Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[maddog]

What points are unfounded.?

I have read all the links provided by this forum in support of the BBT.

 

There is not one evidence that supports the BBT and the BBT cannot explain the observations local or deep field.

Yes there are theories and assumptions that are considered by scientists as so called evidence to support the BBT.

I will answer question to my statement (paper you linked "30 reasons", etc).

Your second comment (I highlighted in Bold) is obviously your opinion. It is unfounded as

well as you have brought no single example to support this Opinion.

Your last comment is also unfounded. What one example evidence do you claim to be

"so called".

 

This is abridged list (not all 30) -- "Top 30 problems..."

 

 

• 1. This point is dated and is now no longer true (was in the 50's).

• 2. I had not even heard this theory. Is not the conventional scientific dogma.

• 3. Use Hoyle's Steady State as basis for arguement which since the 60's has lost favor.

• 4. I would have to look at underlying papers -- your best example so far.

• 5. This point I remember reading in a book by Sandage/Arp "Redshift Controversy".
  It was a good book, written in 1983. Maybe not every point has been ironed out. A lot
  has been added since then.

• 6. This was a problem back in the 90's since then, the dating mechanisms for Globular
  clusters has improved and moved downward, converging with the overall age of the
  universe to be about 12.73 Billion Years.

• 7. This point refers back to 90's for its data. Homogeneity has been a discussion
  recently though. So this point may have some merit.

• 8. Dark Matter isn't required for BBT per se. Dark Matter is what supports that Galaxies
  don't fly appart as gravity would dictate on what is visible. Dark Matter also supports
  the WMAP data (includes Dark Energy).

• 9. I will have to look at this point further.

• 10. This appears to be a mistatement of the "flatness problem" which is solved by Inflation (not that I completely agree with Inflation).

 

I have done 10 of the 30 (1/3). By only giving a cursory look, I eliminated over 2/3 of

the 10 (7/10). The current version BBT though maybe not complete is sufficient to

describe what happened along the way. Worse than this -- this article was copyrighted

in 2002 (bottom of each page), so even the paper is dated.

 

Now could a Cyclic version of BBT have occured ? This has not been ruled out. There

is where your "controversy" lies, not with BBT itself.

 

maddog

[enorbet2]

Hello LaurieAG

 

If you consider the 'ether' as the grid pattern found in your typical 'gravity well' diagram you might possibly understand what a 'steady state' version of a relative universe looks like. While some people might chose to ignore this 'ether,' it is just comprised of fixed infinitessimal lines that allow us to comprehend the effects of force on matter in a way that we, as physical entities, can relate to in the real world. Otherwise we strike the startling unrealities that come cap in hand with many modern universal models.

 

I actually have no problem imagining "the ether" as grid lines around a gravity well nor visualizing a steady state Universe. I do have problems accepting a construct for the thing itself and calling it an ambiguous name like "ether" which, however unfortunately, is tied to a thoroughly discredited concept based on the wrong notion that light requires a medium in which to propagate, much like reaction engines were first thought to "push against something". In short, I don't think the Aperion paper was thinking of a construct for visual aids when it used the phrase "intergalactic fog". Do You?

 

Perhaps I was less than clear in my argument against the paper that Pluto linked from Aperion, or at least one point that argued that redshift is a figment of Standard Model's imagination since it is actually caused by light being slowed down by "intergalactic fog". Until and unless Space-Time is discovered to be discrete AND able to slow down photons AND sufficiently (and consistently, I might add, so that it appears homogenous in all directions) to create this effect, expansion appears to be a reasonable solution.

 

At the point of the currently theorised Big Bang (from the standard model), there are some surprising anomalies. Stephen Hawking theorises about particles and anti particles being created at the boundaries of singularities (and some speculate that this may be the cause of inflation as some of the particles fall into the singularity) while the singularity (the mother of all singularities) at the BB doesn't have any equivalent particle behaviour (how absolute) despite the fact that, as all mass would be concentrated in the one point, the area at these extremities, and beyond, would be the ideal medium for light due to this lack of mass (i.e. a perfect vacuum). The absoluteness of the conception that time and space disappear outside of a singularity goes back the otherway from the BB to 'reinforce' the behaviour of particles at the boundaries of local singularities, NOT. Nothing absolute here and a decided lack of consistency besides.

 

Hmmm it is my understanding that Space-Time might disappear INSIDE a singularity, however this may depend on whether one considers a singularity to include the event horizon or not. For intelligent discussion we need a definition of terms here so please tell how you define "singularity". In any case, it is my understanding that the Standard Model, while progressively pushing the timeframe back toward the singularity, has yet to attempt to describe conditions or events with a high degree of confidence earlier than 10^-12 seconds after the big bang. The degree of confidence is much greater that photons could not have appeared, despite any contention to the contrary that it was "the ideal medium for light", until the 3 minute mark. While it may possibly be worthy of consideration that time dilation effects may have been occurring, the relationship between 3 minutes and 10^-12 seconds is still vast. The LHC and COS should soon illuminate (npi) this issue a little better.

 

 

Even Einstein didn't like the concept of an absolute singularity because of a couple of problems with regards to a certain number that just pops up (called 'infinity'). This anomally disappears in a localised singularity (within the rest of the universe) to such an extent that a model of a solid state universe with localised close to singularity areas is feasable because there is never any point where everything in the universe is in a total singularity (or infinity comes into the calcs).

 

While it may be seen as dangerous and arrogant to contradict Einstein, at the very least it needs to be pointed out that Einstein was a proponent of Steady State (so "even Einstein" isn't exactly compelling in this issue) and utterly despised Quantum Mechanics. In fact it was about QM that the famous Gambling God analogy was made. Regarding that however, it is my opinion (and it seems you may agree at least in part if I understand your take on Turing Machine) that Einstein's point is still well taken at least "up here" at the human and cosmological level, in that the Universe is knowable and adheres to strict rules. It may be something of a quandry that at sub-atomic levels particles can be at two places at the same time, but it still seems likely that moons, planets and galaxies can't. I thoroughly agree that all attempts so far to "mix the two" are speculation in the extreme and suffer from massive inconsistencies. I may even be particularly passionate about this issue having just finished Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next".

 

There is an internal relationship that applies within the basic building blocks of the universe at the most minute levels and another discrete relationship between those basic building blocks themselves at all higher levels. Mix the two together and you will have inconsistencies galore, absolutely.

 

All I know is that the real answer isn't absolute one way or the other so, to have it both ways (with or without infinity), one representation could be:-

 

DEUS NOLI/NOLITE ALEA ('god' doesn't (with/without infinity) play dice)

MODO/POSSE SCIRE MISCERE (but' (with/without infinity) can throw)

 

It's really only a dichotomy of human psychology. Mix the two together without really understanding their respective internal/external contexts and you will have inconsistencies galore, guaranteed.

 

Although I agree human psychology is an important issue as in "If all one has is nails, everything starts looking like a hammer", unless I am far off the mark, if I choose to utilize a "screwdriver" as a "hammer" it is indeed a hammer, functionally, since it is either of sufficient mass to drive the nail or it isn't, nomenclature notwithstanding. I don't care what we call it, as long as we agree on terms for the purpose of communication. Ultimately I only care "what does it do?" and whether we agree on that

 

BTW Thanks for the link to Church-Turing. I hadn't read that in a long time and it was refreshing.

 

Sincerely

Jimmy

[enorbet2]

Correction - Oh Man! I can't believe I used "slow down" even in the same sentence as "photons"! I might just as well referred to humans and dinosaurs in the same breath. I should have used "disturbed" for a generalization or refer to photons as "wavelength impaired" by the "fog" if I wanted to be silly cute but more correct. Antihistamine Apologies All Around (Alliteration) er I'll be going just now until massive amounts of coffee works or sufficient time passes. Even trees can't keep up sex indefinitely.

[enorbet2]

Hello Pluto

OK let's try to get clearer...

 

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Some people think that I get offended.

 

That's because you make rash statements like (paraphrasing) "If I just agree, everyone will be happy with me" The argument is not with you but most often with the "evidence" you present, especially when so often it rehashes, at great length, things resolved decades ago, and often not with anything more substantilal than claims.

 

I do not care which theory rules.

 

Really?

 

What offends me is the History behind the BBT.

 

OK. Exactly what event in history offends you?

 

 

I want to see better science at work.

 

As do we all, friend, and that is done with tools like the rules of evidence often lacking in the papers you quote (more examples forthcoming)

 

The great wall of galaxies at 8 billion years away, that span over 12 billion years. How could they have formed in just 4 billion years.

 

I think I know to what you refer despite mixing distance and time (you meant light years, right? until the last entry) If I do understand to what you refer it is a good question since Inflation has yet to be verified and afaik The Horizon Problem is still a problem. The issue is complicated further because while often in the beginning theories are characterized as singular, there are often many as in String Theory (take your pick, while reduced in number by Ed Witten, is still a plethora) and Inflation has evolved too. For example the Inflation as Higgs Field concept failed, but only that aspect and variation, not the whole idea. Disproving one doesn't disprove all.

 

 

As a comparison:

Our Earth evolved in just 5 billion. The oceans started forming just 4.2 billion years ago as shown by Sedimentary rocks.

 

The complexity of forming over 10^9 galaxies in the observable universe is a mind twister. As indicated by deep field images by Hubble site.

 

This is unclear. OK I get it that sedimentary rocks are something of a "smoking gun" but what is the reference to "complexity" and "deep field"? Is there a point? A question? An analogy? Recently Astronomers and the public were treated to a wonderful image of the "ancient blob" which appears to show that some structures existed that are very possibly early galaxies only 600 Million years after the BBT, considerably earlier than was thought possible. This, only one example of such new data, not only does not crash the BBT like a house of cards but can even be seen as highly supportive and the beginnings of answers to your concern about complexity and time. This illustrates the point I've been trying to make that it is going to take something really fundamental to topple BBT and we are just not there yet. In a few days data will begin to come in from the new COS at HST that will help get closer. The fact remains that no new empirical data has yet to destroy BBT. Are there questions? problems? Sure! But the solutions are not Ad Hoc as in fabricated constructs like some skyhook. No brick walls for BBT yet.

 

As for the CMB that can be explained by various theories including the static model.

 

Although this may be true in some cases, nothing explains it better and no one explanation also explains so many other aspects as does BBT, so far.

 

These papers are quite interesting.

<snip>

 

"EXPANDING UNIVERSE"-THE GREATEST

MATHEMATICAL DECEPTION IN 20-TH CENTURY PHYSICS

<snip>

 

Could these papers have substance or are they from crank pots?

 

I haven't finished the 1st (snipped) one yet so I'll get back to you on that but the above quoted one forces me to reply that the short answer is "CrackPot!" How is anyone supposed to even begin to read a paper with any manner of objectivity that starts out in the very title screaming "Deception"! (exclamation mine) and immediately after "Mathematical"? It is entirely one thing to claim the opposition is just wrong and quite another to claim they are committing fraud, especially in an area so ripe for verification or disproof as Science, let alone Mathematics. Has it escaped you that a recent wunderkind with rather extreme science cred was discovered to be a fraud by a secretary as well as other, but supposedly lesser scientists? Or the Merck case? Or Dr. Reuben? The Piltdown Man?

 

In the early part of the 20th Century the Piltdown Man fraud lasted for some 20 years. Dr Reuben and Merck are just 2 examples of expert fraud that didn't even make it to 10 years. Many are uncovered in less than 5. Almost none last for 25 years or more,and these are most often little studies buried among an avalanche of larger subjects. How do you suppose that a question as huge and public as Expanding Universe, if a deception, has escaped not only detection (except by a few Lone Rangers) but confirmation? Much like the Moon Landings Fraud "Theory" the subject is just too big and too public, requiring a conspiracy of truly staggering proportions to even be remotely plausible let alone possible.

 

You really have to ask yourself just what kind of "scientist" would title his "thesis" with such contentious histrionics. It almost insures prejudice, except among those already sympathetic. That is a pretty safe criteria for sniffing out crackpots and "snake oil" hypesters. Let's see even one single piece of evidence seriously attacking the entirety of BBT that's published in a respected journal, respected because it is well-known with a history of scientific objectivity and thorough checks and balances. Incidentally, if you immediately cry "Foul!" because you suspect that mainstream wouldn't publish such, it might be worthwhile to note that even respectable journalists feel the pressure to publish and be read and nothing sells like an upset. It just isn't wise to get caught with one's trousers down in public without a really good excuse. That tends to thwart deception.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

The following text basically says what I want to say.

 

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

 

September 1st, 2006

 

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.

 

"If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."

 

and

 

This paper maybe a repeat

 

 

Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang

Sep 04, 2006

Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang

 

Optical and x-ray images of the galaxy cluster named 1E0657-56 have provided direct proof that these clumps of disturbed galaxies are small, faint, and nearby. These and many similar observations directly contradict the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang, which place the objects far away.

 

 

According to the authors of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website, the galactic cluster imaged above "was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang." Though the announcement by the Chandra team never uses the words "theory," "hypothesis," or "interpretation," its every sentence rests on a jumble of assumptions, from supposed galactic "collisions" to wildly conjectural "gravitational lensing," all wrapped around the discredited notion that redshift is a reliable measure of velocity and distance. The capper is the announcement appearing in numerous scientific media that the image "proves the existence of dark matter."

 

In electrical terms, the Hubble optical image shows the many distorted galaxies and filaments of plasma that have been identified by the astronomer Halton Arp as the fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable "BL Lac" phase. The BL Lac transition breaks up the increasingly massive plasma of the quasar as it progresses toward becoming a companion galaxy.

 

From an electrical vantage point, the Chandra x-ray image (pink) clearly shows the bell-shaped terminus and following arc of a plasma discharge “jet.” . The strong magnetic field of the current causes electrons to emit the x-ray synchrotron (non-thermal) radiation captured in the image. Synchrotron radiation is a normal electrical discharge effect.

 

But popular astronomy, oblivious to electrical phenomena, sees only "hot gases colliding."

[maddog]

This is an addendum to my post #766 above:

 

I look a little more closely at this paper "Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang".

 

There wern't even 30 points! How short changed is that! This publication is apparently

the opinion of a few fringe individuals with no clear credentials (none that I could find).

 

As far as I can determine points 4, 5, 7 are the only with minimal credibility (I suspect 4,5

as being misrepresented). Leaving 1 out of 30 as hardly credible. :shrug:

 

This paper came from a private website.

 

maddog

[coldcreation]

OK let's try to get clearer...

 

Let's see even one single piece of evidence seriously attacking the entirety of BBT that's published in a respected journal, respected because it is well-known with a history of scientific objectivity and thorough checks and balances. ...

 

 

 

Here a several works published in The Astrophysical Journal that contradict the big bang (at least as far as the redshift z interpretation is concerned):

 

 

The Surroundings of Disturbed, Active Galaxies

A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies

 

 

Here are few more from The Astrophysical Journal.

 

 

 

And numerous works by other authors in addition to Arp, published in the same journal, ApJ:

 

 

The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-RayEmitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319, Pasquale Galianni, E. M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge, and Stefano Zibetti

 

 

QSOs and Active Galactic Nuclei Associated with NGC 2639

E.*Margaret*Burbidge, Geoffrey*Burbidge, Halton*C.*Arp, and Stefano*Zibetti

 

 

And more yet here from The Astrophysical Journal...see Burbidge

 

 

You will surely find some very interesting studies published in The Astrophysical Journal here too, see Narlikar...

 

Edited to add a few Narlikar links from ApJ:

 

 

POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MAGNITUDE-REDSHIFT RELATION FOR SUPERNOVAE OF TYPE Ia

 

Time Dilation in the Supernova Light Curve and the Variable Mass Hypothesis

 

Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation Interpreted within the Framework of the QuasiSteady State Cosmology

 

 

 

I would highly recommend this publication:

 

 

Current Issues in Cosmology, by Jean-Claude Pecker, Jayant Narlikar

 

Contents:

 

Part I. Observational Facts Relating to Discrete Sources:

1. The state of cosmology G. Burbidge;

2. The redshifts of galaxies and QSOs E. M. Burbidge and G. Burbidge;

3. Accretion discs in quasars J. Sulentic;

Part II. Observational Facts Relating to Background Radiation:

4. CMB observations and consequences F. Bouchet;

5. Abundances of light nuclei K. Olive;

6. Evidence for an accelerating universe or lack of A. Blanchard;

Part III. Standard Cosmology:

7. Cosmology' date=' an overview of the standard model F. Bernardeau;

8. What are the building blocks of our universe? K. C. Wali;

Part IV. Large-Scale Structure:

9. Observations of large-scale structure V. de Lapparent;

10. Reconstruction of large-scale peculiar velocity fields R. Mohayaee, B. Tully and U. Frisch;

Part V. Alternative Cosmologies:

11. The quasi-steady state cosmology J. V. Narlikar;

12. Evidence for iron whiskers in the universe N. C. Wickramasinghe;

13. Alternatives to dark matter: MOND + Mach D. Roscoe;

14. Anthropic principle in cosmology B. Carter;

Part VI. Evidence for Anomalous Redshifts:

15. Anomalous redshifts H. C. Arp;

16. Redshifts of galaxies and QSOs: the problem of redshift periodicities G. Burbidge;

17. Statistics of redshift periodicities W. Napier;

18. Local abnormal redshifts J.-C. Pecker;

19. Gravitational lensing and anomalous redshifts J. Surdej, J.-F. Claeskens and D. Sluse;

Panel discussion;

General discussion;

Concluding remarks.

 

 

[b']Contributors:[/b]

 

G. Burbidge, E. M. Burbidge, F. Bouchet, K. Olive, A. Blanchard, F. Bernardeau, K. C. Wali, V. de Lapparent, R. Mohayaee, B. Tully, U. Frisch, J. V. Narlikar, N. C. Wickramasinghe, D. Roscoe, B. Carter, H. C. Arp, W. Napier, J.-C. Pecker, J. Surdej, J.-F. Claeskens, D. Sluse

 

 

True, some of the ideas and interpretations of the evidence portrayed in the papers above are non-maintream, alternative, debatable, subject to strict continued scrutiny. Such by no means implies the works were written by 'crack-pots.' Quite au contraire.

 

Some of the above interpretations are no more far fetched than DE or CDM. Indeed, the shape and character of big bang cosmology with its underlying theme, the progressive assertion of its autonomy and its independence from the imitation of nature is certainly clear and compelling.

 

Within the framework of alternative cosmologies, there seems to be more an approach to nature, a tendency to relate observations with the natural, free of the gross parameters (arguably artificial) utilized by the mainstream.

 

Scientists (and artists :o) on all sides agree there is one fundamentally scientific method capable of resolving the controversy: explicitly, by means of comparing theory with observation. The problem is that there is not always a clear consensus as to the interpretation of those observations, especially when certain features in a theory remain hidden forever (e.g., behind an event horizon) or when many interpretations are available for the same observation.

 

My personal opinion: Observational evidence has opened new avenues that point in the direction of a new cosmological epoch, a contemporary one, in which we will have to survive without dogmatic support and rid our minds of the conventional ‘isms.’ From this innovative starting-point, the idea will prevail (I suspect) that big bang dogmatism had been superfluous all along and that a dialogue with nature is essential for scientific development and human progress.

 

 

 

:smilingsun:

 

 

 

 

CC

[maddog]

Here a several works published in The Astrophysical Journal that contradict the big bang (at least as far as the redshift z interpretation is concerned):

 

The Surroundings of Disturbed, Active Galaxies

A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies

Here are few more from The Astrophysical Journal.

These papers were written by Halton Arp (c. 2000 or so) Arp was one of the authors

on the book (with Sandage) titled, "Redshift Controversy", publ. about 1983. I had until

now forgot on which side he stood (wrt Redshift). The gist of these three papers implies

that some anomalous Redshift values may indeed be local and not cosmological phenominae.

This does not in itself eliminate Redshift as a theory. Same goes for the other links from the above post.

True, some of the ideas and interpretations of the evidence portrayed in the papers above are non-maintream, alternative, debatable, subject to strict continued scrutiny. Such by no means implies the works were written by 'crack-pots.' Quite au contraire.

Your above links are bonafide scientists for sure.

My personal opinion: Observational evidence has opened new avenues that point in the direction of a new cosmological epoch, a contemporary one, in which we will have to survive without dogmatic support and rid our minds of the conventional ‘isms.’ From this innovative starting-point, the idea will prevail (I suspect) that big bang dogmatism had been superfluous all along and that a dialogue with nature is essential for scientific development and human progress.

:smilingsun:

Does this mean you side one way or another wrt BBT or wish to remain vaguely on the

sidelines as an observer. I have been reading in various journals where the stock

principle of Redshift may need some reevaluation. None of the articles I read (so far)

implied a repudiation of Redshift.

 

maddog

[enorbet2]

Although I agree with maddog that I have yet to see repudiation I just had to breathe a sigh of relief at seeing some real science for a change. Thank you, coldcreation... refreshing

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

I did not know that there are sides to science.

 

Regardless

 

I came across this paper

 

[0902.3610] Axionic dark energy and a composite QCD axion

Axionic dark energy and a composite QCD axion

 

Authors: Jihn E. Kim, Hans Peter Nilles

(Submitted on 20 Feb 2009)

 

Abstract: We discuss the idea that the model-independent (MI) axion of string theory is the source of quintessential dark energy. The scenario is completed with a composite QCD axion from hidden sector squark condensation that could serve as dark matter candidate. The mechanism relies on the fact that the hidden sector anomaly contribution to the composite axion is much smaller than the QCD anomaly term. This intuitively surprising scenario is based on the fact that below the hidden sector scale $Lambda_h$ there are many light hidden sector quarks. Simply, by counting engineering dimensions the hidden sector instanton potential can be made negligible compared to the QCD anomaly term.

 

 

It probably explains dark matter and dark energy in a way that can explain the bangs that may keep on eternal bangging via evolution.

[enorbet2]

Well I have to hand it to you, Pluto, that looks like real Science there. I followed the link and downloaded the PDF and so far have spent about an hour before I got tired out. Some of the math is slow going for me because I only took Math as far as a few credit hours of Calculus and it's been more than a couple years since. However even just scratching the surface I can say it is also quite interesting. While it is too soon to see what it would mean to BBT, it may be a pretty big step in the right direction for String Theory(s) especially M Theory, which iirc, Ed Witten essentially created in a burst of inspired work that in one "swell foop" combined several competing variations. String Theory(s) desperately needs observable, repeatable data and predictions to get beyond the "bordering on philosophy" stage. While it remains math on paper it apparently requires Tensor Calculus at a minimum to get into the "nitty-gritty"and I don't know if I am game to take that on right now.

 

BTW I think what the moderator means when he "chastises" you is that in a way he is trying to encourage you to share more of your own thoughts and not just those of others. What is your take on this paper? Do you see it as supportive or destructive for BBT? You hint at multiple Big Bangs and that is certainly a possibility. Multiples just lack more evidence, and possibly always will, than does one. Even the most accomplished experts are so new at this as to not even begin to imagine how one might gather data in other membranes. Presently afaik the only way would be if we "bumped" again. It's apparently OK to speculate here as long as one doesn't put speculation forth as some Final Truth or some Unassailable Refutation. So toss your boats in the water and see which ones float. The world won't end if a few sink. Science, as I imagine you know, is full of false starts. It only takes a few successes, or if lucky, only one. Besides, the best scientists agree that it is the quest, the pondering of mysteries that counts. It's been posed that if some alien civilization or deux es machina revealed all answers, large numbers of scientists might take their own lives.

[Pluto]

G'day enorbet

 

My thoughts right now are running at 100 miles per hour.

 

It will take me at least two years to collect my thoughts and years after that to understand.

 

My mentor has given me so much homework on

 

Compact matter

Magnetic reconnection

Jet formation

Black hole dynamics

Quantum Mechnics

Transients

Instanton

and the list goes on.

 

Sorry that I have been using you people as GYM bags.

 

Once I thought I knew and now I know that the journey has just started.

 

To top that off I'm dislexic to boot. Thank God and my wife for spell check.

 

This is one reason I just post the ABS.

 

========================

 

Coldcreation love your post.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Jimmy, CC, All,

 

Although I agree human psychology is an important issue as in "If all one has is nails, everything starts looking like a hammer", unless I am far off the mark, if I choose to utilize a "screwdriver" as a "hammer" it is indeed a hammer, functionally, since it is either of sufficient mass to drive the nail or it isn't, nomenclature notwithstanding. I don't care what we call it, as long as we agree on terms for the purpose of communication. Ultimately I only care "what does it do?" and whether we agree on that

 

The point I was trying to make is that any model that includes infinity also includes the same kind of 'leap of faith' that many adherents to religions make due to a very tenuous connection with reality and a multitude of interpretations for perceived phenomena, real or otherwise.

 

The inverse to Kurt Godels incompleteness theorem is that while no model may ever be complete, if there is one flaw that cannot be explained satisfactorily and consistently within the basic rules, then the model is wrong period. The one flaw in the BB model(s) is what nobody seems to be attempting to solve, because it cannot be solved, so the model(s) is wrong until someone proves it is merely incomplete.

 

For a start any universal model must regard time as the only 'infinite' variable which is then constrained so that infinity is excluded from the model in its entirity. This is what the

seconds from the BB stuff is about, in pure calculus anything 'approaching' infinity can have 2 different results, one if it actually reaches it (endless loop, model is wrong) and the other if it doesn't (a very large FINITE number). If any component of the model contains this flaw it is wrong.

 

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

 

BTW, I have an Applied Science degree with a major in Computing (1993, with High Distinctions for Technical Calculus and Discrete Maths). I'm also an Atheist.

[maddog]

Well I have to hand it to you, Pluto, that looks like real Science there. I followed the link and downloaded the PDF and so far have spent about an hour before I got tired out. Some of the math is slow going for me because I only took Math as far as a few credit hours of Calculus and it's been more than a couple years since. However even just scratching the surface I can say it is also quite interesting. While it is too soon to see what it would mean to BBT, it may be a pretty big step in the right direction for String Theory(s) especially M Theory, which iirc, Ed Witten essentially created in a burst of inspired work that in one "swell foop" combined several competing variations. String Theory(s) desperately needs observable, repeatable data and predictions to get beyond the "bordering on philosophy" stage. While it remains math on paper it apparently requires Tensor Calculus at a minimum to get into the "nitty-gritty"and I don't know if I am game to take that on right now.

I will agree with enorbet2 on this. This last paper on Axions is somewhat related to

BBT (and to me). Like enorbet2 I slugged through the paper with difficulty. Not because

of my lack of math for me, it is how little I am trained at String Theory. I got bogged

down somewhere in the middle attempt to relate to all the SUSY particles, their respective

superpartners and which Special Unitary group they are aligned with.

For instance, I was not aware of a massless h-quark [pg 2], and have still to learn how

a Goldstone Boson relates to me. One grad student attempted to explain to me how these

particles interact with Gravitons.

BTW I think what the moderator means when he "chastises" you is that in a way he is trying to encourage you to share more of your own thoughts and not just those of others. What is your take on this paper? Do you see it as supportive or destructive for BBT? You hint at multiple Big Bangs and that is certainly a possibility. Multiples just lack more evidence, and possibly always will, than does one...

Yes, the "cut-paste-link-run" method I don't think works all that well. Some of your

thought might add value to us. We would like to know your thoughts.

 

maddog

[maddog]

My thoughts right now are running at 100 miles per hour.

It will take me at least two years to collect my thoughts and years after that to understand....

 

Sorry that I have been using you people as GYM bags.

Once I thought I knew and now I know that the journey has just started.

Maybe you skim some of those thoughts off the top.

To top that off I'm dislexic to boot. Thank God and my wife for spell check.

This explains a lot. Though I am not dislexic, I do suffer from Type-1,3,5 ADD. So

like you my mind races ahead of what I am focused on often.

This is one reason I just post the ABS.

Maybe you could have your wife "write" a few of your thoughts that you might tell her.

 

maddog

[maddog]

For a start any universal model must regard time as the only 'infinite' variable which is then constrained so that infinity is excluded from the model in its entirity. This is what the

seconds from the BB stuff is about, in pure calculus anything 'approaching' infinity can have 2 different results, one if it actually reaches it (endless loop, model is wrong) and the other if it doesn't (a very large FINITE number). If any component of the model contains this flaw it is wrong.

I ask the question "Why must time be the Only infinite variable" ? [from your first sentence above] This is two questions really - Why must time be an infinite variable &

why must it be the "only" one ?

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

Sound like opinion to me. Wheeler has conjectured that the Universe being created was

as though a bubble universe inflating inside a larger multiverse. How & Why are outside

our body of knowledge so could only be a conjecture on his part.

BTW, I have an Applied Science degree with a major in Computing (1993, with High Distinctions for Technical Calculus and Discrete Maths).

I have a BS in Physics, with a near equivalent BS in Astrophysics, BA Mathematics and

yes, I minored in Computer Science.

I'm also an Atheist.

Not sure why this is relevant. To equivocate, I am not.

 

maddog

[enorbet2]

Greetz

I really don't wish to step on any toes as I consider any devotion to spiritual faith entirely a private personal choice and suffer under no illusions that people of Faith are incapable of reason. However, unless I stay in an ivory tower, I must admit there is so much public religion in the world and considerable of the proponents choose to either seek scientific support from the world or actively seek to convert it, even through deception as in "Intelligent Design" that there is some value in declaration. Although everyone may have their pet theories and agendas, the declaration not only eliminates a whole host of issues but lends to the cause of Reason and Tolerance since it shows some progress in the world in at least a reduction in likelihood that such a declaration will lead to beheading or burning at the stake.

 

That said, I'm aware that atheists do exist that are more reactionary, still considering the issue as important and requiring their own brand of evangelism. I simply suspect the percentages are fewer. In summary, it tends to remove most concerns that ideas expressed are driven by anything other than scientific curiosity and a willingness to accept new ideas without internal conflict. It may not be definitive, but I contend that it does improve the odds.