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

[AlphaNumeric]

but there are a few things you seem to have missed in Science, Alpha Numeric.

You have absolutely no grasp of what I do or don't know.

For example - there is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up.

I like how you whine about having an open mind and then completely shut your own to things you don't understand.

I can't deny that it is interesting to learn about these famous Mathematicians, Dirac Stokes and Witten. For that I have to thank you.

Something tells me that you missed my point about you having a completely flawed view of physicists and mathematicians.

I believe the Big Bang was made up by a Belgian Priest, who, on hearing the Observable Universe was expanding, came up with a Big Bang. Einstein later said of the Rev. Lemaitre, that he had a 'woeful lack of Physics,' and I agree.

But in the time since many physicists and mathematicians have examined the concept of a big bang, made models, which led to predictions, which were verified by experiments. You previously said there's no evidence but that is a flat out wrong statement.

I don't think much of Dark Energy either. What is it, where can we find some? Not on Earth? How about the Moon - not there either? Does it even exist?

You don't think much of anything it would seem, as you have no wish to even think. You talk about people should think for themselves but your 'thinking for yourself' is not to think at all and just reject anything you don't understand. From your statements about dark matter you haven't even taken the time to read the Wiki page on it and give it some thought.

Gravity is real. Nobody can defy it. I think, since Gravity operates the Solar System, and our Milky Way Galaxy, it operates the Universe - but they say that 'Anti-Gravity' operates the Universe. I just wish they could find some.

This can be boiled down to "I expect the entire universe to behave the precisely the same rules I see in my tiny tiny tiny corner of the universe".

How naive.

 

[astrocat]

You have absolutely no grasp of what I do or don't know.

I like how you whine about having an open mind and then completely shut your own to things you don't understand.

Something tells me that you missed my point about you having a completely flawed view of physicists and mathematicians.

But in the time since many physicists and mathematicians have examined the concept of a big bang, made models, which led to predictions, which were verified by experiments. You previously said there's no evidence but that is a flat out wrong statement.

You don't think much of anything it would seem, as you have no wish to even think. You talk about people should think for themselves but your 'thinking for yourself' is not to think at all and just reject anything you don't understand. From your statements about dark matter you haven't even taken the time to read the Wiki page on it and give it some thought.

This can be boiled down to "I expect the entire universe to behave the precisely the same rules I see in my tiny tiny tiny corner of the universe".

How naive.

No grasp of what you know, Alpha Numeric? Do you know that any falling object will tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure? Exactly the things the Observable Universe is doing?

I don't have much time for fabrications, if that's what you mean?

On Mathematicians, I agree with Tesla. You go off making formula after formula until you come up with something that bears no relation to reality.

There's more evidence to say we're falling into a Black Hole, than there is for any Big Bang. On the subject of this Big Bang, it seems it staerted off fast, then slowed down, then sped up again. Is this what you believe - Please!

About Dark Matter - I haven't made my mind up on that subject yet.

And no, I don't think the entire Universe is behaving like the Observable Universe - that's a stretch in anybody's mind. You come up with all these really bald statements, like "You don't know what you're talking about' and related stuff. Can we try to keep it Scientific?

Why don't you tell me what you think of my first paragraph? What happens to an object when it lands?
It's only Physics, after all.

 

[sifreak21]

i dont .. the ammount of matter that was in the "point" of explosion is in comprehendable

 

[astrocat]

Other than the internet?

That's an intranstive noun. You can't see it, or hold it in your hand. I mean an outward expansion that I can see, touch and feel, etc. Let me know when you find it.

 

[astrocat]

- The early stage of any explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.
- Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica is commonly abbreviated to "the Principia Mathematica", or "the Principia", or just "Principa". See Wikipedia. Never "In Principia" or even "in Principia".

Try googling for "in principia". You'll find many instances where "in Principia" means "within the work known as Principia", but you'll have to look very hard for an instance where "in principia" means the Principia itself.


I bet you don't.
If you admit defeat, I'll happily congratulate you and call myself an ignoramus.

Sure I'll admit defeat, just tell me of an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up, Pete. If you can't do that you should admit it.

 

[astrocat]

i dont .. the ammount of matter that was in the "point" of explosion is in comprehendable

Explosions start from a point, like all Outward Expansions, and they open up fast. Then they slow down and stop. Inward Expansions all start from a standstill, or very Slowly, and Speed Up toward a coomon point. It'sthis kind of expansion the Observable Universe is engaged in at present.

Inward expansion? A snowball rolling down a snowy bank is one example.

 

[astrocat]

What are you saying? That experiment that observed the accelerating motion of the universe is wrong, or that the universe is wrong for accelerating?

It's the Observable Univ

 

[phlogistician]

On Mathematicians, I agree with Tesla. You go off making formula after formula until you come up with something that bears no relation to reality.

Ha! Sorry kid. You clearly never saw this:

 

[Pete]

Sure I'll admit defeat, just tell me of an Outward Expansion that Speeds Up, Pete. If you can't do that you should admit it.

It's in the post you quoted.
The early stage of any explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.

 

[AlexG]

Since Acat has a complete lack of knowledge regarding physics in particular and science in general, it is impossible to convince him of anything.

Ignorance is invincible.

 

[astrocat]

Ha! Sorry kid. You clearly never saw this:

I think God belongs in church, not in Science.

 

[astrocat]

It's in the post you quoted.
The early stage of any explosion is an accelerating outward expansion.

But what happens in the end, Pete?

 

[astrocat]

Since Acat has a complete lack of knowledge regarding physics in particular and science in general, it is impossible to convince him of anything.

Ignorance is invincible.

Bald statements, Alex G. Can we at least try to keep it Scientific? Sure, tell me stuff, but back it up, will you? Thanks. Meanwhile, can you tell me of any Outward Expansion that Speeds Up as it goes?

 

[Pete]

But what happens in the end, Pete?

IN the end of an explosion? It dissipates.
In the end of the universe? I don't know.

But regardless, your challenge has been answered.
The early stage of an explosion an accelerating outward expansion.
You don't seem to be denying this.

But like I said before, I bet you don't admit defeat anyway.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Do you know that any falling object will tend to Speed Up, Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure? Exactly the things the Observable Universe is doing?

I cannot tell if you're making a statement or if you've made a typo and you're asking a question.

The problem is you're assuming something outside of your experience (the large scale structure of space-time) behaves like something within your experience, like an gas in a box. Anyone whose studied relativity or quantum mechanics or even a fair few classical mechanics will know that intuition only gets you so far before becoming a complete hindrance.

I don't have much time for fabrications, if that's what you mean?

You don't even take the time to find out what is being said and the experiments. You concluded there's no evidence for the BB model and stated as much when a simple Google or Wiki could have found plenty to the contrary.

On Mathematicians, I agree with Tesla. You go off making formula after formula until you come up with something that bears no relation to reality.

Speaking as someone whose seen it from both sides of the physics/maths fence I can say from personal experience that your take on how this sort of science is done is wrong. As I just commented (again) the equations people came up with were used to make predictions, which were then experimentally tested and validated. It doesn't mean the equations are correct but it means that there's evidence for their physical validity and relevance. Heck, sometimes experimental evidence can prove a model wrong but we hold on to it. Newtonian mechanics is, if you measure carefully enough, wrong in just about everything it tries to model but its sufficiently good to be of use. The BB model might well be wrong but the fact remains it provides a working validated way to model a slew of cosmological phenomena.

There's more evidence to say we're falling into a Black Hole, than there is for any Big Bang.

Citation needed.

On the subject of this Big Bang, it seems it staerted off fast, then slowed down, then sped up again. Is this what you believe - Please!

Great argument, the fact you find it unfamiliar. The fact it that its possible for certain distributions of matter to cause such a behaviour in space-time, this is seen in the FRW metric. I happen to have personal experience with inflation models in string theory, where inflation is due to a vacuum change, explaining why its short but extreme. The moderator BenTheMan has published work on precisely that area. Even more familiar systems exhibit oscillatory expansions and contractions, such as shock diamonds due to pressure shock waves in the exhaust.

Please explain precisely what your 'please!' exasperation is based on. You have no experience with research level science, never mind the specific areas of maths and physics relevant to these phenomena, so it would seem you have only your everyday experience to base your assertion its ridiculous.

About Dark Matter - I haven't made my mind up on that subject yet.

And unless you're going to do a lot of background reading before reaching an opinion I suggest you don't bother to form said opinion. Otherwise you make the same mistake with dark matter as you have with the BB, forming a strong opinion on little more than ignorance.

And no, I don't think the entire Universe is behaving like the Observable Universe - that's a stretch in anybody's mind.

I said your little corner of it, not the observed universe.

You come up with all these really bald statements, like "You don't know what you're talking about' and related stuff. Can we try to keep it Scientific?

Then tell me what you're basing your opinion on, as you've clearly not done any reading on the subject, as you claim there's no evidence for the big bang. You don't know any relativity or understand the mathematical language its written in. You don't appear to even have a decent grasp of how science works. If I'm wrong in my assessment of what you're basing your views on then explain precisely what they are based on.

Can we try to keep it Scientific?

That ship sailed when you almost immediately demonstrated you dismissed tested scientific work without making any effort to find out anything about it. Or when you commented on how mathematicians do things when you clearly have no idea what we do and how it fits into physics. You can't cry "Lets all be scientific" after pissing on the shoes of science and honesty and being called on it.

Why don't you tell me what you think of my first paragraph? What happens to an object when it lands?

Firstly I think you worded it poorly. Secondly the universe isn't 'falling' like an apple falls from a tree. Rather it is expanding, or contracting, like the skin of a balloon (not the air in the balloon, the skin). Thirdly the expansion of something like a packed hot high pressure block of gas (like if you heated a balloon and then removed the skin instantly) is not the same as the expansion of the universe. Due to mass and momentum conservations the amount of stuff in a blob of gas in constant and thus expanding causes it to increase volume, cool and reduce in pressure. Space-time energy isn't like that because the expansion of space-time doesn't cause a drop in the dark energy density, it causes a drop in physical things like gas and photon densities, as well as cooling them (ie the CMB redshifting). Dark energy and its effects have no 'everyday life' scale analogy, just at subatomic objects like photons have no 'everyday life' scale analogy (hence the whole "Is it a particle or wave?" issue, people want everyday analogies when none are appropriate). By trying to go to an example about an everyday object falling, cooling, whatever you're implicitly doing precisely as I said you shouldn't, you're trying to use everyday experience to determine the validity of something utterly outside of your experience.

It's only Physics, after all.

I'm not convinced you'd know physics if it punched you in the face. You're definitely unfamiliar with intellectual honesty.

 

[phlogistician]

I think God belongs in church, not in Science.

Do you? I thought he was allegedly omnipotent, and therefore existed outside of churches too.

But you miss the point. Those are Maxwell's Equations for the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. If you don't understand how important these formulae are, and what they lead to, I pity you. Playing with electromagnets is one thing. Real science needs maths. Let' put it this way. Tesla farting around in his lab would NOT have lead to the creation of the computer you are sat at. Maxwell's equations furnished that technology. Respect the maths.

 

[astrocat]

IN the end of an explosion? It dissipates.
In the end of the universe? I don't know.

But regardless, your challenge has been answered.
The early stage of an explosion an accelerating outward expansion.
You don't seem to be denying this.

But like I said before, I bet you don't admit defeat anyway.

You're taking part of an experiment and drawing a conclusion from it. That's considered 'Poor Science." Why not look at the experiment 'in toto.'
Much more scientific, no?

Lookingat the total experiment, we can see that it starts fast, slows down and stops. Too bad you can't see that!

 

[Pete]

You're taking part of an experiment and drawing a conclusion from it. That's considered 'Poor Science.

I'm not drawing any conclusions about the state of the Universe, dude. You are.

The only conclusion I'm drawing is about your personal integrity.

 

[astrocat]

I cannot tell if you're making a statement or if you've made a typo and you're asking a question.

The problem is you're assuming something outside of your experience (the large scale structure of space-time) behaves like something within your experience, like an gas in a box. Anyone whose studied relativity or quantum mechanics or even a fair few classical mechanics will know that intuition only gets you so far before becoming a complete hindrance.

You don't even take the time to find out what is being said and the experiments. You concluded there's no evidence for the BB model and stated as much when a simple Google or Wiki could have found plenty to the contrary.

Speaking as someone whose seen it from both sides of the physics/maths fence I can say from personal experience that your take on how this sort of science is done is wrong. As I just commented (again) the equations people came up with were used to make predictions, which were then experimentally tested and validated. It doesn't mean the equations are correct but it means that there's evidence for their physical validity and relevance. Heck, sometimes experimental evidence can prove a model wrong but we hold on to it. Newtonian mechanics is, if you measure carefully enough, wrong in just about everything it tries to model but its sufficiently good to be of use. The BB model might well be wrong but the fact remains it provides a working validated way to model a slew of cosmological phenomena.

Citation needed.

Great argument, the fact you find it unfamiliar. The fact it that its possible for certain distributions of matter to cause such a behaviour in space-time, this is seen in the FRW metric. I happen to have personal experience with inflation models in string theory, where inflation is due to a vacuum change, explaining why its short but extreme. The moderator BenTheMan has published work on precisely that area. Even more familiar systems exhibit oscillatory expansions and contractions, such as shock diamonds due to pressure shock waves in the exhaust.

Please explain precisely what your 'please!' exasperation is based on. You have no experience with research level science, never mind the specific areas of maths and physics relevant to these phenomena, so it would seem you have only your everyday experience to base your assertion its ridiculous.

And unless you're going to do a lot of background reading before reaching an opinion I suggest you don't bother to form said opinion. Otherwise you make the same mistake with dark matter as you have with the BB, forming a strong opinion on little more than ignorance.

I said your little corner of it, not the observed universe.

Then tell me what you're basing your opinion on, as you've clearly not done any reading on the subject, as you claim there's no evidence for the big bang. You don't know any relativity or understand the mathematical language its written in. You don't appear to even have a decent grasp of how science works. If I'm wrong in my assessment of what you're basing your views on then explain precisely what they are based on.

That ship sailed when you almost immediately demonstrated you dismissed tested scientific work without making any effort to find out anything about it. Or when you commented on how mathematicians do things when you clearly have no idea what we do and how it fits into physics. You can't cry "Lets all be scientific" after pissing on the shoes of science and honesty and being called on it.

Firstly I think you worded it poorly. Secondly the universe isn't 'falling' like an apple falls from a tree. Rather it is expanding, or contracting, like the skin of a balloon (not the air in the balloon, the skin). Thirdly the expansion of something like a packed hot high pressure block of gas (like if you heated a balloon and then removed the skin instantly) is not the same as the expansion of the universe. Due to mass and momentum conservations the amount of stuff in a blob of gas in constant and thus expanding causes it to increase volume, cool and reduce in pressure. Space-time energy isn't like that because the expansion of space-time doesn't cause a drop in the dark energy density, it causes a drop in physical things like gas and photon densities, as well as cooling them (ie the CMB redshifting). Dark energy and its effects have no 'everyday life' scale analogy, just at subatomic objects like photons have no 'everyday life' scale analogy (hence the whole "Is it a particle or wave?" issue, people want everyday analogies when none are appropriate). By trying to go to an example about an everyday object falling, cooling, whatever you're implicitly doing precisely as I said you shouldn't, you're trying to use everyday experience to determine the validity of something utterly outside of your experience.

I'm not convinced you'd know physics if it punched you in the face. You're definitely unfamiliar with intellectual honesty.

It's okay, I just wondered how far your Physics went. Relating the Observable Universe to every day matters is good Science, but you wouldn't know this. Of course every falling object wil tend to Speed Up. Cool Down, Expand and Lose Pressure. That's every falling object (or System) including the Observable Universe. I never said the Cosmos wasfalling - you made that up.

I know everyone believes in the Big Bang. I know, however, that whenever the ratio of an object to its radius becomes sufficiently large, GR predicts the formation of a Black Hole. In other words, if all the matter of the Universe was contained in one spot, it wouldn't explode - it would form a Black Hole.
that's not me, that's GR. Maybe that's why I don't believe in your Big Bang.

My 'Please,' is my opposite to 'Really!" If something stinks, I say 'Please.' If I like it I say "Really.' The Universe Sped Up, then Slowed Down, the Sped Up again - Please. There are only two kinds of Expansion, Mathematician, the kindthat starts Fast and then slows down, and the kind that starts slowly and Speeds Up.

The Observable Universe is expanding from a standstill to it's present speed, and that means it's expanding inwardly. It's Physics, Mathematician, like any falling object...

There is only Gravity - all the rest was made up. I don'tevenknow how you can say the Universe is expanding - have you seen it? The Universe? Or do you just believe in the big bang because (in the words of Bob Dylan) you've been juiced in it. Just because the Observable Universe is Expanding, that doesn't mean the whole Universe is Expanding - maybe the Observable Universe is expanding purely because of the effects of Gravity - it's certainly a much simpler reason.

In the end, I hope we contact another civilisation in Space - I'd love to see if they think the Expansion started fast, then slowed down, then Sped Up again. I wonder what they'd think of your big bang and related repulsive forces. Your Big Bang is so complicated... You act like you don't know Science prefers the simple answers. We don't live in a Universe moved by Anti-gravity, we live in a Universe moved by Gravity. Not repulsive forces, but an attractive one.

The big Bang looks backwards, to the beginning of time, without much care for the future. My theory looks forward, to where we're going. How many eyes do you have in the front of your head, and how many behind. It's much more important to know where we're going than where we came from. There, I'm relating the human body to Space - shame on me, you're probably thinking. Good for you, a real Scientist would say.

 

[astrocat]

Do you? I thought he was allegedly omnipotent, and therefore existed outside of churches too.

But you miss the point. Those are Maxwell's Equations for the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. If you don't understand how important these formulae are, and what they lead to, I pity you. Playing with electromagnets is one thing. Real science needs maths. Let' put it this way. Tesla farting around in his lab would NOT have lead to the creation of the computer you are sat at. Maxwell's equations furnished that technology. Respect the maths.

Of course, Phlogistician, I respect the Maths - it's just that Math isn't a Science, and things go awfully wrong when you put a Mathematician in control of Science... What I'm really trying to introduce is the concept that we're not (uniquely) going out, but in, like everything else in the Cosmos. Maxwell invented the computer? Good for him. You realise, one nuclear bomb detonated in Space and there's no more computer. It's only a temporary thing, you see. And I think Tesla did a lot more than fart - but that's just me.