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

[Pluto]

Hello All

The danger in thinking that you know stops all forms of research.

So far, I have been called a troll.

Just because I have real questions about the BBT.

Your explanations are not scientific but insulting.

I asked for scientific explanation or possible evidence that you may have to support the BBT.

Again, do you wish to discuss it ?


ACG Newsletter

WMAP Non-Gaussianity, continued

One of the strongest predictions of the dominant, inflationary Big Bang theory is that the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave background (CMB) is distributed randomly across the sky. The small fluctuations in intensity in this radiation should be described by a Gaussian distribution, the standard distribution of a random process. But for two years paper after paper has found that these predictions are contradicted in many different ways. The CMB locations are not Gaussian—there are too many “hot” or “cold” zones, and the zones are not dispersed randomly on the sky, but align in certain directions.

One response to this data has been to attempt to somehow minimize the difference between theory and prediction, for example by arguing that, except for one very big cold spot, the rest of the sky is truly random. A new paper by Pave Naselsky et al refutes that argument, showing that there are many hot and cold spots and confirming that, on scales of 5- 10 degrees on the sky, the CMB is clearly non-Gaussian.

In almost all fields of science, the clear contradiction of such a key prediction of a theory would cause its rejection. Unfortunately, this is not the process in current cosmology. Instead, the reaction is to supplement a failed theory with new, hypothetical entities to fit the new observations. The paper by Yadav and Wandelt is an illustration of this tendency. They, too, confirm that the CMB as mapped by the WMAP satellites, is non-Gaussian. But from this they conclude, not that the inflationary theory is wrong, but only that it is too simple and that more “exotic theories” with “multiple scalar fields, features in inflation potential, non-adiabatic fluctuations, non-canonical kinetic terms, deviations from the Bunch-Davies vacuum” will be needed.

The dominant cosmology thus continues its evolution to an increasingly Rococo collection of unsupported hypothetical entities, a theory with less and less predictive power.

The mystery of the WMAP cold spot
Authors: Pave D. Naselsky (1), Per Rex Christensen (1), Peter Coles (2), Oleg Verkhodanov (3), Dmitry Novikov (4,5), Jaiseung Kim (1) ((1) Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark; (2) School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom; (3) Special astrophysical observatory, Nizhnij Arkhyz, Russia; (4) Imperial College, London, United Kingdom; (5) AstroSpace Center of Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia)
[0712.1118v1] The mystery of the WMAP cold spot

Detection of primordial non-Gaussianity (fNL) in the WMAP 3-year data at above 99.5% confidence
Authors: Amit P. S. Yadav, Benjamin D. Wandelt
[0712.1148v2] Detection of primordial non-Gaussianity (fNL) in the WMAP 3-year data at above 99.5% confidence


MOND Theory

One alternative to dark matter is Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, a theory of gravitation that is different form both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity. Moffat and Toth present in a new paper an effort to derive the equations of MOND from fundamental principles. They claim a good agreement between the theory’s predictions and the rotation curves of galaxies.

Fundamental parameter-free solutions in Modified Gravity
Authors: J. W. Moffat, V. T. Toth
[0712.1796v2] Fundamental parameter-free solutions in Modified Gravity

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello All

The danger in thinking that you know stops all forms of research.

Nobody here is claiming they *know* cosmology. And I highly doubt that anyone here is capable of stopping all forms of research.

So far, I have been called a troll.

Just because I have real questions about the BBT.

No, because you ask a question, get a good explanation, and then summarily dismiss it and call people "drunk" and "unscientific". You then continue to ask the same question. That is called "trolling" and it is a troll tactic if used intentionally. If it was unintentional on your part, then I retract my remark though that would present a different problem.

Your explanations are not scientific but insulting.

ahem...
Can you explain how the explanations that were recently given to you are unscientific?

I asked for scientific explanation or possible evidence that you may have to support the BBT.

Again, do you wish to discuss it ?

I think that is all anybody here wants.

ACG Newsletter

As far as WMAP "cold spots" are concerned, let's look to the source:

The cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations from the 5-year WMAP data seen over the full sky. The average temperature is 2.725 Kelvin (degrees above absolute zero; equivalent to -270 C or -455 F), and the colors represent the tiny temperature fluctuations, as in a weather map. Red regions are warmer and blue regions are colder by about 0.0002 degrees.

WMAP Mission Results
(bolding mine)



As far as normal distribution is concerned, I'm not too knowledgeable on how this applies to cosmology, so perhaps my questions might seem ignorant.

Why is it important that WMAP show a normal distribution?
What about all the other statistical distributions?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by jackson33

We have determined these figures [the 13-13.5 billion year age of the universe] to begin with on the premise our that dating systems are correct, carbon dating, half lives or however.

This is not accurate.

The age of the universe most commonly quoted (eg in the wikipedia article “Age of the universe”), 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years, is not calculated or verified by any form of radiometric dating – “carbon dating, half lives, or however”. These techniques can only be used to calculate the age of an object given a starting amount of a radioactive element at the time of its formation, which subsequently absorbed negligible or reliably calculable amounts of the radioactive element. For example:

• Radiocarbon dating can be used to determine the approximate date that plant or animal tissue stopped absorbing carbon-14 from the atmosphere, typically limited to about 60,000 years ago with an accuracy of about ± 1%.
• Uranium-lead dating can be used to date certain minerals, such as zircon, which incorporates substantial amounts of uranium but very little lead into its crystals, up to several billion years with an accuracy of ± 0.1%.
• Techniques detecting decay products of short half-life isotopes have been used to date meteorites and other solar system objects

The critical datum here is that it’s in principle and in fact impossible to date an individual atom using any radiometric technique. These techniques don’t date individual atoms, but objects containing specific collections of atoms. So dating the Earth, or the Sun, or the universe, requires theoretical models. Radiometric dating and other techniques can be used to confirm or contradict detailed predictions of these models, but are useless without the key assumptions the models provide. In the case of the age of the universe, the Big Bang model provides an interpretation of the observed spectrum of space not associated with visible bodies, known as the cosmic microwave background. So the condition

Originally Posted by jackson33

Even if we could determine the ages of atoms that made our solar system

always and will always evaluate false.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Why do so many accept BBT? Its called attrition, possibly reverse attrition.

Though its true that many more academic and professional scientists accept the Big Bang model than did fifty years ago, which one might call attrition. However, I believe this is due not to a conspiracy of harassment or peer pressure, but because of the theoretical and experimental success of this model.

Prior to the 20th century, what might reasonably be called steady state models were practically the only scientific cosmologies, due in large part to the lack of observation suggesting that the universe consisted of more than our Milky Way galaxy. The eventual failure of these old, and several steady state theories that appeared after the emergence of what would be come to, in the late 1940s, be, derisively at first, called the “big bang” model. Sir Fred Hoyle was one of the most prominent opponents of the Big Bang model. The linked wikipedia article on him has an interesting synopsis of his long but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to find an alternative theory.

Originally Posted by Pluto

The danger in thinking that you know [that the Big Bang model is corrent?] stops all forms of research.

I don’t think there is much risk of this. There appears to me to be no shortage of serious alternative and variation theories, some of the more prominent ones summarized in this posts preceding links.

[Pluto]

Hello Freestar

I read this link many times

Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe
WMAP Mission Results

WMAP measures the composition of the universe. The top chart shows a pie chart of the relative constituents today. A similar chart (bottom) shows the composition at 380,000 years old (13.7 billion years ago) when the light WMAP observes emanated. The composition varies as the universe expands: the dark matter and atoms become less dense as the universe expands, like an ordinary gas, but the photon and neutrino particles also lose energy as the universe expands, so their energy density decreases faster than the matter. They formed a larger fraction of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. It appears that the dark energy density does not decrease at all, so it now dominates the universe even though it was a tiny contributor 13.7 billion years ago.

Tell me what you think of this info.

WARP has assumed the BBT to be true than proceeded to make the inormation fit.

Note the part of the expansion.

As per the BBT the expansion is not actual distance but a time space expansion.

A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years. The far left depicts the earliest moment we can now probe, when a period of "inflation" produced a burst of exponential growth in the universe. (Size is depicted by the vertical extent of the grid in this graphic.) For the next several billion years, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity. More recently, the expansion has begun to speed up again as the repulsive effects of dark energy have come to dominate the expansion of the universe. The afterglow light seen by WMAP was emitted about 380,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe.

If you know anything about cosmology this info is not scientific. It is information directed to support a theory for what ever reason.

At this moment their are billions of dollars spent on the theory and related projects. If the theory was pulled from under them, they stand to lose billions of dollars.

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

Cosmology & Gravity Group | Research | Theoretical Cosmology
University of cape town
Theoretical cosmology
The standard model
Inhomogeneous cosmologies

The standard model of cosmology assumes a homogeneous and isotropic universe, and as a description of the bulk properties of the universe, it has served us well. But the real universe is distinctly non-homogeneous on all scales except possibly the largest, so it is important to study the behaviour of inhomogeneities. Inhomogeneous cosmology uses exact solutions of the Einstein field equations to explore the full non-linear evolution of inhomogeneous structures.

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

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
BB top 30 problems

Do you think these people write these papers to support their thinking or theory.

These are people who apply science.

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

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org


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

The wave of information against the BBT is too great. It's only a matter of time.

[Logic = Confusion]

It wouldn't matter if the Big Bang did happen, if the universe is static, or if God created the universe...none of those explains our origin. For those who think they have the answer or think their answer is nearly correct let me pose these questions to you: Where did the super dense universe that became ours after the big bang come from? Where did our static universe come from? Or even, where did God come from? The only answer I could find is that if the universe, if existence, had a starting point, there had to be a point before it...in other words, something came from nothing. That contradicts everything we are taught and every principle we base our knowledge off of. I think we can all come to the agreement that it is all beyond our grasp and it will remain that way for a very, very long time. No sense in arguing something we can't understand, I say live for the now and everything after.

Hope that wasn't too confusing.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Pluto

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
BB top 30 problems

Do you think these people write these papers to support their thinking or theory.

These are people who apply science.

Nearly all of the papers at metaresearch.org, the website hosting this article, appear to be written by Tom Van Flandern. Van Flandern is best known for his arguments that various features on the surface of mars resembling human faces, etc, are artificial monuments similar to ancient Egyptian monuments on Earth, such as this metaresearch.org article.

People who do not credit this argument, and are disturbed by Van Flandern’s refusal to reverse his position on “faces on Mars” when presented with more detailed photographic data clearly showing them to be perceptual illusions, should be warned that he is also the author of these arguments allegedly disproving the Big Bang model.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Hello Freestar

I read this link many times

Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe
WMAP Mission Results

Tell me what you think of this info.

Hmmm...I do see a problem with those pie charts.
Since neutrinos and photons are left out of the "today" pie graph, it's much like comparing apples to oranges. Conversely the DE is left out of the "13.7bya" chart.

Why do you think that is?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Logic = Confusion

It wouldn't matter if the Big Bang did happen, if the universe is static, or if God created the universe...none of those explains our origin. For those who think they have the answer or think their answer is nearly correct let me pose these questions to you: Where did the super dense universe that became ours after the big bang come from? Where did our static universe come from? Or even, where did God come from? The only answer I could find is that if the universe, if existence, had a starting point, there had to be a point before it...in other words, something came from nothing. That contradicts everything we are taught and every principle we base our knowledge off of. I think we can all come to the agreement that it is all beyond our grasp and it will remain that way for a very, very long time. No sense in arguing something we can't understand, I say live for the now and everything after.

Hope that wasn't too confusing.

Hmm.... I understand what you saying about something from nothing. It's difficult to believe that a quantum fluctuation could be responsible for the universe but difficulty in believing has never disproved anything. I think that Brane theory nicely explians where the energy and matter in the universe came from but it is even more difficult to prove than BBT. At this point all we have is theories but some of these theories are starting to knock at the door of the beginning. Just because all we have is theories is no reason to throw up your hands and give up.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Logic = Confusion

It wouldn't matter if the Big Bang did happen, if the universe is static, or if God created the universe...none of those explains our origin. ....That contradicts everything we are taught and every principle we base our knowledge off of. I think we can all come to the agreement that it is all beyond our grasp and it will remain that way for a very, very long time. No sense in arguing something we can't understand, I say live for the now and everything after.

MTM, you beat me to it, but I'd still like to add:

Very nicely conveyed, l=c.
This would be worth quoting over on the Phil. of Sci. forum (or thereabouts).
Welcome? to cosmology, et al.
Help us break some preconceptions!

Pluto....
"At this moment their are billions of dollars spent on the theory and related projects. If the theory was pulled from under them, they stand to lose billions of dollars." -Pluto

All of this (loss of theory and funding) might come to pass given whatever, etc.;
but that still wouldn't change the insight gained from asking the questions, analyzing the data, and running the experiments that have been so far.
...or words to that effect.
IMHO

[Pluto]

Hello All

Its good to discuss things based on science.

Science: Astronomers' double whammy rocks cosmology
05 February 1994
From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
JEFF HECHT , BOSTON

The detection of a cluster of galaxies that existed only a billion years after the big bang could upset current ideas about how the Universe evolved, because no one can explain how it could have formed so early.

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


Temperature of Space

Feb 15, 2005
Temperature of Space

The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is popularly believed to prove the Big Bang. That proof is spot on—if you allow a big enough spot. One of the first predictions was that it would indicate a "temperature of space" of 5 Kelvin (5K). That prediction was revised upward until it reached 50K shortly before the CMBR was discovered. When the discovery measured it to be only 2.7K, the Big Bang proponents claimed it and ignored the size of the spot required to cover the gap.

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

ooops got to go

Church time,,,,,,,,,Greek easter