Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Various Pre Big Bang Scenarios Discussed By Pros


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#18 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 05:53 AM

Also, this is not a matter of being misinformed, I have followed his model for longer than you discovered it the other day.

 

Bursting bubbles the inflationary model is standard model, and I have been aware of it for a some time, via the likes of Guth, Linde and others.  

 

Penrose however, I admit I was only mildly aware of him via association with Hawking, and as Penrose suggested his model might be madness, but so mad it could be right. 

 

I think everyone would agree a Mad idea from Penrose might carry more weight than your own. His mad idea is growing on me, whereas yours are not. 

 

Do you really believe I or anyone should accept your views over what the professionals are suggesting above, if so why?

 

Edit are any of any of the following worth discussing in terms of the accepted inflationary stage of the BB.

 

Penrose effect https://en.wikipedia...enrose_process 

black body radiation https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Black_body

Unruh https://en.wikipedia...ki/Unruh_effect

Hawking radiation https://en.wikipedia...wking_radiation


Edited by Flummoxed, 04 February 2019 - 06:13 AM.


#19 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 06:19 AM

Perhaps this might be more interesting for some https://physicsworld...and-colleagues/



#20 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 07:11 AM


 

I think everyone would agree a Mad idea from Penrose might carry more weight than your own. His mad idea is growing on me, whereas yours are not.

 

Well, so be it. It isn't a competition.



#21 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 09:06 AM

No it's not miles different, but then you would have to write a theory that demonstrates that. Inflation states an instability (possibly a symmetry-breaking) lead to an extremely rapid inflationary phase in the big bang has had to be tuned over several times to try and ''fit'' this hot big bang origin/scenario. They had to make the universe small enough, not much larger than a proton to ensure that radiation could reach all four corners of the universe. When I learned about these ''tweaks'' I also came to read a much larger library of information which makes me think the big bang is not all there was. A theory should be simple, and no more simpler... as Einstein himself conceded. Penroses theory to me, including inflation, are not prime candidates to be the most simplest of theories. I hold the same scrutiny with string theory.



#22 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:23 AM

I never said Penroses idea's where not plausible, or couldn't be theoretically possible - I am arguing that we need to concentrate on simpler idea's.



#23 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:24 AM

You'll need to get some examples, because while I may be wrong sometimes, it is not very often.

 

 


''Your own theories never seem to reach a conclusion  :out: and your math has been wrong on multiple occasions  :innocent:​ ''

Edited by Dubbelosix, 04 February 2019 - 10:25 AM.


#24 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 05 February 2019 - 04:46 AM

What could be simpler than possibly the truth of a plausible scenario.

 

 

A whole lot of things. Just because something is plausible does not make it simpler. I can assure you of this. And of knowing first hand what his theory comprises of, it isn't simple at all. In fact its a bit wild. If Penroses attempt (only second attempt) to get a grand theory of everything right, after his dogmatic stance on singularity theorems, then that is a real achievement. Some of us, are more realistic about the situation.


Edited by Dubbelosix, 05 February 2019 - 04:47 AM.


#25 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 05:43 AM

I dont have to write a theory, when perfectly plausible ones exist.

 

Do you understand the theories well enough to be making conclusions on them? Plenty novices have followed the work of Verlinde and being able to ride the wave of hype. Or when Stephen Hawking proposed his theory of everything, what makes his theory less viable to Penroses? These are rhetorical questions, but hopefully you have some answers of your own. Just as I wanted to invite you to put forward different plausible answers. Science is not about dealing with the already established possibilities, though it is part of it.

 

Wrong

 

As I said to another poster, its very rare I am wrong. I know fine well what early models did, you are in fact unaware. Inflation was introduced to solve all these problems about ''fixing the expansion time.'' But I expect you to be more arrogant and conclude I am wrong. By which time, I'll introduce you to a reference.

 

Arguing with Einstein might have been amusing, but possibly only with one outcome. Losing,

 

The same I think applies with Penrose, and I suspect his library is bigger than the one you read, and if he says there is only one plausible explanation, he might plausibly be on the right track.

 

String theory might not be shaking the world at the moment, but very interesting ideas are coming out of it. See the other thread I started on Dark matter.

 

Maybe his library is bigger, maybe his brain is bigger, maybe his idea's are bigger, but again, this is not a competition. I actually like Penrose, he seems like a nice man and I respect him for his writings. He once believed all there was were singularities, so unlike you, when a scientist says they have a plausible scenario, I take it with a pinch of salt. I take the theory for what it is, not who orchestrates it.



#26 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 10:14 AM

As for the link I am ignoring, we have known of particle creation processes for a while, just because one can be implemented into another does not make inflation any more correct. You seem to have an attachment and affinity for Penrose, maybe you should listen to him when he criticizes inflation.



#27 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 10:46 AM

You know absolutely fine why I brought up singularities, it was totally warranted the way you keep selling a theory as if it is fact. Especially when the scientist in question has changed his stance from more dogmatic ways. If you are going to be disingenuous I won't bother replying.



#28 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 10:47 AM

Also, you cannot prove a theory wrong, another hole in your understanding of science.



#29 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:40 PM

You know absolutely fine why I brought up singularities, it was totally warranted the way you keep selling a theory as if it is fact. Especially when the scientist in question has changed his stance from more dogmatic ways. If you are going to be disingenuous I won't bother replying.

 

Whats wrong with an actual scientist changing his/her mind when a better idea comes up.

 

I know full well

1) you keep bringing up old out dated theories and quoting them as if they are fact

2) I know your threads/theories/mathematical ramblings lack direction and conclusions 

3) you misunderstand, or misquote trying to create straw man arguments.

 

 

Also, you cannot prove a theory wrong, another hole in your understanding of science.

 

:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  . I am certain I am not the only one that will be laughing themselves to sleep over this one    :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

 

:shocked:

 

If you have nothing to add to the thread do not bother replying,. 


  • exchemist likes this

#30 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:52 PM

Whats wrong with an actual scientist changing his/her mind when a better idea comes up.

 

I know full well

1) you keep bringing up old out dated theories and quoting them as if they are fact

2) I know your threads/theories/mathematical ramblings lack direction and conclusions 

3) you misunderstand, or misquote trying to create straw man arguments.

 

No, I don't create strawman arguments, I use logic to conclude that half the stuff you go on about these theories, in all likelihood, you don't know as intimately as Penrose, nor even me as I have looked at these models, not through articles you have read, but by studying the mathematics and what is being presented.

 

Quoting number 2)

 

''I know your threads/theories/mathematical ramblings lack direction and conclusions''

 

Which is cheap, ad hominem, and has nothing to do with this. So why don't you stay on track? And you are wrong if you think Penroses ''model is complete'' in anyway either, since it relies on cosmic bruising, a subject you have never brought up but is actually considered widely as controversial in this interpretation.

 

As for 1), when have I ever gave ''outdated'' facts as you put it, give me some examples. Also, there is nothing wrong with ''old'' papers, some of them are the classics. You should show some more respect for things you seem clueless about.



#31 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2975 posts

Posted 06 February 2019 - 12:53 PM

Also, there is nothing wrong with a scientist ''changing his mind'' they do it all the time. I was trying to put some clarity on your persistence to make this into a competition in which one model has to be right, purely from an argument of authority.



#32 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 05:42 AM

I had an interesting email from a Buddhist living in Ireland :) on the subject of matter creation and space time and the unruh effect. 

 

"

 there is not as of yet any consensus about what a complete model of the fundamental structure of spacetime will look like. Personally, if I was to hazard a guess, and based on all the various models that have been proposed, I’d say that particles are not fundamental entities with independent existence at all, but rather observer-dependent artefacts. At the most immediate level, they are probably best understood as representing the relationship between an observer, and a region of spacetime. If that relationship changes, so do notions of “number of particles” - hence we get phenomena such as the Unruh effect, Hawking radiation, etc. Also, properties of these particles themselves largely depend on considerations of symmetry, so depend on the structure of spacetime and other fields, both large scale and small scale. It may simply not be meaningful to speak of a “particle” as something that exists independently of an observer and his relative orientation in spacetime, with spacetime itself of course also being a dynamic entity. So it’s really more of a vast, intricate, interdependent network of relationships, than merely a collection of separate entities.

"



#33 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2717 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 05:46 AM

Whats wrong with an actual scientist changing his/her mind when a better idea comes up.

 

I know full well

1) you keep bringing up old out dated theories and quoting them as if they are fact

2) I know your threads/theories/mathematical ramblings lack direction and conclusions 

3) you misunderstand, or misquote trying to create straw man arguments.

 

 

 

:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:  . I am certain I am not the only one that will be laughing themselves to sleep over this one    :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

 

:shocked:

 

If you have nothing to add to the thread do not bother replying,. 

It's indeed pretty hopeless. Not only are the maths riddled with errors (just take a look at any two lines) but he even manages to get Popper's principle of falsifiability arse about face. But I see he's off to pastures new, which can only be for the best. My guess, however, is that he will shortly be back...... somewhere.......as a new sockpuppet, probably. Reiku has been at it for about ten years now, so it seems unlikely he'll manage to break the habit.


Edited by exchemist, 07 February 2019 - 05:55 AM.


#34 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 05:53 AM

the maths riddled with errors

 

Agreed. Any opinions on our Buddhist friends comment ?