|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2006 : 09:37:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Well then this is clearly one of those "rare times". As I have pointed out (an you have refused to address) you have presented some of the classic misconceptions about the BB theory as facts. How can you possibly disagree with a theory that you aren't even knowledgeable about??
You're unbelievable. There is no *single* definition of a Big Bang. There are dozens. The fact the community doted all over Guth a few years ago, and has now dropped him like a hot potato is more than a tad confusing from where I sit. First he way an "authority" on the "Inflation Theory" related to the BB. Now he's evidently "old news", and I'm supposed know you think this way, regardless of the fact that inflation and expansion are both metaphysical descriptions. From my point of view, who cares? Inflation and expansion sound equally implausible from my perspective, so I have no rational way to decide which idea is "better" or which one you personally think is "accurate". They're both based on metaphysics as far as I'm concerned and therefore both ideas are just plain "whacky" from my perspective.
quote:
You talk a good game but in the end it is just hot air. This has been you MO for just about every post I have ever read by you.
edited: because I can't spell
Ya, well, at least my "MO" isn't metaphysics and childish name calling. |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 10:59:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Some BB models out there still mention an inflation stage *and* an expansion phase.
Please point me to a current BB theory that doesn't include inflation.
Of course you can.
quote:
quote:
These are measurements and calculation that are independent of what is causing the expansion.
But that doesn't address the *force* itself, nor does it explain what "space" is, or how this undefined source affects an undefined "space". You offered me two metaphysical terms, not one.
Yes it does not address the force as I said, Why did you repeat what I said?
Are you saying expansion is a metaphysics term??
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 11:18:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Some BB models out there still mention an inflation stage *and* an expansion phase.
Please point me to a current BB theory that doesn't include inflation.
Of course you can.
Why would I bother? Usually it's *individuals* that pick individualized options to focus their time on. Most general descriptions of a BB theory would certainly mention *both* metaphysical phases. Evidently it's considered important to metion both phases and keep them separate. Shrug.
quote:
Yes it does not address the force as I said, Why did you repeat what I said?
Are you saying expansion is a metaphysics term??
As it's been defined so far, absolutely. If you can't define the force driving expansion, and you can't define "space" in terms of real things, and you can't explain how this mythical force expands this mythical space, then absolutely it's a "metaphysical" description that defies physical description. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 11:19:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 12:09:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
If you can't define the force driving expansion, and you can't define "space" in terms of real things, and you can't explain how this mythical force expands this mythical space, then absolutely it's a "metaphysical" description that defies physical description.
And Einstein gave it a physical description. The "force" you're looking for doesn't actually exist, since expansion today is "coasting," and during the inflationary epoch, it wasn't a force but instead a field. Just like on a strict reading of General Relativity, gravity isn't a force, it is instead a form of inertia (which is modeled as a field). Just like it's the geometry of spacetime which gives rise to the "force" of gravity, it's the geomtery of the inflaton field which caused inflation.
Besides which, space isn't defined at all in terms of atoms or photons, since those things are in space, but they're not space. Space is the stuff between the proton and the electron in a hydrogen atom. How, indeed, could any force act upon that? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 13:05:39 [Permalink]
|
I just read through the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang I referenced at the start of this thread. It presents a rather impartial yet nevertheless convincing case for the Big Bang theory. Perhaps I could understand some of the problems with it, Michael if you could highlight some passages of key points and state where they're fundamentally wrong.
For instance, the the article, it says:quote:
In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory [of an expanding universe]. He discovered that, seen from Earth, light from other galaxies is red-shifted in direct proportion to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding, contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein.
And then:quote:
One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place). From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory.
So from my readings in this thread, you disagree with both of these. Right now, I am not ready to hear how you explain such things. Rather, I'm curious why you think these above two bits of information don't actually fit well in the Big Bang model. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 13:25:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And Einstein gave it a physical description.
You keep repeating this in handwave fashion. Name the particles involved. Describe the timelinese as they relate to volume and how this force effects the particles. I'm not asking for math, just a general theory that involves real particles and real things.
quote:
The "force" you're looking for doesn't actually exist, since expansion today is "coasting," and during the inflationary epoch, it wasn't a force but instead a field.
Coasting? Is the universe accelerating or just coasting?
quote:
Just like on a strict reading of General Relativity, gravity isn't a force, it is instead a form of inertia (which is modeled as a field).
Yes, and in the case of a singularity, it's generally pointed inward toward the singularity, not away from it. I'm afraid gravity is working againt you in a big way. If inflation doesn't happen around gravity wells, why not? Why does it behave differently in around gravity well, and how would that explain how inflation then occurs near a "singularity? By the way, was this "expansion pressure" of the universe ever calculated into the absolute density calculations of our sun?
quote:
Just like it's the geometry of spacetime which gives rise to the "force" of gravity, it's the geomtery of the inflaton field which caused inflation.
A field you've yet to define by the way.
quote:
Besides which, space isn't defined at all in terms of atoms or photons, since those things are in space, but they're not space.
That was a perfectly "Buddhist" description of what space is "not". Care to explain in physical terms what it actually *is* then?
quote:
Space is the stuff between the proton and the electron in a hydrogen atom. How, indeed, could any force act upon that?
Now you have a mystical sort of Buddhists explanation of what "space" is, and evidently I'm supposed to "assume" that the "space" between an electron and a proton is full of something as of yet undefined. As far as I can tell, most QM formulas require an electromagnetic field and carrier particles to operate as defined. If so, then the only force I know that could break it is a stronger electromagnetic field. That is exactly why I chose that force to explain "acceleration". |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 13:25:45 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 13:38:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I just read through the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang I referenced at the start of this thread. It presents a rather impartial yet nevertheless convincing case for the Big Bang theory. Perhaps I could understand some of the problems with it, Michael if you could highlight some passages of key points and state where they're fundamentally wrong.
They are fundamentally wrong IMO about the "force" of "expansion". It is electromagnetic in origin IMO.
quote:
For instance, the the article, it says:quote:
In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory [of an expanding universe]. He discovered that, seen from Earth, light from other galaxies is red-shifted in direct proportion to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding, contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein.
Hubble and Arp seem to have some disagreements, but basically I'm in Hubble's camp, though I remain 'open minded' to some sort of red shift influence being related to the electromagetic fields that drive "expansion", and some influences related to gravitational fields. In other words I'm leaning to towards Hubble's side of the debate, but I understand Arps concerns and I believe they are warranted and may factor into things as we learn more about our universe and the forces that drive expansion, and how they effect particles over vast distances.
quote:
One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place). From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory.
Well, again, this is only true if Arp is 100% wrong, and there is no redshift influence from gravity or from the "expansion of space" in the metaphysical venacular.
quote:
So from my readings in this thread, you disagree with both of these. Right now, I am not ready to hear how you explain such things. Rather, I'm curious why you think these above two bits of information don't actually fit well in the Big Bang model.
I'm not really 100% in Hubble's camp, nor 100% in Arps camp. I think there is room for "influences" on red shift from both gravitational influences and electromagetic influences over very great distances. I remain open minded here to some extent.
The primary beef I have with BB theory is the metaphysical aspects. They define terms like "inflation" and "expansion" and fail to indentify the force, or the carrier particles involved. It therefore tends to be very metaphysical in nature rather than clearly defined in any meaningful or physical way.
The other basic beef I have with the whole concept is it's insistance that there was a "singularity" with nothing outside of the singularity and that the concept of time did not apply prior to this event. There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that iron and pulsars did not predate the event, and yet there is a "rush" to insist only one possibility is viable. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 13:54:57 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 13:59:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that iron and pulsars did not predate the event
Evidence for a negative?
Question: what evidence is there to suggest that they did exist?
FWIW, I'm like Cuneiformist in that I'm trying to keep up and learn...very interesting discussion! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 14:16:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
You keep repeating this in handwave fashion. Name the particles involved.
And you keep asking that as if it means something. "Space" isn't defined by particles.quote:
Describe the timelinese as they relate to volume and how this force effects the particles.
What "force?" What "particles?" Space expanded, and it did not do so through some force acting upon some particles.quote:
I'm not asking for math, just a general theory that involves real particles and real things.
The general theory is the Big Bang theory.quote:
Yes, and in the case of a singularity, it's generally pointed inward toward the singularity, not away from it.
What singularity? The references you earlier provided show that General Relativity cannot possibly apply at t=0, so how do you know there was a singularity?quote:
I'm afraid gravity is working againt you in a big way.
Yes, be afraid, because you're wrong.quote:
If inflation doesn't happen around gravity wells, why not? Why does it behave differently in around gravity well...
Because gravity holds the space together. You really do want me to explain General Relativity, don't you?quote:
...and how would that explain how inflation then occurs near a "singularity?
What singularity?quote:
By the way, was this "expansion pressure" of the universe ever calculated into the absolute density calculations of our sun?
What "expansion pressure?" Expansion isn't caused by a force.quote:
A field you've yet to define by the way.
And you still haven't defined the word "universe" for us, so what?quote:
That was a perfectly "Buddhist" description of what space is "not". Care to explain in physical terms what it actually *is* then?
I did already.quote:
Now you have a mystical sort of Buddhists explanation of what "space" is, and evidently I'm supposed to "assume" that the "space" between an electron and a proton is full of something as of yet undefined.
No, you're not supposed to assume anything. Space exists between the nucleus and electrons in atoms. What is there, Michael?quote:
As far as I can tell, most QM formulas require an electromagnetic field and carrier particles to operate as defined.
Yes...quote:
If so, then the only force I know that could break it is a stronger electromagnetic field.
Yes...?quote:
That is exactly why I chose that force to explain "acceleration".
Explain how an electromagnetic field can make space itself get larger, as shown by redshift. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 15:56:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And you keep asking that as if it means something. "Space" isn't defined by particles.
Then this isn't physics. We're into the realm of metaphysics Dave, plain and simple.
quote:
What "force?"
The force of expansion Dave. How coy can we be anyway?
quote:
What "particles?"
What physics?
quote:
Space expanded, and it did not do so through some force acting upon some particles.
Then in "real" terms, exactly what *is* expanding exactly?
quote:
The general theory is the Big Bang theory.
That's non responsive.
quote:
What singularity? The references you earlier provided show that General Relativity cannot possibly apply at t=0, so how do you know there was a singularity?
Because everyone keeps talking about expansion and inflation and growth from a "point". It was evidently very physically small in size. Whatever size the quark soup may have been, it contained particles of mass and therefore gravity is pulling in, not out.
quote:
quote:
I'm afraid gravity is working againt you in a big way.
Yes, be afraid, because you're wrong.
Again, this is utterly non-responsive and simply false. The moment you have quark soup is the moment you have gravitational forces working against you, not helping you explain "expansion".
quote:
Because gravity holds the space together. You really do want me to explain General Relativity, don't you?
No. Without mass, you have no gravity. The moment you had quark soup is the moment you had mass and the moment you had gravity sucking it all back together.
quote:
What singularity?
How did you get 13.7 billion years again as the age of the universe Dave? What inflation? What expansion?
quote:
quote:
By the way, was this "expansion pressure" of the universe ever calculated into the absolute density calculations of our sun?
What "expansion pressure?" Expansion isn't caused by a force.
There you have it. You want to have your metaphysical cake and eat it too. You want to believe in expansion, but only some kinds of expansion, and only when and where you say so. How cute.
quote:
quote:
A field you've yet to define by the way.
And you still haven't defined the word "universe" for us, so what?
So it's metaphysical Dave. You have a metaphysical "non-force" that's evidently really picky about what it "expands' and what it doesn't. It isn't a force, there are no particles and the whole argument is metaphysical in nature. You're just making up the special pleading rules as you go.
quote:
That was a perfectly "Buddhist" description of what space is "not". Care to explain in physical terms what it actually *is* then?
I did already.quote:
No Dave, you didn't. You didn't give me any carrier particles to work with or to "expand", or to apply any "physics" to. You didn't give me any particles at all, nor would you define space in any tangible way. All I got from you was "it's the stuff between the electron and the positron". Are you talking then about carrier particles of some kind?
quote:
No, you're not supposed to assume anything. Space exists between the nucleus and electrons in atoms.
So do carrier particles Dave. Are you suggesting "space" is composed of carrier particles?
quote:
What is there, Michael?
Carrier particles!
quote:
Explain how an electromagnetic field can make space itself get larger, as shown by redshift.
I'll be happy to do that the moment you give me a defintion of "space" that isn't metaphysical in nature. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 15:58:10 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 16:05:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that iron and pulsars did not predate the event
Evidence for a negative?
No, I'm asking for evidence to substanciate the BB theory in this regard.
quote:
Question: what evidence is there to suggest that they did exist?
All the evidence I cited earlier about the iron rich pulsars and the abundance of iron in the early universe far sooner than any BB theory predicted. There is no evidence to suggest these things were created in the BB, or that there even was a Big Bang for that matter. If folks believe that all matter formed in the BB, then someone needs to provide some evidence to suggest this is so.
quote:
FWIW, I'm like Cuneiformist in that I'm trying to keep up and learn...very interesting discussion!
It has been interesting. It's a pity it's been so "rough and tumble" instead of a "friendly discussion among friends". Oh well. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 06/30/2006 16:06:13 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 16:14:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The primary beef I have with BB theory is the metaphysical aspects. They define terms like "inflation" and "expansion" and fail to indentify the force, or the carrier particles involved. It therefore tends to be very metaphysical in nature rather than clearly defined in any meaningful or physical way.
Hi, Michael. I don't know how valid these objections are (though perhaps I'm simply not understanding your objections very well...). After all, if we can say that certain evidence points to some event happening (or to an event having happened), is it "metaphysical" if we cannot explain how is happened?
For instance, the other day I noticed some empty beer cans in my trash. Based on this, I concluded that someone drank them. However, since I didn't drink them, and since my significant other didn't drink them (she hates beer), I was at a loss to explain how they were consumed. After some research, though, I eventually discovered what happened. (A friend came over to fix a computer problem while I was gone and-- I guess as his payment?-- he decided to drink my beer!) But even without figuing that out, I didn't decided that the beer consumption wasn't real.
quote:
The other basic beef I have with the whole concept is it's insistance that there was a "singularity" with nothing outside of the singularity and that the concept of time did not apply prior to this event. There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that iron and pulsars did not predate the event, and yet there is a "rush" to insist only one possibility is viable.
I don't know much about the Big Bang and singularities. The Wiki article talks a little about it. At the end of one section, it saysquote:
:Mysteries appear as one looks closer to the beginning, when particle energies were higher than can yet be studied by experiment. There is no compelling physical model for the first 10-33 seconds of the universe, before the phase transition that grand unification theory predicts. At the "first instant", Einstein's theory of gravitation predicts a gravitational singularity where densities become infinite. To resolve this paradox, a theory of quantum gravitation is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.
This sounds to me like our earliest notions of the Big Bang at still unclear and more complex math and physics (shit like quantum-whatever) is needed to figure it out.
As for your assertion (I think) that elements like iron and celestial bodies like pulsars existed from the start, that seems to fly in the face of the Big Bang. The Wiki saysquote:
:As the universe cooled, matter gradually stopped moving relativistically and its rest mass energy density came to gravitationally dominate that of radiation. After about 300,000 years the electrons and nuclei combined into atoms (mostly hydrogen); hence the radiation decoupled from matter and continued through space largely unimpeded. This relic radiation is the cosmic microwave background.
According to this, the most basic elements in the universe weren't formed until several hundred thousand years into the process. No doubt heavier elements came much later.
In a web page (yours?) you linked earier, you cite a new release that quotes a scientist as saying:quote:
We believe that the iron we detected with Hubble was created in the very first generation of stars which formed soon after the Big Bang.
So while iron is early, it's not before the Big Bang, or even directly from the Big Bang. It's with the first "generation" of stars, an event that had to be quite some time after the first hydrogen atoms appeared.
At least, this is what I'm gathering. Is this right? If not, whay am I missing? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 17:05:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
The primary beef I have with BB theory is the metaphysical aspects. They define terms like "inflation" and "expansion" and fail to indentify the force, or the carrier particles involved. It therefore tends to be very metaphysical in nature rather than clearly defined in any meaningful or physical way.
Hi, Michael. I don't know how valid these objections are (though perhaps I'm simply not understanding your objections very well...). After all, if we can say that certain evidence points to some event happening (or to an event having happened), is it "metaphysical" if we cannot explain how is happened?
Certainly not. I would say it depends entirely on what folks try to do with the evidence, and how they attempt to "explain" the evidence. That explanation can take on a metaphysical aspect.
In this case, gravity is going to work against any forces of "expansion". However we attempt to explain this "expansion", it should fall within the realm of physics and particle physics and known forces of nature. There is a viable way to explain this evidence without going outside of the laws of nature and without going outside of the laws of particle physics.
If someone believes however that there is only one viable way to interpret the evidence, it becomes beholden upon them to do so in a complete way, without introducing "metaphysics" into the discussion.
quote:
For instance, the other day I noticed some empty beer cans in my trash. Based on this, I concluded that someone drank them. However, since I didn't drink them, and since my significant other didn't drink them (she hates beer), I was at a loss to explain how they were consumed. After some research, though, I eventually discovered what happened. (A friend came over to fix a computer problem while I was gone and-- I guess as his payment?-- he decided to drink my beer!) But even without figuing that out, I didn't decided that the beer consumption wasn't real.
Well, as long as you don't "insist" that the space between the electrons and the protons inside the atoms of your beer, drank your beer, I've got no problem with your "confusion" about how the beer ended up in the trash. :) It's what you hypothesize during your "research phase" that could sound metaphysical, depending on how you tried to explain the missing beer during your research period.
quote:
I don't know much about the Big Bang and singularities. The Wiki article talks a little about it. At the end of one section, it says:Mysteries appear as one looks closer to the beginning, when particle energies were higher than can yet be studied by experiment. There is no compelling physical model for the first 10-33 seconds of the universe, before the phase transition that grand unification theory predicts. At the "first instant", Einstein's theory of gravitation predicts a gravitational singularity where densities become infinite. To resolve this paradox, a theory of quantum gravitation is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.
And maybe the only mystery is trying to explain why some folks insist this is the only possible way to explain what happened.
quote:
This sounds to me like our earliest notions of the Big Bang at still unclear and more complex math and physics (shit like quantum-whatever) is needed to figure it out.
But you didn't insist on a "single" solution to your beer mystery before you knew all the facts. Why would you do so now? IMO, it would be analogous to jumping to the conclusion that your wife drank the beer and trying to make the evidence fit that particular theory.
quote:
As for your assertion (I think) that elements like iron and celestial bodies like pulsars existed from the start, that seems to fly in the face of the Big Bang.
Well, that's because the observational evidence also seems to fly in the face of the BB predictions. Most of the early BB theories predicted that galaxies wouldn't form for a very long time, usually defined in billions of years. Instead we find fully formed galaxies many times the size of our own galaxy as far back as we can currently see, less than 1 billion years after this "event".
quote:
According to this, the most basic elements in the universe weren't formed until several hundred thousand years into the process. No doubt heavier elements came much later.
But instead we find all sorts of surprises about the early existence of stars and iron and pulsars in the early universe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2992313.stm
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMP8T4Y3EE_index_0.html
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html
The "surprise" you'll see expressed in these articles reflects the fact that BB theory never suggested such an early formation of stars or universes. In fact I'm old enough to remember when the timeline of galaxy formation was put in the "billions" (plural) of years after this quark soup phase. That "guess" was off by a mile. Admittedly, new variations of BB theory have emerged, but there isn't much discussion about why the original timelines of earlier theories were wrong, and what physical variables were "adjusted" to compensate for these new discoveries.
quote:
So while iron is early, it's not before the Big Bang, or even directly from the Big Bang. It's with the first "generation" of stars, an event that had to be quite some time after the first hydrogen atoms appeared.
Well, that is the "theory" anyway, at least for the time being. Because they never expected to see these early structures so far back in time, they now have to "assume" that these are the first generation stars. Then again, what happens if Hubble's replacement finds even more stars further back in time? They'll keep pushing back the concept until there is direct evidence that the timelines just won't work anymore.
quote:
At least, this is what I'm gathering. Is this right? If not, whay am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 17:51:20 [Permalink]
|
I see why it's so easy to get off track in these discussions.
In any case, I want to stick with some basics. So my real question is that if various Big Bang people made predictions about it, and then later observations were in line with those predictions, and none of them disproved them, then it starts to be a rather compelling theory, no?
You seem to be fixated on some early predictions about galaxy formations and whatnot, but does that merit overturning the whole thing? Evolution isn't tossed out just when various hominid fossils are found that date earlier than expected, no? |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 19:05:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
I see why it's so easy to get off track in these discussions.
Isn't it though? 
quote:
In any case, I want to stick with some basics. So my real question is that if various Big Bang people made predictions about it, and then later observations were in line with those predictions, and none of them disproved them, then it starts to be a rather compelling theory, no?
Had BB history played out like that, perhaps I'd be inclined to agree with you. As it is however, the BB theory's usefulness as a predictive device has been virtually nil.
quote:
You seem to be fixated on some early predictions about galaxy formations and whatnot, but does that merit overturning the whole thing?
Well, you tell me. If a theory isn't useful in any tangible way as a predictive device, and most of the predictions it makes turn out to be false, and there are other viable options to choose from, I fail to see the point of fixating on a single option. That is particularly true with an event that is so far removed in space and time.
quote:
Evolution isn't tossed out just when various hominid fossils are found that date earlier than expected, no?
No. I think however that it is unfair to compare these two theories since the only BB "prediction" I'm aware of that actually panned out was the prediction of background radiation. The presense of redshifted background radiation seems far from convincing, expecially since a static universe may produce a similar effect if there is any merit at all to Arp's theories. If "space" is "expanding", then this too may have some influence on redshifting. As I said, it's not that I'm against the notion of teaching BB theory in class, I just think it's way too early to be insisting that it happened this way, or to be fixating on only one single option. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
