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

[Pluto]

G'day Fripro

Sorry mate, the name is a tongue twister.

What is almost agree?

80%,,,,,,,,,90%,,,,,,,99%

smile

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I like to share this link

[astro-ph/0509800] Conceptual Problems of the Standard Cosmological Model
Conceptual Problems of the Standard Cosmological Model

Authors: Yurij Baryshev
other papers
arXiv.org Search

(Submitted on 27 Sep 2005)

Abstract: The physics of the expansion of the universe is still a poorly studied subject of the standard cosmological model. This because the concept of expanding space can not be tested in the laboratory and because ``expansion'' means continuous creation of space, something that leads to several paradoxes. We re-consider and expand here the discussion of conceptual problems, already noted in the literature, linked to the expansion of space. In particular we discuss the problem of the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equations, the receding velocity of galaxies being greater than the speed of light, and the Hubble law inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. Recent discussion by Kiang, Davis \& Lineweaver, and Whiting of the non-Doppler nature of the Lemaitre cosmological redshift in the standard model is just a particular consequence of the paradoxes mentioned above. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity (general relativity), where there is not a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field and hence no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity.

Do we really understand or are we just happy to accept some model reagardless if its reality or wishful thinking.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Not that I agree with, but it is great reading, it's quite logical and yet falls short with evidence.

Evidence for the Big Bang

What you leave out is what you disagree with... and why.

Please answer me in your words and not links of others work.

As for the link

Evidence for the Big Bang

when I print it out (the top level web page) prints out as 54 pages with
nearly 30 pages as evidence of their position (currently I'm only at page 10).
The overall look/feel of the site is quite professional. I will let you know
after I've read more than 30 pages.

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day Mad Dog

Darn I was afraid you would ask that.

Read it it through first than when you have completed it than I will discuss it.

Also there is a difference between evidence and using the term standard model and reallying that as evidence.

I post links because the abstracts are from the paper and my opinion only adds to the chinese whisper.

Also some papers are worth sharing.


I came across this recent paper and find it quite interesting.

[0810.0153] Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics
Expanding Space: The Root of Conceptual Problems of the Cosmological Physics

Authors: Yu. V. Baryshev (Astron.Inst.St.-Petersburg Univ.)
Submitted on 1 Oct 2008

Abstract: The space expansion physics contains several paradoxes which were clearly demonstrated by Edward Harrison (1981, 1995, 2000), who emphasized that the cooling of homogeneous hot gas (including photon gas of CBR) in the standard cosmological model based on the violation of energy conservation by the expanding space. In modern version of SCM the term "space expansion" actually means continuous creation of vacuum, something that leads to conceptual problems. Recent discussion by Francis, Barnes, James, and Lewis (2007) on the physical sense of the increasing distance to a receding galaxy without motion of the galaxy is just a particular consequence of the arising paradoxes. Here we present an analysis of the following conceptual problems of the SCM: the violation of energy conservation for local comoving volumes, the exact Newtonian form of the Friedmann equation, the absence of an upper limit on the receding velocity of galaxies which can be greater than the speed of light, and the presence of the linear Hubble law deeply inside inhomogeneous galaxy distribution. The common cause of these paradoxes is the geometrical description of gravity, where there is no a well defined concept of the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field, no energy quanta - gravitons, and no energy-momentum conservation for matter plus gravity because gravity is not a material field.

This is an update of the 2005 paper.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

There is no question to it that the universe is eternal, i tend to agree. Many papers that I'm reading discuss bounce and cyclic parts of the universe and not as a total.

And yet my mate emailed me this link on the Big Bang

Not that I agree with, but it is great reading, it's quite logical and yet falls short with evidence.

Evidence for the Big Bang
Evidence for the Big Bang

Originally Posted by Pluto

Darn I was afraid you would ask that.
Read it it through first than when you have completed it than I will discuss it.

Well I read it. You did not mention what you do "not agree with".

Originally Posted by Pluto

Also there is a difference between evidence and using the term standard model and reallying that as evidence.

I would agree with the implication of
"The absence of evidence is Not the evidence of absence".

However, in this blog on BBT - Evidence for the Big Bang
(which when printed out is 54 pages in length has over 30 pages of verified and validated evidence !

Plus saying that evidence is not evidence, does not make it so.

From you many posts in which you make claims or draw conclusion without
any attempt in the use of the scientific method.

One must conclude that your paradigm of logic is other than conclusion
drawn from a hypothesis using analysis. You must be Creationist!

Originally Posted by Pluto

I post links because the abstracts are from the paper and my opinion only adds to the chinese whisper.

As a quote from Shakespeare that ends, "Much ado about nothing!"



maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozz


Hello Maddog

Creationist, no way.

How did you read that from what I have been saying?

My thoughts are on a recycling process that we can obsereve on star formation and the various phases and galaxy evolution of different forms that are directly related to the size and activity of the ultra dense core that some call black holes.

If you have read the link.

What evidence are you refering to?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Creationist, no way.

How did you read that from what I have been saying?

My apologies if you take offense. I just found it odd, every time I would mention "Big Bang"
in any form, you appeared to sound off in a contrarian way and Always spit out one paper
(that typically didn't supply any corroboration to what you were saying).

Originally Posted by Pluto

My thoughts are on a recycling process that we can obser[e]ve on star formation and the various phases and galaxy evolution of different forms that are directly related to the size and activity of the ultra dense core that some call black holes.

An oscillating universe of some kind is fine with me. However, you have to take all evidence into account - - WMAP, CMB, etc.

So oscillate is OK - how I think is the Most important part.

Originally Posted by Pluto

If you have read the link.
What evidence are you refering to?

In regards to the link you mentioned

Evidence for the Big Bang

everything from section 2.0 on is there evidence and quite accurate and upto date.

What has me curious is why you didn't agree with [paraphrased].

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day maddog

You said

My apologies if you take offense. I just found it odd, every time I would mention "Big Bang"
in any form, you appeared to sound off in a contrarian way and Always spit out one paper
(that typically didn't supply any corroboration to what you were saying).

No need for apopgies and no offense take.,But! thank you for the thought.

Smile, there is no way that I can see the BBT as a theory that can explain the observed universe.

You also said

An oscillating universe of some kind is fine with me. However, you have to take all evidence into account - - WMAP, CMB, etc.

Are you refering to the total universe or the parts within?

You need to know that I have taken the evidence into account.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Smile, there is no way that I can see the BBT as a theory that can explain the observed universe.

Please explain why....

Originally Posted by Pluto

Are you refering to the total universe or the parts within?

Explain what difference would matter ?

Originally Posted by Pluto

You need to know that I have taken the evidence into account.

Please list the evidence you have taken into account ???

maddog

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello Mad dog

Maybe this link may explain.

Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists
Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

and

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

and

Prediction #1: Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005
Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

and

Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged

Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged

and the unexplained super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies.
Note the repeat in clusters. They are 13.2 Gyrs just 500 yrs to form theses monsters. No book in reference to the BBT could explain their formation by scientific logic.