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

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Dancray by the sound sof it is learning about cosmology.

Buffy said

Well, its easy to see if you refuse to take a look at the evidence!

Than give him evidence to support the BBT.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Than give him evidence to support the BBT.

ok...

Observational evidence for the Big Bang

But I really don't think that will help without an understanding of basic astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


Freestar said

Observational evidence for the Big Bang

But I really don't think that will help without an understanding of basic astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology

Big Bang
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Observational evidence
The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, and the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis). These are sometimes called the three pillars of the big bang theory. Many other lines of evidence now support the picture, notably various properties of the large-scale structure of the cosmos[35] which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard Big Bang theory.

Freestar I hope you do not rely on evidence that is disputed. Reading the link, I have not found evidence that will support the BBT. Only that it states that the data supports the theory. This does not mean that its evidence.

If data can be observed or created via other means than it cannot be used to support either theory until those issues have been reolved.

Red shift is under dispute due to the intinsic properties of objects.
Temp of the Cosmos is under dispute.
Microwave background is under dispute.
The formation of the elements is under dispute
The formation of the super clusters of galaxies is under dispute.

and so on.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Freestar I hope you do not rely on evidence that is disputed. Reading the link, I have not found evidence that will support the BBT. Only that it states that the data supports the theory. This does not mean that its evidence.

If data can be observed or created via other means than it cannot be used to support either theory until those issues have been reolved.

Red shift is under dispute due to the intinsic properties of objects.
Temp of the Cosmos is under dispute.
Microwave background is under dispute.
The formation of the elements is under dispute
The formation of the super clusters of galaxies is under dispute.

and so on.

The BBT matches up with observation quite well. I'm unaware of a "competing" theory that so accurately matches observable data. If you are aware of such a theory, please, reveal it! (Hint: SSU is not as robust)

I'm not married to the BBT, but I refuse to just drop the idea altogether simply because it does not explain everything. Until a theory comes along that does as good of job, preferably better, of matching observation with theory, then I believe the BBT is the most accurate model of the universe we have at this time.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Freestar said

The BBT matches up with observation quite well. I'm unaware of a "competing" theory that so accurately matches observable data. If you are aware of such a theory, please, reveal it! (Hint: SSU is not as robust)

I'm not married to the BBT, but I refuse to just drop the idea altogether simply because it does not explain everything. Until a theory comes along that does as good of job, preferably better, of matching observation with theory, then I believe the BBT is the most accurate model of the universe we have at this time.

Matches up with observations, which ones?

You do not have to be awear of competing theories , just be awear or the working parts such as Star formation and galaxy formation.

If the BBT is an accurate model. What are its accuracies?

I must admit it will take me another two years of reading to understand a scratch of information of the complexity of cosmology. I know I do not have the answers, I also know that nobody else does.

I think at this moment in time that a recycling process maybe the key to uncovering many issues.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Matches up with observations, which ones?

Hubble noticed everything in the universe was flying apart. The entire astronomical community recognized this might indicate everything used to be bunched up tightly. Einstein's GR agreed. An assortment of enterprising scientists noted that direct evidence of a small, hot universe would still exist in the form of highly redshifted radiation left over from a time when all matter was in a plasma form. Right about the time accomplished scientists started looking for this CMB, a couple guys from the telephone company came upon it by accident and incidentally got themselves an accidental Nobel prize over the whole thing.

Some other enterprising scientists noted that if the universe used to be a small and hot place then we'd expect a certain ratio of light elements to come of it. More than that - the ratio of the abundance of certain light elements should match the abundance of photons. All of this was later found true.

Then there's the large scale structure and the isotropy... and so on.

It is now beyond any real scientific objection that the universe used to be a small and dense place of hot plasma. The earth you're now standing on used to be part of a primordial atom scrunched up tightly and energetically with all the other mass of the universe. ALL modern cosmological evidence was predicted on that basis. All evidence found agrees with that premise.

So then we get into questions of why is the universe expanding? How and when was it in a singularity? What was there before the singularity... and a bunch of other questions that are besides the main point of your contention. The big bang in its simplest form is simply saying that the universe was a primordial atom which expanded into its present form. For that simple statement there can be no doubt - not in an unbiased mind.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz
Modest

Hubble noticed everything in the universe was flying apart. The entire astronomical community recognized this might indicate everything used to be bunched up tightly. Einstein's GR agreed. An assortment of enterprising scientists noted that direct evidence of a small, hot universe would still exist in the form of highly redshifted radiation left over from a time when all matter was in a plasma form. Right about the time accomplished scientists started looking for this CMB, a couple guys from the telephone company came upon it by accident and incidentally got themselves an accidental Nobel prize over the whole thing.

CMB has been disputed and Its not evidence supporting the BBT.

New cosmic look may cast doubts on big bang theory
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA NEWS RELEASE
Posted: August 2, 2005
Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | New cosmic look may cast doubts on big bang theory

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
Physics / Physics
Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

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."

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes:
Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

Modest

Some other enterprising scientists noted that if the universe used to be a small and hot place then we'd expect a certain ratio of light elements to come of it. More than that - the ratio of the abundance of certain light elements should match the abundance of photons. All of this was later found true.

This is not evidence and if it can be explained by other means, how can it be used to supprt the BBT.


Modest

Then there's the large scale structure and the isotropy... and so on.

So! what does this mean?

Large structures cannot be explained by the BBT.

Modest

It is now beyond any real scientific objection that the universe used to be a small and dense place of hot plasma. The earth you're now standing on used to be part of a primordial atom scrunched up tightly and energetically with all the other mass of the universe. ALL modern cosmological evidence was predicted on that basis. All evidence found agrees with that premise.

I disagree and in due time this will be proven wrong. I will keep discussing these issues and later support it.


Modest

So then we get into questions of why is the universe expanding? How and when was it in a singularity? What was there before the singularity... and a bunch of other questions that are besides the main point of your contention. The big bang in its simplest form is simply saying that the universe was a primordial atom which expanded into its present form. For that simple statement there can be no doubt - not in an unbiased mind.

I know what the BBT states and the ad hoc ideas used to form the foundations. I can list you 1000 pages supporting the BBT. But thats not evidence.
This is not science. I need to see evidence and supporting data that cannot be disputed.

[DanGray]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Dan,

Please review the forum rules. Specifically...



Your opinions are valid only when they can be supported by scientific evidence (in the form of a link or other form of reference). Failure to abide by the forum rules can result in infractions which can limit your ability to make posts here. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact myself or any other moderator. Thanks!

Your opinions are valid only when they can be supported by scientific evidence

fair enouph
but theroy seems to have it's place here, and I would just like to ask why? theroy is not fact?

I like Pluto's post below
I'm not trying to be a troll here,, so I'll depart here with good will to all..

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by DanGray

fair enouph
but theroy seems to have it's place here, and I would just like to ask why? theroy is not fact?

I like Pluto's post below
I'm not trying to be a troll here,, so I'll depart here with good will to all..

No Dan, you don't understand the scientific definition of a theory, it's not the same as the definition of the word theory in common usage. Look it up and you'll see what I am talking about.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

Hello DanGray hang in ther mate.

Smile,,,,I need support.


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

So a theory is not a fact, The BBT theory is not a fact, but it has become the standard model that in some ways has restricted the research by some due to cash flow from projects given by people who think that the BBT is correct and worth researching. History tells us the same until the standard model has been proven wrong.

The BBT tells us one thing on data and theory , but we observe a completely diffrent picture through the images of deep field shows clustering and huge monsters of cluster galaxies that under normal processes cannot form in the limited time of 500 million years or ten billion years.