|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Status of the Big Bang Cosmology
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Status of the Big Bang Cosmology
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.) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Status of the Big Bang Cosmology
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Status of the Big Bang Cosmology
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Status of the Big Bang Cosmology
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] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Challenge to Big Bang cosmology | David Crawford | Astronomy Misc | 5 | April 12th 07 01:27 AM |
Big Bang Cosmology | [email protected] | Misc | 8 | March 29th 07 05:35 PM |
Evidence keeps coming in for Big Bang cosmology | Wally Anglesea™ | Misc | 9 | April 8th 06 03:23 AM |
The backward primitive cosmology of the Big Bang | Mad Scientist | Misc | 6 | September 2nd 04 04:27 AM |
is there a center to the Big Bang cosmology? | Mad Scientist | Misc | 12 | August 27th 04 12:08 AM |