Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Bbt - Big Bang Theory


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#18 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:04 AM

In the article there is clear information about the inflationary epoch as it is stated:

 

"In physical cosmology the inflationary epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe underwent an extremely rapid exponential expansion. This rapid expansion increased the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 1026 (and possibly a much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 1078. Expansion by a factor of 1026 is equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10-9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long.

The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of space. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch."

 

However, it is also stated when it ends:

"It is not known exactly when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the Big Bang."

 

At that moment, the size of the universe was as big as grapefruit:

 

"Inflationary Epoch, from 10^–36 seconds to 10^–32 seconds:
Triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe undergoes an extremely rapid exponential expansion, known as cosmic inflation. The linear dimensions of the early universe increases during this period of a tiny fraction of a second by a factor of at least 10^
26 to around 10 centimeters (about the size of a grapefruit)."

 

So how can we explain the expansion from a grapefruit size to 4 light year size (in the first second)?

Where does this "grapefruit" stuff come from? It is not in the Wiki article I linked to. 



#19 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:11 AM

http://www.physicsof...g_timeline.html



#20 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:27 AM

Right. This website seems to have been put together by an amateur (you can tell by the design of it) called Luke Mastin in 2009. I've googled him  but cannot find any record of any credentials. It reads OK and sensibly, but we cannot take every word in a thing like that as 100% reliable.

 

I am pretty sure that what I said before about this is right: it is the size of the observable portion (the part we can see today) of the universe that was this sort of size. As I said before, you cannot make any claim for dimensions of the entire universe when the metric itself is part of that universe.  There is a discussion here on Cosmoquest that bears this out: https://forum.cosmoq...-early-universe.

 

I think Mastin may have been a bit lazy writing this up and forgot to make this distinction clear. 

 

In the Wiki articles I have read, they speak of the scale factor changing by various orders of magnitude, over various periods of time, but they avoid making any claim for the dimensions of the universe itself. 


Edited by exchemist, 05 June 2017 - 11:30 AM.


#21 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:30 PM

Right. This website seems to have been put together by an amateur (you can tell by the design of it) called Luke Mastin in 2009. I've googled him  but cannot find any record of any credentials. It reads OK and sensibly, but we cannot take every word in a thing like that as 100% reliable.

 

I am pretty sure that what I said before about this is right: it is the size of the observable portion (the part we can see today) of the universe that was this sort of size. As I said before, you cannot make any claim for dimensions of the entire universe when the metric itself is part of that universe.  There is a discussion here on Cosmoquest that bears this out: https://forum.cosmoq...-early-universe.

 

I think Mastin may have been a bit lazy writing this up and forgot to make this distinction clear. 

 

In the Wiki articles I have read, they speak of the scale factor changing by various orders of magnitude, over various periods of time, but they avoid making any claim for the dimensions of the universe itself. 

No

Mastin isn't lazy.

They have made the calculation and set the size.

However, for someone how want to believe, it is much more convenient to hide after a nice words as "Scale factor" and so no.

 

The science do not give us the information about the real expansion from the Inflation phase (grapefruit size) to 4 Ly (just after one second).

They just give us some nice words so the believers would believe.

 

I personally have no intention to believe that "Scale factor could be an answer to a velocity which is 60 Million faster than the speed of light.

There must be a severe mistake. The Universe can't technically expands from almost zero to 4 Ly in just one second.

This is my personal understanding.

 

In any case let's move on.

 

In the following article

http://www.kheper.ne...se/universe.htm

it is also stated:

 

500,000 years

3000o K

1,500,000 LY

 

 

Now, after 500,000 years the size of the universe is 1,500,000 Ly.

 

So, the average speed had been reduced dramatically to only 3 speed light.

Please remember that objects keep their momentum in space.

So how could it be that the speed had been reduced from about 6 Million Speed light to only 3 speed light, a relative speed reduction of 2 Million.

Why?

What about the  expansion?

Why it had been reduced so dramatically?

 

Do you agree also for that?


Edited by davdan, 05 June 2017 - 12:35 PM.


#22 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 02:46 PM

No

Mastin isn't lazy.

They have made the calculation and set the size.

However, for someone how want to believe, it is much more convenient to hide after a nice words as "Scale factor" and so no.

 

The science do not give us the information about the real expansion from the Inflation phase (grapefruit size) to 4 Ly (just after one second).

They just give us some nice words so the believers would believe.

 

I personally have no intention to believe that "Scale factor could be an answer to a velocity which is 60 Million faster than the speed of light.

There must be a severe mistake. The Universe can't technically expands from almost zero to 4 Ly in just one second.

This is my personal understanding.

 

In any case let's move on.

 

In the following article

http://www.kheper.ne...se/universe.htm

it is also stated:

 

500,000 years

3000o K

1,500,000 LY

 

 

Now, after 500,000 years the size of the universe is 1,500,000 Ly.

 

So, the average speed had been reduced dramatically to only 3 speed light.

Please remember that objects keep their momentum in space.

So how could it be that the speed had been reduced from about 6 Million Speed light to only 3 speed light, a relative speed reduction of 2 Million.

Why?

What about the  expansion?

Why it had been reduced so dramatically?

 

Do you agree also for that?

No let's not "move on". It seems to me this idea of a size for the whole universe is bunk, for the reasons I have given and which you have not refuted. 

 

Scale factor, on the other hand, is something one can speak about without getting into an absolute size, so it makes perfect sense. 

 

You offer no reason for thinking the universe could not expand at the rate quoted, other than that it seems, so you say (quite arbitrarily), absurd to you. 

 

I suspect you have decided you want to disbelieve it because you need it to be wrong in order to introduce your alternative ideas.  This is not a scientific way of proceeding.

 

Look, as I told you before, I am not a cosmologist so I have no dog in this fight. I can merely read a scientific article and have a good chance of understanding  it, due to my science training in other fields. But you need to understand how the big bang model fits together before you try to dismiss it. All I can do is help a bit with that understanding.  

 

I have found a good article on all this stuff here by John Gribbin, who is a serious expert I have heard of: http://www.lifesci.s...ibbin/cosmo.htm

 

Why don't you read this before making your next post? 

 

N.B. He mentions the "grapefruit" but makes clear it is the size of the observable universe only.


  • Turtle likes this

#23 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 10:25 AM

No let's not "move on". It seems to me this idea of a size for the whole universe is bunk, for the reasons I have given and which you have not refuted. 

 

Scale factor, on the other hand, is something one can speak about without getting into an absolute size, so it makes perfect sense. 

 

You offer no reason for thinking the universe could not expand at the rate quoted, other than that it seems, so you say (quite arbitrarily), absurd to you. 

 

I suspect you have decided you want to disbelieve it because you need it to be wrong in order to introduce your alternative ideas.  This is not a scientific way of proceeding.

 

Look, as I told you before, I am not a cosmologist so I have no dog in this fight. I can merely read a scientific article and have a good chance of understanding  it, due to my science training in other fields. But you need to understand how the big bang model fits together before you try to dismiss it. All I can do is help a bit with that understanding.  

 

I have found a good article on all this stuff here by John Gribbin, who is a serious expert I have heard of: http://www.lifesci.s...ibbin/cosmo.htm

 

Why don't you read this before making your next post? 

 

N.B. He mentions the "grapefruit" but makes clear it is the size of the observable universe only.

 

In the article it is specifically related the "grapefruit" (or even bigger) to the inflation process:

 

 

"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second."

 

 

They also give further information about the inflation process and highlight its size (sphere about 10 cm across):

 

 

"This may sound modest, but it would mean that in 1032 of a second there were 100 doublings. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 1020 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 1033 seconds. At that point, the scalar field has done its work of kick-starting the Universe, and is settling down, giving up its energy and leaving a hot fireball expanding so rapidly that even though gravity can now begin to do its work of pulling everything back into a Big Crunch it will take hundreds of billions of years to first halt the expansion and then reverse it."

 

 

So, there is same information as in the other article. They do not give any specific information about the expansion process from the end of the inflation (10 -32 of a second) to the end of the first second when it is believed that the size of the universe had been increased to 4 LY.

 

 

I have no intention to argue, but if you have no real knowledge in this area why do you insist to explain something which isn't clear to you?

 

 

Please would you kindly move on and consider the next issue.


Edited by davdan, 06 June 2017 - 10:46 AM.


#24 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 10:44 AM

 

In the article it is specifically related the "grapefruit" (or even bigger) to the inflation process:

 

 

"Inflation is a general term for models of the very early Universe which involve a short period of extremely rapid (exponential) expansion, blowing the size of what is now the observable Universe up from a region far smaller than a proton to about the size of a grapefruit (or even bigger) in a small fraction of a second."

 

 

They also give further information about the inflation process and highlight its size (sphere about 10 cm across):

 

 

"This may sound modest, but it would mean that in 1032 of a second there were 100 doublings. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 1020 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 1033 seconds. At that point, the scalar field has done its work of kick-starting the Universe, and is settling down, giving up its energy and leaving a hot fireball expanding so rapidly that even though gravity can now begin to do its work of pulling everything back into a Big Crunch it will take hundreds of billions of years to first halt the expansion and then reverse it."

 

 

So, there is same information as in the other article. They do not give any specific information about the expansion process from the end of the inflation (1032 of a second) to the end of the first second when it is believed that the size of the universe had been increased to 4 LY.

 

 

I have no intention to argue, but if you have no real knowledge in this area why do you insist to explain something which isn't clear to you?

 

 

 

 

Because it is crystal clear to me that you are still obstinately refusing to acknowledge that none of the sources I have referred you to makes any claim about the size of the universe itself.  

 

The very passage you quote above refers, as all these sources do, to the OBSERVABLE universe, that is, the portion of it for which light has reached us. I have even highlighted it in red for you, so you have no excuse not to see it.

 

Once you are willing to acknowledge this point, THEN I am willing to "move on". Not before.  


Edited by exchemist, 06 June 2017 - 11:01 AM.


#25 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 10:42 PM

Because it is crystal clear to me that you are still obstinately refusing to acknowledge that none of the sources I have referred you to makes any claim about the size of the universe itself.  

 

The very passage you quote above refers, as all these sources do, to the OBSERVABLE universe, that is, the portion of it for which light has reached us. I have even highlighted it in red for you, so you have no excuse not to see it.

 

Once you are willing to acknowledge this point, THEN I am willing to "move on". Not before.  

 

The current hypothesis about the expansion of the space and its impact, is fully clear to me for quite long time.

However, I think that it is a manipulation. It was not part of the BBT as it was introduced at its first phase. As usual - is it one more patch (or fix) for this theory.

I wonder how many times our scientists had to fix this theory in order to explain new unexpected discoveries.

 

In any case, let's agree that we disagree on this issue.

We are living in free countries and we can't force our opinion on each other.

We can share.

You also don't have to accept my explanation, but you can't force me to accept this kind of hypothesis.

So please, let me know if you can continue the discussion based on our understanding that we disagree on this issue.



#26 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 06 June 2017 - 11:36 PM

The current hypothesis about the expansion of the space and its impact, is fully clear to me for quite long time.

 Your clarity, as evidenced by your posts, is all in your mind.
 

However, I think that it is a manipulation. It was not part of the BBT as it was introduced at its first phase.

Are today's aircraft as they were at their first phase?
 

As usual - is it one more patch (or fix) for this theory.

As usual, this is how science advances. Ironic that you complain and yet appear to be making your own patches. :rolleyes:
 

I wonder how many times our scientists had to fix this theory in order to explain new unexpected discoveries.

As many times as it takes. Science is always amendable.
 

In any case, let's agree that we disagree on this issue. 
We are living in free countries and we can't force our opinion on each other.

This is a privately owned website, not a country, and you are free to follow the rules and properly support your claims.
 

We can share.

Isn't that special.
 

You also don't have to accept my explanation, but you can't force me to accept this kind of hypothesis.

You do have to follow forum rules and support your assertions. Your "thinking this is a manipulation" doesn't cut the mustard Son.
 

So please, let me know if you can continue the discussion based on our understanding that we disagree on this issue.

Nope. (Not presuming to speak for exchemist here, rather as a general statement that you don't get to avoid answering specific questions with well reasoned and referenced answers.)

How many times does it take to ask you to stop with the GD font/size formatting? :doh: A pox on you!
  • Farming guy likes this

#27 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 07 June 2017 - 01:22 AM

 

The current hypothesis about the expansion of the space and its impact, is fully clear to me for quite long time.

 

[snip]

 

I wonder how many times our scientists had to fix this theory in order to explain new unexpected discoveries.

 

 

[snip]

 

So please, let me know if you can continue the discussion based on our understanding that we disagree on this issue.

 

To take your last point first, no, I am not prepared to indulge your pet theory when it is patently obvious that it is premised on a false understanding of current theory. This is not a matter of "disagreement". You are deliberately refusing to understand some key points by trying to sidestep the issue. You desperately cling to these false ideas about the big bang theory in order to try to ridicule it, because if it is not ridiculous the rationale for your pet theory evaporates, right? You started with the remarkably silly and unscientific idea that anything ever written by Einstein should automatically trump modern science. When this argument was refuted, you moved on to the false idea that inflationary expansion violates relativity. You are evading my (repeated) explanations of this still. 

 

And so, on the first point, no it is obviously NOT clear to you. On the other thread you continue to make silly assertions, for instance that matter outruns light during the expansion of the universe. I have told you over and over again what this expansion entails and why it does not violate relativity. I have provided references and even quoted relevant passages from them in my posts. But you either cannot take them in, or you choose to shut your eyes to them so that you can continue with affecting to find the expansion process incredible. 

 

As to "fixing" the theory, Turtle makes the point. All theories in science are being continually "fixed". That is how science progresses. Whenever a new discovery is made, the fit with theories is checked and not infrequently revisions to theory are found to be required.  This is called learning. 

 

I strongly urge you to stop trying to force your pet theory down our throats until you have properly understood why cosmic inflation does not violate relativity. Understanding this is not a detail: it is vital if you want to have any personal credibility on this forum. 


Edited by exchemist, 07 June 2017 - 01:24 AM.

  • Turtle and Farming guy like this

#28 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:45 AM

 

It is clear to me that your main mission is to protect the BBT under any circumstances, and you are not alone.

What is there in the BBT that set the whole science community to protect it so strongly?

The BBT is at the top, while Einstein is much lower and below.

The science community is using Einstein equation as a mathematical proof for the BBT, but they reject all his messages which contradicts the BBT.

 

So, what is there in the BBT that drives the whole community so strongly?

It seems to me that if you want to consider yourself as a scientist, your first mission is to believe in the BBT.

Actually, if you do not believe in the BBT you won't be considered as a scientist among the science community.

Why?

 

Normally - belief goes with religion. 

If you are Christian - you should believe in Jesus.

If you are Islamic - you should believe in Mohammad.

If you are Jew - you should believe in God.

If you are scientist - you should believe in BBT.

 

Does it mean that the BBT is some sort of religion?

 

If so, then now your reply is quite clear.

 

You have no interest in any other belief. You have no interest in any sort of Einstein cosmology model. You do not want to find any negative evidence for the BBT, as your main mission is to protect the BBT from those people (like me) which set a question mark above the BBT.

 

 

But what is there in the BBT that you want to believe in it and protect it so strongly?

What makes it different from many other theories?

Is it because you understand that a diven power is needed to start the first process of the big bang?

Is that the cause why the BBT do not try to give any scientific explanation for the moment before the bang?

 

Somehow, in a fraction of a second, incredible quantity of practical -which can easily fit to 375,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (375 Billion trillion) galaxies - had been created. 

 

Just think about this Idea, what a huge power is need for that...

Who can set this quantity? How could it be?

So, there is a moment before and a moment after.

The BBT covers the moment after while the moment before - is under the diven power.

Each one with his own diven power.

I have heard that even to Pop excepts the BBT.

So does it mean that if you are Christian you should believe in the BBT?

 

After all of this - I have no intention to upset you.

If you wish to believe - than please go on.

Sorry for the interruption.


Edited by davdan, 08 June 2017 - 08:01 AM.


#29 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:53 AM

 

 

It is clear to me that your main mission is to protect the BBT under any circumstances, and you are not alone.

 

What is there in the BBT that set the whole science community to protect it so strongly?

 

The BBT is at the top, while Einstein is much lower and below.

 

The science community is using Einstein equation as a mathematical proof for the BBT, but they reject all his messages which contradicts the BBT.

 

 

So, what is there in the BBT that drives the whole community so strongly?

 

It seems to me that if you want to consider yourself as a scientist, your first mission is to believe in the BBT.

 

Actually, if you do not believe in the BBT you won't be considered as a scientist among the science community.

 

Why?

 

Normally - belief goes with religion.

 

 

If you are Christian - you should believe in Jesus.

 

If you are Islamic - you should believe in Mohammad.

 

If you are Jew - you should believe in God.

 

If you are scientist - you should believe in BBT.

 

 

Does it mean that the BBT is some sort of religion?

 

 

If so, then now your reply is quite clear.

 

You have no interest in any other belief. You have no interest in any sort of Einstein cosmology model. You do not want to find any negative evidence for the BBT, as your main mission is to protect the BBT from those people (like me) which set a question mark above the BBT.

 

 

But what is there in the BBT that you want to believe in it and protect it so strongly?

 

What makes it different from many other theories?

 

Is it because you understand that a diven power is needed to start the first process of the big bang?

 

Is that the cause why the BBT do not try to give any scientific explanation for the moment before the bang?

 

Somehow, in a fraction of a second, incredible quantity of practical (which can easily fit to 375,000,000,000 trillion galaxies) had been created. 

 

Just think about this Idea.

 

Who can set this quantity? How could it be?

 

So, there is a moment before and a moment after.

 

The BBT covers the moment after while the moment before - is under the diven power.

 

Each one with his own diven power.

 

I have heard that even to Pop excepts the BBT.

 

So does it mean that if you are Christian you should believe in the BBT?

 

 

After all of this - I have no intention to upset you.

 

If you wish to believe - than please go on.

 

Sorry for the interruption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is there in the BBT that you try to protect it so strongly?

 

Have you yet understood why cosmic inflation does not violate relativity? 

 

If you can answer that in the affirmative, I will try to deal with some of the other issues in your post. 



#30 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 08:35 AM

Have you yet understood why cosmic inflation does not violate relativity? 

 

If you can answer that in the affirmative, I will try to deal with some of the other issues in your post. 

 

The inflation ends 10-32 after the bang.

You confuse between Inflation and expansion.

But again - if you wish to protect the BBT, then why should I upset you?

Take it easy. 



#31 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 08:58 AM

The inflation ends 10-32 after the bang.

You confuse between Inflation and expansion.

But again - if you wish to protect the BBT, then why should I upset you?

Take it easy. 

That is a non-answer. Why the evasiveness?

 

My question to you is a simple one, to do purely with understanding the science of one aspect of the big bang model. I am not a cosmologist and I have no personal investment in any cosmological model. But I am enough of a scientist to see that you are criticising the model for something it does not say. That is misrepresentation. And people here (not just me but but other readers) won't like that and their opinion of you will be the lower as a result.   



#32 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:48 AM

My question to you is a simple one...

 

What is your mission?

If you just wish to protect the BBT, then why should I upset you?

If you had the willing to consider diffrent point of view and understand why Einstein cosmology model is correct, you could also understand why the BBT is incorrect.

Let me help you:

There is high semilarity between Life progress on Earth and Galaxies progress in space.

In the past we belived that there was some sort of bang and then we have got all the versatility of life.

That was valid till Darwin.

He came with new idea. Our scientists at that time didn't like his approch.

It was considered as a sever violation against Christianity.

They have claimed that from scientific point of view - we can't be a product of a simple Ameba.

It was important for them to highlight that there must be a diven power that set the life versatility.

Now it is the same.

They can't accept the idea that all of this wonderful Universe can be created out of small black hole.

Just one rotatable black hole is needed to set our whole Universe.

For someone which believes in diven power - this is atheism.

They will fight on that.

 

I really can't understand why it is so important for the Christianity to show that diven power is needed to our life.

We can believe in god and in the same time believe in Darwin and Einstein cosmology model.

It's time to disconnect diven power from science.



#33 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2841 posts

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:01 AM

 

What is your mission?

 

If you just wish to protect the BBT, then why should I upset you?

 

If you had the willing to consider diffrent point of view and understand why Einstein cosmology model is correct, you could also understand why the BBT is incorrect.

 

Let me help you:

 

There is high semilarity between Life progress on Earth and Galaxies progress in space.

 

In the past we belived that there was some sort of bang and then we have got all the versatility of life.

 

That was valid till Darwin.

 

He came with new idea. Our scientists at that time didn't like his approch.

 

It was considered as a sever violation against Christianity.

 

They have claimed that from scientific point of view - we can't be a product of a simple Ameba.

 

It was important for them to highlight that there must be a diven power that set the life versatility.

 

Now it is the same.

 

They can't accept the idea that all of this wonderful Universe can be created out of small black hole.

 

Just one rotatable black hole is needed to set our whole Universe.

For someone which believes in diven power - this is atheism.

 

They will fight on that.

 

 

I really can't understand why it is so important for the Christianity to show that diven power is needed to our life.

 

We can believe in god and in the same time believe in Darwin and Einstein cosmology model.

 

It's time to disconnect diven power from science.

 

This is quite mad.

 

Good luck with your crusade. 


  • Farming guy likes this

#34 davdan

davdan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 06:52 AM

O.K.

Just for the record - let me summarize few obstacles of the BBT

 

1. Size/Quantity -  After the inflation (10-32) the size of the early Universe was about 10 cm (as grapefruit) and it includes particles which could fit info 375 billion trillion galaxies. Is it feasible?

 

2. Speed - At the end of the inflation process, it is expected that the Universe will expand at lower speed. However, based on the data, at the end of the first second, the size of the universe was 4 LY which means an expansion speed of over 6 Million light speed. Is it feasible? 

 

3. Density distribution - Due to the bang and the Ultra high momentum/speed it is expected that all the plasma will move out from the bang - in some sort of ball shell. So as the plasma is moving in all directions, In the middle - it is not expected to find any sort of plasma. Over time - it is expected that this aria should be clear from all mass/plasma. In all the experiments of bangs it was proved that there is no way to get a smooth density distribution. Hence, how could it be that the BBT set a nice density distribution in space (all over the Universe)?

 

4. Expansion reduction - At the age of 500,000 years, the size of the universe was 1,500,000 LY - which means a plasma speed of 1.5 Light speed. However, at the first second the speed was 6 Million the speed of light. Therefore we need to verify how could it be that there is so severe speed reduction - from 6 million to 1.5 light speed (reduction of 4 million times). Due to the momentum in space, it is not expected to see that kind of speed reduction. Please also remember that the inflation had ended long before the end of the first second. So, is it feasible? 

 

5. Black body signature - when the age of the Universe was 380,000 years old, the plasma moves faster than the speed of light. At that speed, a photon can't meet the expanding early plasma edge. Therefore, from a photon point of view it is moving in an open space. An open space means no black body signature.

 

6. Why the science is not taking care about the moment before the Bang? What could be the natural process which leads to this magnificent bang? Why our scientists ignore this section? 

 

7. Repeatable activities in the Nature - In our universe any natural activity is repeatable. Day, night, rain, snow, supernova…  So, why the big bang is not repeatable? Why only one bang? 


Edited by davdan, 09 June 2017 - 08:37 AM.