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

[modest]

Originally Posted by DanGray

theroy is not fact?

Originally Posted by Pluto

So a theory is not a fact...

It is a fact that the sun rises in the sky each morning and that the moon has phases. A theory (such as a theory of gravity) explains such facts (honest and real observations) and it can also predict future facts.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day

Modest you are right and when you are right, its hard to argue for the sake or arguing.

[DanGray]

Originally Posted by modest

It is a fact that the sun rises in the sky each morning and that the moon has phases. A gravity (such as a theory of gravity) explains such facts (honest and real observations) and it can also predict future facts.

~modest

give me a brake please
the sun doesn't rise, we rotate into it.. 4th graders know that..

gravity is a man made term.. long after the force was in place..

theory has a long range of meaning you can't just nail it to a few terms like that and think you covered it all.

observation might predict future facts but theory not in some cases.

say you have a piece of glass, I have a theory that if all the molecule happen to travel in one direction at the same time you'd be able to put your hand thought it with out braking it, it don't meant it will ever happen..

phases and gravity , don't forget the suns pull..


the earth dosn't have gravity anyway,
the earth just sucks

[freeztar]

Here's another definition of scientific theory:

Originally Posted by NAS

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[DanGray]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Here's another definition of scientific theory:



Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

another one why is there not just one definition ?
perhaps because it's left up to mans, interpretation maybe ?

is there nothing else but what we read and nothing left to discover? for if this were so we'd be still in the dark-ages, would we not? ..

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by DanGray

give me a brake please
the sun doesn't rise, we rotate into it.. 4th graders know that..

gravity is a man made term.. long after the force was in place..

theory has a long range of meaning you can't just nail it to a few terms like that and think you covered it all.

observation might predict future facts but theory not in some cases.

say you have a piece of glass, I have a theory that if all the molecule happen to travel in one direction at the same time you'd be able to put your hand thought it with out braking it, it don't meant it will ever happen..

phases and gravity , don't forget the suns pull..


the earth dosn't have gravity anyway,
the earth just sucks

Dan, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on the browns gas thing but now you are just trolling. Using these stupid statements to try and ridicule people who are here to seriously discuss this issue is wrong. If you don't know what you are talking about stay out of the discussion. You'll get no support from me by using ridicule to further your ignorance.

[DanGray]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Dan, I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt on the browns gas thing but now you are just trolling. Using these stupid statements to try and ridicule people who are here to seriously discuss this issue is wrong. If you don't know what you are talking about stay out of the discussion. You'll get no support from me by using ridicule to further your ignorance.

not a problem, just throwing little light humor in that's all.
I'll step out.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

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

CMB was predicted by BBT... to say that it isn't evidence of the theory that predicted it is - well, it's a bit odd of a thing to say.

Originally Posted by Pluto

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 study in question is mischaracterized by your linked article. It is better characterized here:

Afshordi, the Harvard astrophysicist, suggested that a more likely explanation for Lieu's findings is that there is something about galaxy clusters scientists don't yet understand.

"I think that even if Lieu were correct, it would teach us about clusters rather than the Big Bang theory," Afshordi said in a telephone interview. "Clusters are complicated things and there's still a lot to learn about them."

Lieu concedes this is a possibility. "That I do buy," he said. "I myself am not at this point prepared to accept that the CMB is noncosmological and that there was no Big Bang. That would be doomsday."

Lieu said that one unlikely, but possible explanation is that the galaxy clusters he examined are unusually strong emitters of radio waves, which could have prevented the shadows from being seen.

SPACE.com -- Study Questions Big Bang (Scientists Question the Study)

Originally Posted by Pluto

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

This link is unscientific propaganda.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Modest

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

Once again it is odd at the least to say this isn't evidence of BBT when it was correctly and quantitatively predicted by BBT. If you have another theory that correctly predicted all these observations before they were made then they would be evidence of that theory as well - but you don't and it isn't.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Modest

So! what does this mean?

It means that Lemaître's solution to Einstein's GR that predicted BBT also predicted the universe to be homogeneous and isotropic. This is taken for granted today, but when the prediction was made it was by no means known. There are a thousand and one theories of cosmology that would tell you the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic. For example, if I said the universe is a white hole you could object and say that white holes aren't isotropic and you'd be correct. This means homogeneity and isotropy are evidence of FLRW and BBT. Surveys of the large scale structure of the universe and the CMB itself attest the fact of this prediction.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Large structures cannot be explained by the BBT.

As far as BBT attempts to explain the large scale structure, observation agrees. The fact that it isn't a theory of galaxy formation is not an objection to the theory. If you had a good and confirmed theory of galaxy formation that disagreed with BBT in some way then that would we an objection. But, your single sentence above is inadequate in that regard.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Modest

I disagree and in due time this will be proven wrong.

You can't disagree that the evidence found has confirmed predictions. That is simply true. If you want to reinterpret those confirmed predictions then go ahead, but the fact remains they were so predicted and they were so confirmed.

Originally Posted by Pluto

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.

The few examples I've given above along with many others has convinced a statistically unanimous collective of astronomy. Your knee jerk reaction to this would be to say "science has been wrong before - even when everyone agreed". And, that's fine. Give us a better theory that we can all agree to that doesn't include BBT. When, if, and however that would ever happen would be fine. But, it's far more likely (given all the current evidence) that future cosmological theories will contain BBT as a fact or a footing in a wider and more complete explanation.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'say from the land of ozzzz

Modest said

The few examples I've given above along with many others has convinced a statistically unanimous collective of astronomy. Your knee jerk reaction to this would be to say "science has been wrong before - even when everyone agreed". And, that's fine. Give us a better theory that we can all agree to that doesn't include BBT. When, if, and however that would ever happen would be fine. But, it's far more likely (given all the current evidence) that future cosmological theories will contain BBT as a fact or a footing in a wider and more complete explanation.

It is much more complicated than it looks. To me the BBT is a theory supported by not evidence but! by the thought that maybe its right. Than ideas were made to fit the Big Bang theory.

Yes you state that main stream agrees with it and that the data fits the BBT.
But! Disputed evidence
SPACE.com -- Study Questions Big Bang (Scientists Question the Study)

The discussion within that link leaves the shodow test in limbo.

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

You said

Once again it is odd at the least to say this isn't evidence of BBT when it was correctly and quantitatively predicted by BBT. If you have another theory that correctly predicted all these observations before they were made then they would be evidence of that theory as well - but you don't and it isn't.

I disagree, but that does not mean I'm correct.

Rather than pin it on the BBT. Lets look at the formation of the elements from ultra dense plasma matter such as Neutron, quarks and the black holes.
Matter changes to degenerate matter than ejected and reformed into normal matter.
Also the formation of the elements within the solar envelope and during supernova.
There exist scientific processes that can show and explain the production of all the elements.

Ok, I'm not the smartest guy off the block and I do not have all the answers.

I know that I have alot to read up and in due time I will have better supportive evidence.

To me the recyling process can explain all the features that we see without talking about expansion and dark matter and dark energy.

You said

This means homogeneity and isotropy are evidence of FLRW and BBT. Surveys of the large scale structure of the universe and the CMB itself attest the fact of this prediction.

How can this be used as evidence and back up the BBT

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

Must do more reading something does not add up back at the ranch.

Faint galaxies: evolution and cosmological curvature

Faint galaxies: evolution and cosmological curvature

RECENT observations of faint galaxies at near-infrared wavelengths1–3 reveal a surprisingly low surface density when compared to the excess of blue galaxies seen at optical wavelengths4. Attempts to determine the cosmological curvature from the asymptotic surface density of faint galaxies thus produce conflicting results3,5–7. We propose to resolve this conflict with an evolutionary model in which galaxies merge at recent look-back times. The contrast between optical and infrared galaxy counts then follows from the very different lifetimes of stellar types contributing to emission in the galactic rest-frame. Together with evidence we present an increased star formation rate in galaxies at moderate redshift, the merging model can account for both the number–magnitude relations and available redshift distributions. A clear prediction is that there should be an absence of high-redshift galaxies in deep infrared-selected surveys. If correct, the model confirms earlier suspicions that galaxies cannot be used as reliable tracers of the geometry of the Universe.

The elemental abundance pattern in a galaxy at z = 2.626

Access : : Nature

The discovery of metal-poor stars1, 2 (where metal is any element more massive than helium) has enabled astronomers to probe the chemical enrichment history of the Milky Way3, 4. More recently, element abundances in gas inside high-redshift galaxies has been probed through the absorption lines imprinted on the spectra of background quasars5, 6, 7, 8, but these have typically yielded measurements of only a few elements. Furthermore, interpretation of these abundances is complicated by the fact that differential incorporation of metals into dust can produce an abundance pattern similar to that expected from nucleosynthesis by massive stars9. Here we report the observation of over 25 elements in a galaxy at redshift z = 2.626. With these data, we can examine nucleosynthetic processes independent of the uncertainty arising from depletion. We find that the galaxy was enriched mainly by massive stars (M > 15 solar masses) and propose that it is the progenitor of a massive elliptical galaxy. The detailed abundance patterns suggest that boron is produced through processes that act independently of metallicity, and may require alternative mechanisms for the nucleosynthesis of germanium.

This is interesting
[astro-ph/9905213] Cosmological Luminosity Evolution of QSO/AGN Population
Cosmological Luminosity Evolution of QSO/AGN Population



Modest, again I need time to understand as many issues.

While that is happening, I'm thinking aloud and maybe one day in the next few years, my understanding will get better.
==============================================

The super clusters cannot be expalined by the BBT,nut ! the question is: why should it?

So far I have not read anywhere of how super monsters of galaxies can be formed in a very short period of time whether it be 500 million years (deep field images 13.2 Gyr) or 5 Gyrs.

Some of these black holes are over 16 Billion solar masses.


Modest thank you for your time, I know I'm a pain.

[Little Bang]

Pluto it is very easy for you to prove the BBT wrong. All you have to is explain another testable way that all the matter we see in the observable universe got here and your jets don't cut it.