The big bang is flawed

[Guest]

In the same way that gravity was "invented" to explain why things were attracted to the ground. If a galaxy has 4 times the mass that its constituent stars provide, there must be an invisible matter making up the rest of the mass. So they invent this matter and call it "dark matter." It is pretty much beyond question now as to whether DM exists. Gravitation lensing proves this.

This is entirely wrong. The maths requires it and if you add it to the maths - the maths works. Circular logic if ever I saw it. It doesn't preclude the distinct possibility of a better model, which doesn't require the existence of the mysterious entity DM. How is the current model of DM and DE different from the "Holy Ghost"- consider that carefully before you jump in and answer, because the obvious answer is wrong. There are people working on alternative models which do not require the existence of mysterious entities and I will humbly wait for one of them to create a model which accounts for the reality without some mystical mumbo jumbo added.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 16, 2009 by Guest

[danielost]

In the same way that gravity was "invented" to explain why things were attracted to the ground. If a galaxy has 4 times the mass that its constituent stars provide, there must be an invisible matter making up the rest of the mass. So they invent this matter and call it "dark matter." It is pretty much beyond question now as to whether DM exists. Gravitation lensing proves this.

in this idea the earth is dark matter since it doesn't shine by it's own light. and maybe that is the matter that we are not considering the planets. they make up lots of matter but don't shine and wouldn't be too effective with gravitation lensing. by the way here is a real question. how big can a rocky planet get. before it becomes a gas giant.

[questionmark]

in this idea the earth is dark matter since it doesn't shine by it's own light. and maybe that is the matter that we are not considering the planets. they make up lots of matter but don't shine and wouldn't be too effective with gravitation lensing. by the way here is a real question. how big can a rocky planet get. before it becomes a gas giant.

could you expand on that? I don't get it...

[Emma_Acid]

This is entirely wrong. The maths requires it and if you add it to the maths - the maths works. Circular logic if ever I saw it. It doesn't preclude the distinct possibility of a better model, which doesn't require the existence of the mysterious entity DM. How is the current model of DM and DE different from the "Holy Ghost"- consider that carefully before you jump in an answer, because the obvious answer is wrong. There are people working on alternative models which do not require the existence of mysterious entities and I will humbly wait for one of them to create a model which accounts for the reality without some mystical mumbo jumbo added.

Br Cornelius

I agree on some levels. That there is extra matter adding gravitational weight to galaxies is beyond doubt. What it could be is definitely up for grabs. But I reiterate: this does not damage the BBT.

As for dark energy, its even more speculative. There is an idea that it is simply ripples in the fabric of space which makes the universe appear to be receding faster. But again: this does nothing to the BBT.

[maximaldecimal]

Glenboy22,

Above, you have hit on the only real question left regarding this theory - why did the big bang happen at all?

Congratulations.

The OP is wrong to think that the BB was a giant supernova. The BB not only created all matter, it created both space and time as well.

It's a much, much deeper problem than the OP percieves.

I've written some on this in the Astronomy section of this forum, where I am far outclassed in this area by several other posters. The OP would do well to go there and read through the multitude of threads on the subject to see why his thinking on the matter is really only just skimming the surface of the subject.

BTW, no one should be faulted for not understanding this. It is a very difficult concept to grasp and explanations require at least a passing knowledge of general relativity and quantum mechanics (both of which are also difficult to conceptualize.)

The OP and yourself both evince a certain curiosity that, if maintained, will eventually lead you to see why the BB is accepted today, IF you delve into it and IF you can maintain that curiosity in the face of massive the stultification iherent in these ideas.

Harte

I think the evidence is circumstancial in the light of dark matter this was an attempt to post something I believe in particle consolidation. And infinite Zero one. As soon as dark matter is defined we can go on about the correctness of the math by then. I will state now that the big bang is possible but the model is in need of an overhaul badly as I don't think they even knew about solar wind back then. I also think that the light spectrum has revealed only so much. and if i ever get done posting on the few threads I've taken into account I will consider looking at somebody elses.P.s. I did not say it was a giant supernova the pressure would have been kinda high it being the only gravitational mass and all. he hyuk. I didn't even know about the astronomy section I'm mostly in religion and a little in crypto. Plus I feel compelled to open up some threads in religion soon if I can get to the end of this one.

[Emma_Acid]

in this idea the earth is dark matter since it doesn't shine by it's own light. and maybe that is the matter that we are not considering the planets. they make up lots of matter but don't shine and wouldn't be too effective with gravitation lensing. by the way here is a real question. how big can a rocky planet get. before it becomes a gas giant.

Pedantically speaking you're right. Planets could make up a large part of dark matter. Especially ones not attached to stars (for whatever reason). And this is the crux of it - all dark matter is, is matter we can't see.

[questionmark]

is matter we can't see.

... hence the name.

[maximaldecimal]

their going to need to come up with a new term since a super nova wouldn't even begin to describe the new theory of black holes. where when they get to big they explode.

I had not heard that one yet huh more expansion without a bb

[Emma_Acid]

the model is in need of an overhaul badly as I don't think they even knew about solar wind back then. I also think that the light spectrum has revealed only so much.

Given that neither solar wind nor light (as in photons) existed in the early phase of the universe, this is meaningless.

[Emma_Acid]

I had not heard that one yet huh more expansion without a bb

Aaargh *pulls hair out*

'Expansion' is not 'explosion'.

Just your sentence above leads me to realise how little you actually know about the subject.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Emma_Acid

[maximaldecimal]

You may say that there is an inconsistency to balance an equation, but that inconsistency (if it is really one) does not negate the theory...else it would be in the trash can.

There is a lot of nit-picking by interested parties (who all want to convince us that the Earth was created 4000 BC) about red shift, Olber's paradox or the General Relativity Theory. But besides thumping the Bible there is nothing that comes out to justify the criticism.

If any of those parties would present an equation that was consistent enough to supersede all these theories he/she/they would get the next Nobel prize. The problem is all that stays at the end is that "according to my believe this cannot be".

Well, I don't care about believe, I care about math, and as long as nobody comes up with a formula that is more believable than what we are working with currently I'll stick with the current ones and will try to clear up some inconsistency.

The present criticism is like someone who claims that a car does not work because it makes noise and stinks out of the exhaust... well those may be imperfections but it sure takes its passengers from one place to the next.

I'd like a citation on olber's paradox but I'll probably wiki it if I remember heck I'm writing it down

And math is where ya got my it started with a philosophical and kinda got to the current hypothosis I'm really trying to justify first uncaused cause but even so perhapse the superstar is the superparticle hmmm so I can apply particle consolidation to the big bang I still believe in the possibly propencity for matter generation wand energy creation within the construct however there is little or no proof on energy creation short of perpetual motion if it happened to create the superwhatever than why would it stop ...thank you for bloggingu

[questionmark]

I'd like a citation on olber's paradox but I'll probably wiki it if I remember heck I'm writing it down

And math is where ya got my it started with a philosophical and kinda got to the current hypothosis I'm really trying to justify first uncaused cause but even so perhapse the superstar is the superparticle hmmm so I can apply particle consolidation to the big bang I still believe in the possibly propencity for matter generation wand energy creation within the construct however there is little or no proof on energy creation short of perpetual motion if it happened to create the superwhatever than why would it stop ...thank you for bloggingu

Hmmm... and all that is WHAT in plain English?

[maximaldecimal]

Don't be ridiculous, Emma. Of course he can't. He doesn't have the first inkling about the physics involved, and the only reason he knows about the "problems" with the the theory is that he's parroting them at second- or third-hand from some other fringe writer or web-guru, who is equally ignorant of the actual physics involved. But in repeating these (pointedly vague) claims, he can pretend like he has taken the time and trouble to find out what he's talking about and pretend to make some sort of educated critique. The Brother here is of a completely different order than daniel, who at least you can have a discussion of the actual issues with.

--Jaylemurph

I take umbrage sir you are flame baiting every fringe writer web guru on the web and I have seen a serious lack in your actual issues thus far sir.

[maximaldecimal]

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2006/20060821.htm

please be my guest and tell me where that is wrong...thank you.

It is a fancy word for I don't know what based on gravity discrepency within the construct. observed a lack of is not in my opinion observed 23%dark matter 74%dark energy and 4% everything we base it on

Edited September 16, 2009 by maximaldecimal

[Emma_Acid]

I take umbrage sir you are flame baiting every fringe writer web guru on the web and I have seen a serious lack in your actual issues thus far sir.

No, what you posted was badly written nonsense.

[maximaldecimal]

But that doesn't create an issue for the BBT. Yes, the universe is expanding quicker and the mass of galaxies has been readjusted - this has no bearing on the BBT.

All dark matter is is matter we can't see. Black holes, brown dwarves and neutrinos are all certainly contributing factors. None of these interfere with the BBT model.

Dark energy is highly speculative - in some theories it is the result of symmetry breaking. Which happened in the seconds after the big bang.

Its just another one of those petty anti-science arguments that says "we don't know everything, therefore what we do know is wrong."

It's littered with examples of how observation (red shift of light and the mass of galaxies) results in models being re-evaluated. That's what science does.

Of course you don't start from scratch!! Why on earth would you do that when 1) the new information doesn't interfere with the model, and 2) so much of the model works in terms of predictions and observations?

I believe the current model lacks a source formula for the superparticle. And picture this a lot of little bangs the superstars. How are you going to account for the trajectory. and yet another crackpot theory perhapse the periodic table falls short in the realm of visible plasma Isotopes

[maximaldecimal]

No, what you posted was badly written nonsense.

Again an attack on me instead of the issues I'm of a good mind to report you if you keep that up then u'll get a warnin from those high above me. the other superstars "Meanwhile back on page four"

Edited September 16, 2009 by maximaldecimal

[maximaldecimal]

Well they are there, the biggest and most profound is that of Dark Energy and of course dark matter. Neither of these have been observed or detected. Dark energy was first proposed after developing ways of measuring the expansion of the universe using red shifting. The equations didn't tally with the amount of energy required to accelerate the universe and so they took the figure required to balance the maths and said that there must be some invisible undetectable energy out there.

It is a similar story with Dark matter, that there wasnt enough observable matter in the universe to account for observed gravitational effects, and so they said there must be matter out there that we cannot see.

Of course I am not saying that these theoretical values are incorrect in any way, just that they leave a rather large hole for speculation or even going back to the drawing board on the whole model. Science is littered with such examples, and unfortunately it is easier to fill in the blanks than to start from scratch, and I guess that is what theory is all about.

But the inconsistancies are there, and they are not hidden it just takes a little effort to see past the cast iron shield that is the main stream, if people are allowed to explore their theories without fear of ridicule then maybe there will be some Nobel prizes being handed out.

I concur and decided to use this post to state that this string is a monster that I have created. I'm so proud. Now off with another head.

[maximaldecimal]

You have put your finger on it and said it better than I could.

Dark Matter and Dark energy are only two of the many mysterious quantities which have never been found but are needed to make the whole theory work. Show me the Dark entities and I will agree with your position. You are falling into the trap of believing that the map is the reality.

The model is so nearly right than absolutely no-one wants to admit that it might be absolutely wrong. Admit that it could be wrong and maybe the problems which have dogged physics/cosmology might resolve themselves.

I suspect you have nothing worth hearing on this subject apart from your usual.

I suspect that you think I want a creationist supernatural model - I don't - I just want one that works.

Br Cornelius

I do in the name of alchemy but I'll settle for a philosophical concept infinite zero one I gotta patent that hey albert ach yer vasting yer time young man get it patent office Albert love yer stuff corn even though i haven't read any thats not on this string i might add ya as a friend if i ever get to the end of this string. I'm on 4 i think and its up to seven haha another head.

[maximaldecimal]

Please stop telling us that all these problems exist, and tell us what issues dark matter and dark energy raise.

Dark energy and matter are not directly observable. But we can infer their existence, and there are lots of speculative suggestions as to what they are. None of which create problems for the BBT, and many of which are very good solid suggestions. But DM and DE are still regarded as mysteries as - unlike a lot of people around here - scientists don't regard speculation as anything but just that.

Seriously, this is as bad as people who refuse to believe in evolution because you can't see it happen with your own eyes.

You don't know Jay very well then.

Because it falls short and the problems exist whether or not you adhere to them. And inference is not substantiation.

[maximaldecimal]

This is entirely wrong. The maths requires it and if you add it to the maths - the maths works. Circular logic if ever I saw it. It doesn't preclude the distinct possibility of a better model, which doesn't require the existence of the mysterious entity DM. How is the current model of DM and DE different from the "Holy Ghost"- consider that carefully before you jump in and answer, because the obvious answer is wrong. There are people working on alternative models which do not require the existence of mysterious entities and I will humbly wait for one of them to create a model which accounts for the reality without some mystical mumbo jumbo added.

Br Cornelius

I think infinite zero one is an attempt to rationalize the holy ghost aspect though much more general + - 0 trinity yay

[maximaldecimal]

in this idea the earth is dark matter since it doesn't shine by it's own light. and maybe that is the matter that we are not considering the planets. they make up lots of matter but don't shine and wouldn't be too effective with gravitation lensing. by the way here is a real question. how big can a rocky planet get. before it becomes a gas giant.

ooh it has no light to speculate about good point. And I think there are many variables on size an planet type to consider in the question so as big as it needs to be within the construct. lmlms

[Guest]

I think infinite zero one is an attempt to rationalize the holy ghost aspect though much more general + - 0 trinity yay

Jays insult was aimed at me not maximaldecimal. I am used to it by now and its water off a ducks back.

Personally i have never encountered anything but rhetoric from Jay and so refuse to debate with him.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 16, 2009 by Guest

[Harte]

you make the mistake of saying that to spot an obvious problem requires you to present an obvious answer. Reality isn't that simple and doesn't play by those rules.

no-one is desputing that gravity exists and behaves in the way that Enstein described, but that is not the same as explaining the actual underlying mechanism.

Br Cornelius

Bro,

Science has never claimed to have explained the "actual underlying mechanism" with any of the many thoeries out there.

If they ever have explained any such underlying mechanism, it is purely by coincidence.

No, scientific theories are merely models that are created to fit data that has been observed.

Sometimes these models are quite fancy, but in the end they are only models.

My usual example is the Bohr atom. Most folks today think of the Bohr atom, when they think of atoms at all. You know, protons and neutrons in the nucleus, electrons "whizzing" around in orbits.

In actuality, we have absolutely no idea what atoms really look like. The nucleus (if there is such a thing) could be Mickey Mouse's head and the electrons (should they actually exist) might be little Donald Ducks (like Huey, Louie and Dewey) doing the polka around Mickey's head for all we actually know.

But the Bohr model leads to some extremely useful answers that fit very well with observed data. The model has been used to make predictions that have proven out through observed data. So, for now, we continue to use this model.

One day, we won't.

Same thing with all theories in physics. The BB model has resulted in predictions that have proven out through observation. Until it is falsified (and no question, it will certainly be falsified someday - all theories are doomed in this way) we will continue to use it.

Harte

[maximaldecimal]

here is something for you to consider. we live in a matter universe. but if we lived in an anti-matter universe we would consider that to be matter and this one anti-matter.

I have a little issue with antimatter isnt it a dual dimensional thing the opposite of matter. sounds a lot like a crackpot theory have we defined anti matter does it have anti superstars for the superstars to anti exist with someone help the poor layman for with all this matter that is the opposite of matter and dark energy swirling around in the BB universe I get lost. Please cite if possiple for posterity you sots, Especially if you brought it in to the equation for assesment, and its lofty and not yours to begin with. Not necisarily aimed at u dan

Edited September 16, 2009 by maximaldecimal