![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » November 21st, 2020, 5:42 pm wrote:Hate the big bang theory with all your might. Hate it to your bones. Speak negatively of it in public. Chastise it on the internet. But do not deny what is honestly measured and innocently observed.
edy420 » November 21st, 2020, 8:36 pm wrote:
However, Sir Roger Penrose, is working on a Big Bang model, where the universe cycles through Big Bangs, expansions, a freezing period, then back to a new Big Bang. He has a few mathematical problems to resolve with the black holes swallowing the universe again, but it's hard to calculate without observing it in action.
curiosity » November 21st, 2020, 10:11 pm wrote:GR is an incomplete theory, because unless gravitons are actually discovered gravitation remains a mystery!
Dark matter is no more than a fudge factor introduced in an attempt to explain why observations don't match predictions.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
There may be better interpretations than those that are the most popular or metaphysically satisfying.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
edy420 » November 22nd, 2020, 5:36 am wrote:The Big Bang theory is flawed, in the sense that most of our information is based on what we see with the technology at hand.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » November 25th, 2020, 2:13 pm wrote:
My first question would be : what in the world do you find "metaphysically satisfying" about the Big Bang?
I ask because BB is the most metaphysically un-satisfying theory in all of science, as far as I'm concerned. If metaphysical satisfaction is the motivation and goal here, then Steady State wins hands down by a landslide.
hyksos » November 25th, 2020, 2:13 pm wrote:
My second question is, do you believe that theories in science prevail because of popularity? Are you aware of any other metric or metrics that are used to validate a theory? What would those be?
hyksos » November 25th, 2020, 2:43 pm wrote: The Big Bang Theory is not flawed -- if by "flawed" we mean it is not matching what is observed.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Faradave » November 26th, 2020, 8:03 pm wrote:Gravity is lightlike. Gravitational waves propagate at speed limit c.
Gravity, as any force, has a forward temporal component. As objects attract (or repel) they are also drawn forward in time. With a curved-space, radial-time model that means the gravity of both pulls outward to concentrically expanded future space. (That is to a bigger balloon.)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The Big Bang may be less satisfying than the Steady State but it beats out most rivals such as Hoyle’s Continuous Creation version of SS, Divine Creation, or Multiverses. A naive version of the BBT is easy to visualize because everyone knows what an explosion looks like.
Edgar Allen Poe explained in the mid 1850s that Newton’s theory of gravity favors a dynamic universe over a steady state. If massive bodies attract, the entire universe should be drawn to a central point by its own gravity. The only way the universe could exist as anything other than a solid lump is if some powerful event caused the masses of the universe to disperse and eventually slow and be drawn back together by gravity so the only way the universe can exist if it is either expanding or contracting or briefly poised between the two.
Some theories prevail because of popularity. Lee Smolin complains in his book “The Trouble With Physics” that a “herd mentality” favors some theories over others because of their popularity rather than their merit.
The metrics we have can be used to verify any theory including such theories as Intelligent Design or the Flat Earth.
The real test of a theory is not in its verifiability or popularity but in its internal consistency and most importantly, as Thomas Kuhn says, its falsifiability.
The trouble is the BBT does not match what is observed as well as should be expected. The universe appears to be older and larger than expected after just 14 billion years of expansion.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos wrote:But I think [curved-space] was done already.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
"This [balloon] analogy is potentially confusing since it wrongly suggests that the big bang took place at the center of the balloon. In fact points off the surface of the balloon have no meaning, even if they were occupied by the balloon at an earlier time."
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
Yes. Looks good. This is one of the reasons our recent theories have Dark Energy. ( maybe Dark Energy is not as ad-hoc as you claimed...?)
hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
In precise terms, can you explain what you mean when you say a theory prevails over another on merit?
hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
Who is "we" here?
What metrics that verify Intelligent Design and Flat earth?
hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
Is it your stated position that the Big Bang theory is internally inconsistent and unfalsifiable?
hyksos » November 28th, 2020, 2:07 am wrote:
You have claimed that you are in possession of evidence that contradicts the Big Bang. Do you have any citations which someone could use to verify your claim?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I prefer theories that don’t require the invention of some mysterious “dark” force to make them work.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
My personal source of doubt about the Big Bang mainly involves the theory’s heavy reliance on the distant galactic redshifts as indicators for the age and extent of the universe.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » December 3rd, 2020, 4:10 pm wrote:My personal source of doubt about the Big Bang mainly involves the theory’s heavy reliance on the distant galactic redshifts as indicators for the age and extent of the universe.
This person has just claimed a "heavily reliance" on redshift as indicators of age. This only means one thing.
This person hasn't even tried to read a single link in my lead post.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
title :
White dwarfs and the age of the universelink :
https://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0307073/papers/JI.pdfgrant agencies :
European Union FEDER funds. Generalitat de Catalunya . Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.no. of authors :
2times the paper was cited :
3physics :
white dwarf cooling times.conclusion :
Science has never observed a white dwarf older than 12 billion years. Authors write these estimates place an "extreme constraint to the age of the universe." title :
The age of the universe from nuclear chronometerslink :
https://www.pnas.org/content/95/1/18.longsponsor :
National Academy of Sciencesno. of authors :
1times the paper was cited :
8physics :
Cosmic clocks from nuclear half-lives. nuclear chronometers.conclusion :
The Milky Way galaxy contains no atoms in it older than 15.8 billion years, (w/ mean 12.3 Gyr). The oldest star ever observed with this technique is halo star CS22892– 052. It must be younger than 20 Gyrs, with mean 15.2 Gyr. Abstract states these findings are consistent with all other known dating techniques.title :
The Age of the Universe from Globular Clusterslinks :
Lohfink's abstract. https://www.astro.umd.edu/~peel/ASTR622/abstracts/lohfink.pdf AAAS Science paper https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15767443588923219974&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30sponsor :
American Academy for the Advancement of Science.no. of authors :
2times the paper was cited :
398physics :
globular cluster temp/luminosity scatterplots. conclusion
: verbatim quote : "Despite the numerous uncertainties, all three methods for age determination are in agreement with each other and the current cosmological model." The mean age of the oldest GCs is 12.6 billion years. 16 Gyr for an upper bound with 95% confidence. title :
The Velocity-Distance Relation among Extra-Galactic Nebulaelinks :
Richard Pogge course website http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/expand.html . American Astronomical Society https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14244672573336387399&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30sponsors :
American Astronomical Society. NASA. Carnegie Institute of Washington.no. of authors :
2times the paper was cited :
725physics :
metric expansion of the universe.conclusion
: The recessional velocity of galaxies scales with their distance. The coefficient on this is relation between distance and velocity is the HUbble Constant, H0.title :
Lambda-CDM model , ( Cosmic Black-Body Radiation.(1965))links :
wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model . Original 1965 paper on the discovery of the CMBR. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10107349462129263630&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30sponsors :
American Astronomical Society. NASA. Carnegie Institute of Washington.no. of authors :
4times the paper was cited :
1319physics :
relic radiation from a denser, hotter time in the universe.conclusion
: The CMBR exists !! It is radiation , a kind of radio static, from a time when the universe was hotter and denser, and its light has been red-shifted into the microwave range. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
They still think this. This is still in our current theory and cosmologists call it the inertial component. Nobody "changed their minds" , if that's where you're going with this.Distant galactic redshifts were once thought to represent recessional velocities in a 3D universe that was expanding like ejecta from a giant explosion.
Later they were interpreted as resulting from the expansion of space itself.
The latter interpretation makes more sense but the two are quite different effects.
(linguistic confusion)If the redshifts are the result of the expansion of space, then they are telling us how fast space is expanding but space can’t expand without changing our perception of time.
This is where things begin to get complicated and the solutions to this complication involve too many assumptions, too many circular interpretations, and too many conclusions contrary to observations for my satisfaction.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » December 20th, 2020, 3:31 am wrote:For those of you who are too busy, I will give a synopsis of the articles I have linked -- with the aim of emphasizing how bangstrom is not acting in good faith. bangstrom is not making any attempt to engage with evidence. He is making every excuse to avoid having to interact with a giant pile of observational evidence that supports the Big Bang. The observations , measurements , estimates dovetail neatly with the predictions of the theory.
hyksos » December 20th, 2020, 3:31 am wrote:The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory that predicts the universe is expanding and that it had a beginning.
Have we actually seen expansion? Yes. Expansion is observed.
hyksos » December 20th, 2020, 3:31 am wrote:
When we measure the ages of various objects in the sky do they have an age? Yes.
Do age estimates use various techniques to cross-check each other? Yes.
Do those estimates agree with one another? They do. They corroborate, as repeatedly stated by the articles above.
hyksos » December 20th, 2020, 3:31 am wrote:The Big Bang Theory suggests that the universe was hotter and denser in the past. Has this been observed? Yes. It is the CMBR.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » December 20th, 2020, 3:43 am wrote:They still think this. This is still in our current theory and cosmologists call it the inertial component. Nobody "changed their minds" , if that's where you're going with this.Distant galactic redshifts were once thought to represent recessional velocities in a 3D universe that was expanding like ejecta from a giant explosion.
hyksos » December 20th, 2020, 3:43 am wrote:(linguistic confusion)If the redshifts are the result of the expansion of space, then they are telling us how fast space is expanding but space can’t expand without changing our perception of time.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The view of cosmological expansion as an enormous explosion-like event that resulted in galaxies scattering in all directions through empty space sounds like the understanding of the Big Bang in Lemaitre's time and not the modern view where space is expanding from within.
We have not observed expansion. We have only observed redshifting and redshifting is not necessarily caused by expansion. The expansion we “see” is a calculation based on the assumptions within the model but it is not an observation.
The estimated age for the universe is 13.8 billion years old and I find it difficult to see how the ages for the objects cited fit within that time frame.
The observed temperature of the CMBR is 2.37K which is far from hot. The hot CMBR is a conjecture derived from the theory but a mighty cold CMBR is what we observe.
Are you saying the galaxies are still considered to be moving outward from a common center driven by their own inertia as in an explosion?
Also, relative to ‘What’ is the universe expanding?
In other words, the distant galaxies are not redshifted because they are moving through space and away from us-the Doppler shift. They are redshifted because the space between galaxies is expanding which causes the light waves between galaxies to be “stretched out”.
The last part says: If c=s/t and c is a constant and space s is an expanding variable, then time t must also be a variable.
So the redshifts indicate how fast space is expanding rather than how fast the galaxies are moving through space and away from us as described by the Doppler effect.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom wrote:The last part says: If c=s/t and c is a constant and space s is an expanding variable, then time t must also be a variable.
Speed limit c does not apply to "recessional velocity", being included instead in the class of faster-than-light phenomena.hyksos wrote:This is a good question.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
hyksos » December 28th, 2020, 8:32 pm wrote:You have shown that you are not even trying to read the evidence I have linked you. The recessional velocity scales with distance. That is expansion.
hyksos » December 28th, 2020, 8:32 pm wrote:The Copernican Principle kicks in here. Either you adopt a position that says the milky way and the earth are in a special privileged center of the universe. Alternatively you admit that all galaxies, even distant ones --if you were sitting inside of them -- would also see recessional velocity scale with distance.
That is expansion however you try to slice it. The articles above already say all this.
hyksos » December 28th, 2020, 8:32 pm wrote:(I have to wonder if you have tried to ready any of the items I linked) Age estimations run below and above 13.7. THey in fact, range from 10.1 Gyr to as much as 18.6 Gyr depending on the method. What is most embarrassing for you is that these numbers are literally on the screen you are looking at.
You are under an obligation to explain to this forum your pet theory as to why every object ever observed by mankind and his technology is younger than 20 billion years. Every atom, molecule, galaxy, star, globular cluster, and nebula : none older than 20 billion years. You are under an obligation to do this.
hyksos » December 28th, 2020, 8:32 pm wrote:These temperature considerations mean nothing. The very existence of the CMBR is predicted by the theory. How do you even explain its existence without this concordance model?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
bangstrom » December 31st, 2020, 9:36 am wrote:Redshifts (not recessional velocities) scale with distance and cosmic redshifts are not Doppler recessional velocities.
Do you understand that distant galactic redshifts, as Faradave explained, mainly indicate cosmic volume increases between galaxies rather than recessional velocities of galaxies moving outward through space?
Faradave explained the current understanding in the previous post and I can’t improve on his explanation or make it any more clear. As he said, “Observationally apparent "recession" is more accurately characterized as a rate of cosmic volume increase (meters³/sec.), which is clearly not a speed.”
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests