#1
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
George Dishman: I've replied to your criticisms of my blog article in more detail than I did in my initial e-mail response to you. http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/blog/2...cosmology.html That is the address of the original article, click on comments to see my reply to your comments. I guess at this point there is no theory that makes sense to me. The big bang bothers me because of the need for magic, inflation with no basis in physics, the cosmological constant just because it makes the formulas work, cause and effect before time began, etc. Steady state bothers me because there would be a need for a mechanism to recycle heavy elements generated through nuclear synthesis in the stars back into hydrogen, else everything would be iron by now. And of coarse the need for an explanation of red shift other than Doppler. I did think of one potential explanation for that. Modern string theories seem to suggest that most forces could not act across the additional dimensions but that gravity would. So perhaps energy is being extracted from photons via gravitational influence across these extra dimensions. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
"Nanook" wrote in message ... George Dishman: I've replied to your criticisms of my blog article in more detail than I did in my initial e-mail response to you. http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/blog/2...cosmology.html That is the address of the original article, click on comments to see my reply to your comments. I'll try to respond soon but it's going to get complex if we go through point by point. I'll see if I can come up with a way to make it readable. I guess at this point there is no theory that makes sense to me. The big bang bothers me because of the need for magic, inflation with no basis in physics, the cosmological constant just because it makes the formulas work, cause and effect before time began, etc. Inflation and the cosmological constant are empirical at the moment, I agree, but theory has always been driven by observation and that's as it should be. They are pointing the way to more detailed theories but they are essentially the boundaries of present understanding. Whwt you have to realise is that big bang starts today and works backwards. We can see galaxies far back in time. We can see the CMBR and the ratio of promordial elements is a good, but not perfect, match to the numbers projected from high energy physics measurements. Back to nucleosynthesis the case is pretty solid with the main unknown being dark energy and the nature of dark matter. Beyond that however, we don't understand baryogenesis for me that's where the theory stops and speculation begins. Steady state bothers me because there would be a need for a mechanism to recycle heavy elements generated through nuclear synthesis in the stars back into hydrogen, else everything would be iron by now. That recycling would need energy too so is no better than the need for dark energy in present observations. Not to mention the problem of deuterium. And of coarse the need for an explanation of red shift other than Doppler. Indeed. Also you need a source for the CMBR which is problematic. I did think of one potential explanation for that. Modern string theories seem to suggest that most forces could not act across the additional dimensions but that gravity would. So perhaps energy is being extracted from photons via gravitational influence across these extra dimensions. Hmmm, you think the Big bang needs "magic" and energy "being extracted from photons via gravitational influence across .. extra dimensions." is somehow less magical? George |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bang
"N" == Nanook writes:
N I guess at this point there is no theory that makes sense to me. N The big bang bothers me because of the need for magic, inflation N with no basis in physics, the cosmological constant just because it N makes the formulas work, cause and effect before time began, etc. The Big Bang model is a straightforward application of general relativity. Recall that the cosmological constant has reared its figurative head in the past 10 years only because the data have demanded it. The cosmological constant appears quite naturally within general relativity, but a theory cannot predict the value of constants within it. (Does Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation predict the value of G? Do Maxwell's equations predict the value of the electronic charge?) Inflation is perhaps a bit more problematic, but my recollection is that it is potentially related to a phase change. Phase changes are not magic, and are quite commonplace in our everyday experience. (Drop an ice cube into a drink.) N Steady state bothers me because there would be a need for a N mechanism to recycle heavy elements generated through nuclear N synthesis in the stars back into hydrogen, else everything would be N iron by now. And of coarse the need for an explanation of red N shift other than Doppler. Not really. The original steady state postulated that hydrogen was being created continuously, and it was quite happy with the standard, cosmological explanation for redshift. What did in the steady state model was its prediction that the Universe would not change dramatically over time. It's now clear that the Universe has changed over time. -- Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/ sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[sci.astro] Cosmology (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (9/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 6th 05 02:37 AM |
The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | September 6th 05 09:51 PM |
The Big Bang Echoes through the Map of the Galaxy | [email protected] | Misc | 4 | September 2nd 05 05:44 PM |
No Room for Intelligent Design in Big Bang Theory | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 9 | August 8th 05 04:56 PM |
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? | Yoda | Misc | 102 | August 2nd 04 02:33 AM |