only thing expanding in the universe (everything else is going 'IN' - Galaxies are vortices (according to Wiki). And the rev LeMaitre, a Belgian cleric who is credited with the Big Bang Theory had, according to Einstein - a 'woeful lack of understanding of Physics'. I understand Hubble himself objected to this Big Bang - rightfully so, I believe.

There is much double talk and stuff from Modern Scientists that I must object. They want you to think you need a Phd in Math to understand the workings of the universe, but I believe the universe is pretty simple - if you use logic.

Imagine there is only Gravity. It's gravity that keeps the moon in orbit, Earth going arround Sol, etc etc. I think gravity runs the Universe. I can't believe it when people try to tell me the Universe is run by anti-Gravity as we can't find any no matter how hard we search.

Gravity, tho', we all know. I think Gravity is King. How 'bout you, Doc?

 

[astrocat]

It matters not now, I am history. All they eras I have been here and get a bollocking for trying to raise a topical subject - bye - see you hyper, and SAM in another life.

Hi Red,
What exactly is the topic you keep getting shot down for? Who's Sam? Son of? Red, talk to me. I really respect Aetheists, tho' I am Jesus' people. Also, do I detect an Englishman, or an Aussie?

 

[astrocat]

He says he can't understand math, and he wonders why his input is held in low esteem in a discipline which is virtually all math???

Astronomy is all math? You wish. But Astronomy is a Science - Math isn't. Like Tesla said, Mathematicians replace Science with stuff you need a Phd in Math to figure out. I agree with Newton - Gravity is Universal. It's gravity that runs the Cosmos - not anti Gravity.

I know Math up to Calculus - never got further. Never really needed to. I love Physics - my favourite Science. What's yours, Fraggle Rocker - and thanks for contributing.

 

[D H]

Myself, I believe that God created the Universe - it had to come from somewhere.

There are plenty of scientists who have no problem rectifying their understanding of the universe with their religious beliefs. One example: Monsignor Georges Lemaître. I suggest you google that name.

For a start, there is absolutely no evidence at all to show that the Universe is expanding.

Please. While you are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Keep this up and you will find this thread sent to the cesspool.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Astronomy is all math? You wish. But Astronomy is a Science - Math isn't.

Astronomy is not only a science, but it's the First Science. People were predicting the courses of the stars and planets in the Stone Age. Still, I stand by my opinion that astronomy is a whole lot of mathematics with a little bit of physics, plus of course the empirical observation that is required for any science. But I was speaking of cosmology, which is an awkward blend of pure mathematics, theoretical physics, and philosophy.

I know Math up to Calculus - never got further. Never really needed to. I love Physics - my favourite Science. What's yours, Fraggle Rocker - and thanks for contributing.

I spent three years at CalTech and got through differential equations, although I don't think I could set one up today. I can still do differential calculus, but I'm rusty because for the last 43 years I've worked in IT. I suppose my favorite science is biology, but I find cosmology fascinating because it blurs the boundary between the physical and the abstract.

 

[astrocat]

Astronomy is not only a science, but it's the First Science. People were predicting the courses of the stars and planets in the Stone Age. Still, I stand by my opinion that astronomy is a whole lot of mathematics with a little bit of physics, plus of course the empirical observation that is required for any science. But I was speaking of cosmology, which is an awkward blend of pure mathematics, theoretical physics, and philosophy.I spent three years at CalTech and got through differential equations, although I don't think I could set one up today. I can still do differential calculus, but I'm rusty because for the last 43 years I've worked in IT. I suppose my favorite science is biology, but I find cosmology fascinating because it blurs the boundary between the physical and the abstract.

To me, Fraggle Rocker, Cosmology is a blend of Physics, with some Chemistry and Math thrown in. I really respect CalTech because James Gunn came from there. He was the man who proved Allan Sandage (RIP) wrong when he said the expansion was slowing down.
I do know Differential equations, or is that 'simultaneous equations'? You obviously know more Math than me.

The way I see it is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding. It's an assumption on which the big bang was founded - which is why I have so little respect for the Big Bang. This 'Poof, there it is - instant universe' stuff sounds pretty insignificant to me.
People used to think Mankind was made 'Poof, just like that,' but Darwin showed us (I don't think he needed Math to show us) that we evolvedslowly over a long time period.

I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
that hung together by their mutual gravity.

From a Warm, Smooth, Soupy cloud of protons that was the Early Universe,
the Cosmos evolved - starting at the center of the cloud, where Pressures and Temperatures were highest. We know, by looking at Sol, what a huge cloud of Hydrogen can become. But this cloud was immense.

Gravity made the universe, and Gravity runs it. We're in freefall - that's why we're speeding up. Gravity is all there ever was.

 

[Boris2]

I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
that hung together by their mutual gravity.

wrong. this is not what an isotope is.

The way I see it is that there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding.

the observable universe is, and, as we have no reason to believe that this volume is special we infer that the whole universe is expanding too.

 

[astrocat]

There are plenty of scientists who have no problem rectifying their understanding of the universe with their religious beliefs. One example: Monsignor Georges Lemaître. I suggest you google that name.


Please. While you are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. Keep this up and you will find this thread sent to the cesspool.

Thanks for your input, DH.

I am well aware that the Big Bang agrees with the bible, and I know the Rev. Lemaitre was the first to theorise on a Big Bang. My problem, I guess, is that he went from an expanding Observable Universe to an expanding Cosmos and I believe Hubble himself objected to this.

I certainly don't want my thread in the cesspool, I hope you don't do that to me. I answered a few posts before I read this, challenging the Expansion of the Universe- and now I see that according to you (and everybody else, of course) it's a fact that the Cosmos is expanding, and I might have said some things you might object to, in the past. However, if you don't want me to say the Cosmos isn't expanding - I won't. Sorry.
Actually, I'm pretty grateful to you for letting me share my opinions here. It shows tolerance, on your part. For that I must respect you.

 

[astrocat]

wrong. this is not what an isotope is.



the observable universe is, and, as we have no reason to believe that this volume is special we infer that the whole universe is expanding too.

Oh, a single proton is not an isotope of Hydrogen? would you say Deuterium is an isotope of Hydrogen? What about Helium 3?
I happen to think the Observable Universe may not be the same as the Entire Universe, else why do we call it the Observable Universe? If it's all the same, why don't we just scrap the term 'Observable Universe?'

Because that would be unscientific, Boris. That's why. There remains the tiniest doubt that the Entire Universe may not be exactly like the Observable Universe. That doubt - that possibility - that's Science, Boris.

 

[Boris2]

isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron

this is what i responded to.

I happen to think the Observable Universe may not be the same as the Entire Universe,

that's what i said. it's not. but we have no reason to be it has different physical properties. anyway seeing as we can only know our volume the question is moot.

Because that would be unscientific, Boris. That's why. There remains the tiniest doubt that the Entire Universe may not be exactly like the Observable Universe. That doubt - that possibility - that's Science, Boris.

all science has doubt. but we make assumptions so that we can actually get somewhere.

 

[CHRISCUNNINGHAM]

Ha astrocat, I was just wondering? Did you ignore my post completely?

I do have a question though, whats you're ACTUAL reason for thinking astronomy is "wrong" about the entire universe? Or is it that you don't see the flaw in your arguments...how do you reconcile

I believe the Universe evolved slowly, over time, from a huge cloud of protons (isotopes of Hydrogen - which is a proton surrounded by an electron)
that hung together by their mutual gravity.

AND

there is absolutely no evidence that the Universe is expanding. It's an assumption on which the big bang was founded - which is why I have so little respect for the Big Bang

Are your ideas based on FACTS that are proven in all cases? Have you personally measured each and every "hydrogen" atom to make sure it only has one proton? How do YOU know it doesn't have 1.5 protons? How do you know what protons are, you've never seen them?! How do you know that protons and electrons have opposite charges? Why is some "science" okay but the rest is based on "assumptions" because I assure you sure there is 13.7 billions years worth of "evidence" saying the universe is expanding?

How do you assume ANYTHING is true if the very thing that has been around the longest, the observable universe, cannot be "proved" as truly expanding with 13.7 billions years of observable evidence of expanding.

Yet, something like protons and neutrons and stars, and gas, and everything else you're using to disprove such a "bogus" claim has far less evidence behind it?

 

[astrocat]

this is what i responded to.




that's what i said. it's not. but we have no reason to be it has different physical properties. anyway seeing as we can only know our volume the question is moot.



all science has doubt. but we make assumptions so that we can actually get somewhere.

And I was taught that when you ASSUME something you make an ASS out of U and ME. What do you mean by "we can only know our volume?" I don't understand...

 

[astrocat]

Ha astrocat, I was just wondering? Did you ignore my post completely?

I do have a question though, whats you're ACTUAL reason for thinking astronomy is "wrong" about the entire universe? Or is it that you don't see the flaw in your arguments...how do you reconcile



AND



Are your ideas based on FACTS that are proven in all cases? Have you personally measured each and every "hydrogen" atom to make sure it only has one proton? How do YOU know it doesn't have 1.5 protons? How do you know what protons are, you've never seen them?! How do you know that protons and electrons have opposite charges? Why is some "science" okay but the rest is based on "assumptions" because I assure you sure there is 13.7 billions years worth of "evidence" saying the universe is expanding?

How do you assume ANYTHING is true if the very thing that has been around the longest, the observable universe, cannot be "proved" as truly expanding with 13.7 billions years of observable evidence of expanding.

Yet, something like protons and neutrons and stars, and gas, and everything else you're using to disprove such a "bogus" claim has far less evidence behind it?

2 Questions there, Chris. The first, (1) my ACTUAL reason for thinking the popular view is mistaken is the Speeding Up of the Expansion of the Observable Universe. There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up - certainly not one that Speeds Up 'ad infinitum as I'm sure you'll agree. And that's just for starters.

(2) I'm very careful when I conclude that something is happening with the Cosmos. After looking at the situation with an open mind - uncluttered by thoughts of Big Bangs and Dark Energy, and seeing that Gravity operates our Solar System as well as our Galactic System, and knowing that Newton taught us Gravity was Universal - I have concluded that Gravity operates the Universe, not anti-gravity. Remember please, that Einstein only improved on Newton's teachings. Einstein did not prove Newton to be wrong!

Now, on my side I have Lex Parsimoniae the Law of Succinctness. Because I believe Gravity did it all, I don't need a Big Bang, neither do I need Dark Energy. That makes my theory more succinct than yours. In my opinion, you have too many 'entities.'

 

[astrocat]

Ha astrocat, I was just wondering? Did you ignore my post completely?

I do have a question though, whats you're ACTUAL reason for thinking astronomy is "wrong" about the entire universe? Or is it that you don't see the flaw in your arguments...how do you reconcile



AND



Are your ideas based on FACTS that are proven in all cases? Have you personally measured each and every "hydrogen" atom to make sure it only has one proton? How do YOU know it doesn't have 1.5 protons? How do you know what protons are, you've never seen them?! How do you know that protons and electrons have opposite charges? Why is some "science" okay but the rest is based on "assumptions" because I assure you sure there is 13.7 billions years worth of "evidence" saying the universe is expanding?

How do you assume ANYTHING is true if the very thing that has been around the longest, the observable universe, cannot be "proved" as truly expanding with 13.7 billions years of observable evidence of expanding.

Yet, something like protons and neutrons and stars, and gas, and everything else you're using to disprove such a "bogus" claim has far less evidence behind it?

2 Questions there, Chris. The first, (1) my ACTUAL reason for thinking the popular view is mistaken is the Speeding Up of the Expansion of the Observable Universe. There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up - certainly not one that Speeds Up 'ad infinitum as I'm sure you'll agree. And that's just for starters.

(2) I'm very careful when I conclude that something is happening with the Cosmos. After looking at the situation with an open mind - uncluttered by thoughts of Big Bangs and Dark Energy, and seeing that Gravity operates our Solar System as well as our Galactic System, and knowing that Newton taught us Gravity was Universal - I have concluded that Gravity operates the Universe, not anti-gravity. Remember please, that Einstein only improved on Newton's teachings. Einstein did not prove Newton to be wrong!

Now, on my side I have Lex Parsimoniae the Law of Succinctness. Because I believe Gravity did it all, I don't need a Big Bang, neither do I need Dark Energy. That makes my theory more succinct than yours. In my opinion, you have too many 'entities.'

Sorry if I didn't catch your previous post - I want to answer everybody, of course.

 

[D H]

Baloney. You are making bald assertions that very much contradict what we see.

Moderator action:
Thread moved to pseudoscience.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Baloney. You are making bald assertions that very much contradict what we see.

Moderator action:
Thread moved to pseudoscience.

pseudoscience??
i would think it was regular science..(just cause he doesn't want to acknowledge the real science doesn't necessarily make it pseudo..:shrug

 

[AlexG]

The cesspool is where this thread belongs.