Big Bang Blasted

[DryLab]

I once wrote a blurb on the Big Bang Theory. I abandoned that theory when I discovered that in order to make it work you have to apply a period of Expansion in which matter moves faster than light. (or space itself expands faster than light speed.)

My old blurb; the link is to the actual theory.

Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest, pounced upon Hubble's publications and postulated the big-bang account of creation in 1927. He described an expanding universe that originated in an enormous explosion and cited the works of Edwin Hubble and Willem de Sitter as evidence. With one stroke of genius, Lemaitre upstaged the scientists and united religious creation with the latest scientific observations of his day.

[Buffy]

I abandoned that theory when I discovered that in order to make it work you have to apply a period of Expansion in which matter moves faster than light. (or space itself expands faster than light speed.)

Can you explain why you had problems with Expansion?

 

It does not violate Einstein because it is expansion of space and not movement.

 

Bigger on the inside,

Buffy

[DryLab]

Can you explain why you had problems with Expansion?

Expansion seemed to me to be a crutch to save the theory from sure collapse. The observable size of the universe is greater than it could become within the speed of light limit.

[Buffy]

Expansion seemed to me to be a crutch to save the theory from sure collapse. The observable size of the universe is greater than it could become within the speed of light limit.

That's merely a pejorative rendering of the facts. It was necessary to add to the theory to make it work, but it also is supported by CMBR data and subsequent theories to explain clumping of matter.

 

If one does not like any theory, it is possible to derisively call it a "crutch to save" its underlying foundation, but that's not a refutation.

 

Sometimes science is not pretty,

Buffy

[DryLab]

If one does not like any theory, it is possible to derisively call it a "crutch to save" its underlying foundation, but that's not a refutation.

Maybe I was a little harsh; its not an important thing to me; but I think the BB is more of a religion than a science.

[jackson33]

Expansion seemed to me to be a crutch to save the theory from sure collapse. The observable size of the universe is greater than it could become within the speed of light limit.

 

actually the BBT, didn't go that far until *Microwave Background Radiation* came into the picture. this easily explained by some as a result from other means, even Radio Galaxy, was the crutch giving BBT its current status. there are just to many flaws in the interpretations of Red Swifts, coming from advanced equipment making older assumptions wrong.

 

BBT, claims before formation of matter while space temperature were over 10 billion degree kelvin resistance to the expansion into a nothingness would fall under non current physics. if this correct, the universe could have expanded eons of time, before the cooling which has allowed matter to form. that is the universe is 14.2 billion years old, but space has been expanding for some indeterminable time C or higher.

 

IMO; if this were possible, what would BB temperatures have been over that 10B degree. say 20B, then how did it cool to 2.7K (near absolute 0) which is todays said space temperature. not into hypothetical math, i would think the outer limits of our space would be hundreds of trillion years out there for this to be possible. that, or nothingness will soon be said to have a minus degree factor, which the expansion increased to our current understanding of absolute zero.

[Tormod]

Maybe I was a little harsh; its not an important thing to me; but I think the BB is more of a religion than a science.

 

No matter what you think, it is still a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence.

 

It is, however, still not a *complete* theory and may not ever be.

[DryLab]

it is still a valid scientific theory backed up by evidence.

No argument; it is that.

[Mike C]

That's um, quite self-contradictory!

 

Regarding the plants conversion of energy, I only pointed that out to show that it can happen, BUT this is 'biology', NOT physics,

 

In physics, there are NO examples to show how matter can be converted into energy, If there are, then post them.

 

NS

[Boerseun]

Regarding the plants conversion of energy, I only pointed that out to show that it can happen, BUT this is 'biology', NOT physics

So what you're telling me is that biology somehow operates 'outside' the laws of physics?

[Mike C]

Tormod and others

 

The only evidence that the BBU was based on is the Slipher, Hubble and Humason galactic redshift observations.

Lemaitrae, no doubt, may have been aware of these observations when he came up with the idea of the 'expansion of space' and the universe.

However, while the scientists adopted Lemaitraes idea of an expanding space, they REFUTED the Doppler explanation (real science) and used the subjective idea to explain these redshifts as caused by the expansion of the space.

 

So the only evidence here is an idea that had its source replaced. So now there is no source for Lematraes ideas that makes them purely subjective.

 

The CMBR came up later and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refutes that IMO.

 

NS

[Mike C]

So what you're telling me is that biology somehow operates 'outside' the laws of physics?

 

YES. Biological organisms are 'self reproductive' like 'stem cells'.

 

Hydrogen atoms are NOT self reproductive and they are the main component of physics.

The Law of Conservation of Matter says so.

 

NS

[Boerseun]

YES. Biological organisms are 'self reproductive' like 'stem cells'.

So what, then, in your informed opinion, are these self-reproducing biological organisms made of?

[Qfwfq]

A photon encountering a massive charged body can become a particle-antiparticle pair.

[Buffy]

Regarding the plants conversion of energy, I only pointed that out to show that it can happen, BUT this is 'biology', NOT physics

But its also a bit irrelevant, since only a tiny fraction of the biological material that is "created" is due to anything but transformation of other matter: the process consumes energy for the transformation, but elementary particles are only created in very small quantities, if at all. Thus its not an example of "turning energy into matter" except in the most colloquial and unscientific sense of the phrase.

In physics, there are NO examples to show how matter can be converted into energy, If there are, then post them.

Uh, actually the question was energy being converted into matter, but on that point, I did...

Now, of course there are lots of examples of energy being turned into matter: its done all the time in particle accellerators like the Stanford Linear Accellerator, FermiLab and CERN, and you can read a simple synopsis of it here. Its really quite simple: when you slam particles together at a high enough energy, more than the original amount of particles come out.

There are links from that site, and ou can go look up the SLAC, FermiLab and CERN sites too: These places exist to do almost nothing *but* turn energy into matter. If it did not work, why would billions of dollars continue to be spent on it?

 

Is it all an elaborate conspiracy to burn money for no useful purpose?

 

Eat your carrots,

Buffy

[jackson33]

photosynthesis in plant life does not require solar energy. the process is the absorption of H2O and CO2 which give off equal values of oxygen and each 6 units give 1 unit sugar to the plants growth/fruit.

 

the ordinary matter accelerated is matter, which seems to convert to another form, but could just as well be broken into sub particles giving the appearance if disintegration.

 

to my knowledge, energy can act on matter, (make hot, give us an appearance- reflection) however energy moving at C cannot produce matter.

the carry of matter through a split photon action, is used in the *matter transfer* via laser light has had some success as well.

 

way i read it....my understanding and offered as opinion only.

[Buffy]

the ordinary matter accelerated is matter, which seems to convert to another form, but could just as well be broken into sub particles giving the appearance if disintegration.

 

way i read it....my understanding and offered as opinion only.

I recommend you take a look at the links! The other operation--relevant to this thread--is that matter accelerated fast enough ends up with *more* matter than you started with: thus truly "creating matter from energy." They are "broken into sub particles" in most cases as you say, but the sum of the masses of all the resulting particles is more than before the collision.

 

Something from a whole lot,

Buffy