Homepage Forums Plasma Cosmology and BBNH Bang or no bang

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #472
    Avatarpluto
    Member

    Hello All

    Reading many posts I find people not understanding the theory behind the Big Bang.

    I do not agree with the BBT, but! that does not make me right. I’m not emotionally attached to any theory.

    Here are some links in support of the Big Bang, later I will post against. For now maybe discuss the supporting issues.

    Tango at your speed.

    Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

    A Glimpse of the Young Milky Way
    http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/p…/pr-19-02.html

    Evidence for the Big Bang
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astr….html#firstlaw

    Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co…y_faq.html#XIN

    History of the Big Bang Theory
    http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art…ig_bang_theory

    Chapter 10 Origin of the Elements
    http://www.lbl.gov/abc/wallchart/tea…pdf/Chap10.pdf

    Mysterious iron factory in the Early Universe
    http://www.mpe-garching.mpg.de/Highl…r20020708.html

    Phase Transitions in the Early Universe
    http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cs_phase.html

    THE BIG BANG:
    http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

    Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology
    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

    If anybody has links that can support the Big Bang, please post them.

    Attached files

    #2545
    Avatarisrael
    Member

    Bang or no bang
    ===================
    1.
    Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
    (all elementary particles and all quarks and
    their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
    all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
    muons

    #2546
    Avatarprosario_2000
    Participant

    I do not favor the Big Bang Theory, but I don’t tend to be overly aggressive against it. For example, I think that the unfair assumption that scientists adopt the Big Bang because it was formulated by a priest and reminds us of Genesis. I also dismiss the accusation that the Big Bang says that the universe came “out of nothing”. In reality, Big Bang theorists adopt the point of view that the universe sprang from a singularity (and that’s not “nothing”).

    Also I might add that I’m not in “principle” against the Big Bang Theory. From a philosophical standpoint, it can be viewed as a metaphysical research program (in the Popperian sense). A metaphysical research program is a defined conceptual framework within a paradigm that can serve as basis for theories, laws and hypotheses. However, I do not consider the Big Bang Theory as a theory properly speaking. Why? Ideally (not in every single case), formulated theories must have predictive value (posited laws, given certain conditions, must predict certain phenomena); it should be confirmed by experience; and the formulated theory must avoid ad hoc hypotheses as much as possible. I might add that we have to consider theories should have real predictions, not postdictions (“predictions” formulated on the basis of already known phenomena). Postdictions are not worthless, but theories with real predictions have more worth. For example, in terms of postdictions, the Newtonian theory of gravity could predict the orbits of all the planets known in Newton’s time (except Mercury), but it also let scientists predict the existence of other planets with accuracy (Uranus and Neptune).

    Unfortunately, the Big Bang Theory has little or no predictive value, and depends greatly on ad hoc hypotheses (sometimes gross ones). Let’s look at the presumed predictions made by the theory.

    1. The Hubble Expansion: This is a case of postdiction. Edwin Hubble found a correlation between the apparent brightness of spiral nebulae (galaxies) and their spectral redshift. Since he discovered that these spiral nebulae were galaxies, and that the lines of the spectrum were moving to red, some concluded that galaxies were getting further and further away from us. The Big Bang Theory, already formulated by Lema

    #2547
    Avatarprosario_2000
    Participant

    3. The Abundance of Light Elements: The fallacy mentioned above regarding the existence of MBR, applies also to the presence of light elements in the universe. The reasoning is that the Big Bang should have happened because there is no other way to explain the presence of light elements in the universe. In fact, this is false. For example, Jean Audouze in France, has presented evidence that the cosmic rays generated by early stars colliding with background plasma present in the universe is enough to generate the light elements of deuterium, boron, lithium in the right amounts. Adouze’s results are right, regardless of the existence of a Big Bang. By the epistemological principle of Occam’s Razor (inference to the simplest explanation) the Big Bang Theory is unnecessary to explain the light elements. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory in this aspect has been wrong about the amount of lithium in the universe because it underestimated many times its amount.

    It is important to remind ourselves that the reasoning that led Big Bang theorists to state that heavy elements in the universe were formed as a result of the Big Bang explosion. However, Fred Hoyle showed them wrong: these heavy elements are created in stars and expelled to the universe once the stars blows up.

    4. The Rate of the Expansion of the Universe: This is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Big Bang Theory, since it needs many ad hoc hypotheses (some of them extremely gross): dark energy, dark matter, inflation, ripples in space-time. Of course, scientists who favor the Big Bang can argue that if the amount of dark energy and dark matter are enough, then obviously the universe should be expanding the way it should. First, it was predicted that the amount of dark matter should be 90 to 99% of the universe, to hold everything together and explain the way the universe is expanding. One of the problems with the Big Bang is that according to the BBT view of light elements, is that the density of matter in the universe should not exceed a certain value. With the insertion of dark matter (in such huge amounts) as an ad hoc hypothesis, it exceeds the value that deuterium has established. If this is true, then the Big Bang should not have produced the amount of deuterium as it is observed in the universe. Of course, these falsation of these hypotheses point to the Big Bang be wrong.

    However, since this scenario certainly seems to be wrong, they introduced the concept of non-baryonic matter, matter that is not composed of protons and neutrons. According to this theory, dark matter was composed of non-baryonic matter that no one knows what it is, no one has seen it, but it is not ordinary matter, so it does not enter into the equations of light elements. Of course, this weakens significantly the predictive value of the Big Bang Theory, since it does not provide in principle an empirical scenario where this can be confirmed. Since dark matter slows down the expansion of the universe, and we look for the length of time that the universe has existed should be shorter than just a linear expansion. This would mean that the universe would be about 8 billion years old. Of course, this cannot be true, since we know, from the evolution of stars, that many of them are 10 to 13 billion years old. How do you fit a 13 billion years old star in an 8 billion years old universe?

    Also inflation was posited to solve certain problems with the Big Bang theory, inflation proposes a kind of cosmological constant, where the universe passed through exponential expansion. The problem is that the value of the cosmological constant made by inflation and the value of the cosmological constant found in the universe are simply extremely divergent by a factor of ten to the 108th power. For this reason, they introduced the concept of dark energy, which is some energy that no one knows what it is, but it creates a big repulsion in the universe, and causes it to accelerate the expansion. So right now we have the following scenario according to the Big Bang Theory: Now we have a universe that is 5% conventional matter, 25% dark matter and 70% of dark energy. In other words, 95% of the universe is matter and energy we don’t know at all, and probably will never know. Isn’t this a very big assumption to posit and untestable stuff to be the vast majority of the universe?

    Another problem were the big structures found in the universe such as superclusters, and literally big empty space with little or no matter at all. In order to explain these structures, not only scientists went to dark matter for the rescue, but also posited early “relics” of the Big Bang such as ripples in space-time. After COBE was launched into space they discovered tiny fluctuations in the MBR that apparently confirmed their theories. However, what COBE found (and what later WMAP found) was that the fluctuations found are one hundred times smaller than were originally expected. They went to dark matter to explain why structures appear the way they do.

    Plasma cosmology, on the other hand, is able to explain these fluctuations and these cosmic structures as filamentary structures, and the result of filamentary behavior of plasmas. These filament behavior never change regardless of size. These structures were predicted long before Gerard DeVancoleurs discovered that the universe was organized hierarchically (a fact unforseen by Big Bang Theorists).

    If all of this is true, it seems that other cosmological models, such as plasma cosmology, are better at predicting certain phenomena. The Big Bang Theory has not had one successful real prediction. In the best of cases, it has had successful postdictions. I’m not saying that scientists should end the Big Bang theory as a research program, but they, at least, must show more humility and recognize that their theory is not as solid as they claim it to be.

    #2548
    Avatarisrael
    Member

    Read more about ” Bing Bang theory.”
    Web ” Yahoo “, Google “, ” MSN “……….etc
    Write ” Bing Bang theory” and push ” search”.
    =========..======

    #2556
    Avatarpluto
    Member

    Hello All

    Many scientists have in the past been fed information that the Big Bang theory is the standard model supported by some form of evidence.

    Some people think that the BB occured in one single spot. As per the BB theory, this is not the case. It occured everywhere from a singularity at the same time.

    Much more than this: If you intend to support the BBT than support it with evidence and not emotional thoughts.

    Why do you suppot the BBT?????????????

    Read this link:

    Five Ages of the Universe
    http://www.fathom.com/course/10701055/index.html

    I do not agree with it. But! this is what some people think.

    #2558
    Avatarisrael
    Member

    If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
    beginning of his calculations then after some
    operations it grows into a big one.
    And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
    the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
    then now we are surprised with its paradoxes

    #2560
    Avatarpluto
    Member

    Hello All

    Israel maybe right.

    History repeats time and time again.

    The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference
    Mon

    #2561
    Avatarisrael
    Member

    About Reference Systems.

    From times of Newton in classical physics the principle worked:
    ” Until the reference system is specified, any conversations
    on movement are completely deprived the contents.”
    Newton, first of all physicists realized, what a main role a reference system has.
    The choice of reference system is a central, basic question at the
    commencement of any task. But the founders of the

    #2605
    Avatarpluto
    Member

    Hello All

    Israel said

    They are right. The essence is that now there is no precise border which
    divides two different frame of reference:
    1) System of Vacuum and
    2) Gravitational frame of reference.
    Now these two systems are considered as though they were common.
    But they are completely different systems.
    There, where there is a vacuum – there is no gravitation.
    In the vacuum, one set of laws – the laws of the vacuum work
    ( not taking into account external influences).
    Where there is gravitation, there is no vacuum.
    In a gravitational reference system a complete set of other laws apply.
    These laws are connected and take into account external influences.

    Sorry I did not see your response, been busy in other forums.

    How do you know that there is no gravity in a vacuum? Sounds like the chicken and the egg.

    Ok, you speak of reference:

    What is your main Point? What has this got to do with the price of eggs?

    #2607
    Avatarisrael
    Member

    How do you know that there is no gravity in a vacuum?
    ===============

    #2680
    Avatarpluto
    Member

    Hello Israel

    Again, I’m sorry, been away

    You write with a pen of knowledge.

    You have made me read up on Gravity. Be back soon

    #2681
    Avatarisrael
    Member

    pluto wrote: Hello Israel

    Again, I’m sorry, been away

    You write with a pen of knowledge.

    You have made me read up on Gravity. Be back soon

    ============================
    Please, don’t forget to read about Vacuum too.

    #2683
    Avatarpluto
    Member

    Hello Isreal

    Thanks mate, will do.

    #2686
    Avatarisrael
    Member

    pluto wrote: Hello Isreal

    Thanks mate, will do.

    ========================
    Be lucky.
    Happiness to you.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 26 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.