Status of the Big Bang Cosmology

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:19:21 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

For example, in the 1980s there were serious problems like

the flatness problem, the horizon problem, the lack of

magnetic monopoles, etc. Then came Guth and inflation and the

standard model was "saved".



It was left intact, slightly modified.

You call the Inflationary Scenario a slight modification?
Can you be serious?!!!


Science doesn't proceed by

revolutions (despite Kuhn), but by learning from observations.


Wrong/right.

Note also that the two are not mutually exclusive.
In fact valid revolutions are motivated by observational
evidence.

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

You call the Inflationary Scenario a slight modification?
Can you be serious?!!!

Sure. Inflation essentially modifies what the universe looked like
10^{-35} s after the big bang. After that, it's just classical
cosmology.

In general: there is no point in pointing out (even if true) that the
standard cosmological model needs an inflation epicycle or whatever to
solve some problem unless you have some other theory which does NOT
suffer from this problem. Does DSR have an isotropy problem? A
monopole problem? If not, why not? And so on.

In article , Phillip
Helbig---undress to reply writes:

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

You call the Inflationary Scenario a slight modification?
Can you be serious?!!!

Sure. Inflation essentially modifies what the universe looked like
10^{-35} s after the big bang. After that, it's just classical
cosmology.

Let me expand (inflate?) on this a bit. Classical physics is basically
about differential equations, and classical cosmology is basically about
the differential equation called the Friedmann equation. In order to
calculate some quantity, not only must one integrate the differential
equation, but one has to specify boundary conditions. These are always
separate information. So, classical cosmology tells us all we need to
know about how the universe expands, given the initial conditions.
Understanding why the initial conditions were what they were is
something outside the differential equation. This is not particular to
cosmology, but is essentially the same in all of classical physics. So,
at worst, one cannot say that classical cosmology is somehow wrong, but
perhaps incomplete---but no more incomplete than any other branch of
physics where differential equations play a role.

There is absolutely no problem understanding basic cosmological
observations without inflation. However, one is led to the conclusion
(how serious this is is a matter of some debate) that the initial
conditions are rather improbable. Inflation transforms generic initial
conditions into something like we observe. (One must be careful, of
course, that inflation itself is not more unlikely than the unlikely
classical initial conditions.)

On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:24:43 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
In general: there is no point in pointing out (even if true) that the
standard cosmological model needs an inflation epicycle or whatever to
solve some problem unless you have some other theory which does NOT
suffer from this problem. Does DSR have an isotropy problem? A
monopole problem? If not, why not? And so on.
---------------------------------------

1) This thread is not about Discrete Scale Relativity!

2) It is a serious logical error to say that one
cannot discuss a problem with the currently favored
paradigm until one has a completed replacement theory.

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:24:43 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
In general: there is no point in pointing out (even if true) that the
standard cosmological model needs an inflation epicycle or whatever to
solve some problem unless you have some other theory which does NOT
suffer from this problem. Does DSR have an isotropy problem? A
monopole problem? If not, why not? And so on.
---------------------------------------

1) This thread is not about Discrete Scale Relativity!

Actually, I think all threads to which you contribute are about DSR at
some level.

2) It is a serious logical error to say that one
cannot discuss a problem with the currently favored
paradigm until one has a completed replacement theory.

Correct. However, you routinely trumpet your theory, but if it has the
same problems as the one you are criticizing, I see some combination of
pot, kettle and black.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:00:15 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
Actually, I think all threads to which you contribute are about DSR at
some level.
-------------------------------------------

Note the assumption and the use of the absolute
in this reasoning. It is also ad hominem.

Correct. However, you routinely trumpet your theory, but if it has the
same problems as the one you are criticizing, I see some combination of
pot, kettle and black.
---------------------------------------

Perhaps this discussion would be more productive
if we shifted our attention from the straw man
in the corner to the scientific issues that
are front and center.

[Mod. note: reformatted. I agree, please discuss the science, not
individuals -- mjh]