The end of the Big Bang Theory era? (NPR, not crackpottery)

On Sep 13, 10:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/13/11 1:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Our local balloon which we call our universe for as far as we can
detect, has perhaps expanded to several hundred billion light years
radii. *Inside of our balloon universe remains every bit as unknown as
is the existence of other cosmic balloons.

Since you are only a mainstream status-quo parrot and thus either
can't or wouldn't dare think or deductively interpret anything for
yourself, therefore what is your limited intellectual function here,
or anywhere?

Have you ever contributed anything original?

* *Yup -- What's that have to do with this article?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/0...twilight-of-th...

Hanson isn't here to help anyone or to constructively contribute
squat. How about yourself?

"Brad Guth" wrote:
-- Sam Wormley wrote:


Brad Guth wrote:
Sam, since you are only a mainstream status-quo
parrot and thus either can't or wouldn't dare think
or deductively interpret anything for yourself,
therefore what is your limited intellectual function
here, or anywhere?
Sam, have you ever contributed anything original?

Sam wrote:
Yup -- What's that have to do with this article?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/09/13/140427897/the-twilight-of-the-big-bang

Brad wrote:
Hanson isn't here to help anyone or to constructively
contribute squat. How about yourself, Sam?

hanson wrote:
Since "Hanson isn't here to constructively contribute
squat", Brad, what is it that you need to hear?
I am here for fun, Brad, NOT to hold your hand and
guide you in your nether world of intellectual darkness....
Thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahahanson

On 15/09/2011 1:52 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in
:
It's not my idea, I'm only quoting Andrei Linde's idea, called
"Eternal Inflation". He's one of the fathers of Inflation theory, so
if you think he's a crackpot, then go ahead and say it.

Hoyle was one of the pioneers in astronomy and turned into a crank into
his old age.

Essen was a smart man who figured out a lot about atomic clocks but
turned into a relativity crank.

It isn't without precedent.

This is completely peer-reviewed stuff. There was even a documentary
from BBC Horizon called "What Happened Before the Big Bang", which
interviewed Linde about his Eternal Inflation theory; it also presented
other alternative theories like the Cyclic Universe theory, etc.

Besides, even younger physicists like Sean Carroll have signed on to it,
if you read the link from discovermagazine.com I posted. Even older
physicists like Sir Roger Penrose is proposing alternatives to the Big
Bang (which he helped develop), which are based on a cyclic model.
Everyone has their own variation on the theme though.

3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang | Cosmology | DISCOVER
Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...might-blow-up-
t
he-big-bang/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

The eternal inflation as referenced here is interesting, but poses
observational 'challenges'.

Pretty much all theories about the origin of the universe pose
observational challenges, including the status quo Big Bang. Whether you
choose to believe in Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Universe, Brane Banging,
Universe as a Blackhole, etc. Each of the alternatives take something
from the Big Bang model and tweak it a little.

[1006.2170] Measure Problem for Eternal and Non-Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2170

Yousuf Khan


It always raises an eyebrow when an abstract, much less a paper, about
cosmology is incomprehensible to me.

It's just a comparison of how Big Bang Inflation compares against
Eternal Inflation.

Yousuf Khan

"Brad Guth" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

Yossi wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/09/13/140427897/the-twilight-of-the-big-bang
wherein it says:
"We live at the end of an era. We live in one of those
singular moments in history when one scientific and
culturally accepted concept of cosmic origins is fading
and others, yet unproven, view for ascendency.
We live at the twilight of the big bang."

hanson wrote:
Well Adam Frank, the author of the above link is peddling
his book, and hence the article ought to be enjoyed in that
light ... ahahaha... with "the intricate braiding of cosmology
and culture" that Frank has finally noticed.
This is old hat. I have posted about this a decade ago.
So, instead of cursing each other's view, do like Alpher,
Bethe & Gamov did when they sold and promoted their
Big Bang theory, using:
"and God said: ***Let there be Light***. Details he
http://tinyurl.com/Big-Bang-is-Let-there-be-Light
This is the all time best story in modern times of how
Gamov et.al concocted and sold the Bang Bang. It was
a stroke of pure genius. Not for scientific reasons, oh, no.
It was genius because it brought all the religious folk into
the fold, since now science too finally saw & admitted that:

"Let there be light" was "true" and proved that the Bible
was right all along. "Hallelujah! Praise the Load" and ABG
indeed got a big buck for the bang... a for the shekels began
to roll now into the astro coffers to conduct research!

Sam wrote:
"Physicists always knew we could not look beyond 13.7 billion light
years (since that was the age of the cosmos). Inflation, however added
its own twist to the idea of cosmic "horizons." Inflation theory implies
that there might be other parts of the universe that look nothing like
our own that might be in entirely different states. Most importantly, it
hinted that there might, effectively, be more than universe out there.
Thus it became possible that the big bang was simply our big bang. It
was demoted from "The Creation" down to "a creation."

Brad wrote:
Our local balloon which we call our universe for as far as we can
detect, has perhaps expanded to several hundred billion light years
radii. Inside of our balloon universe remains every bit as unknown as
is the existence of other cosmic balloons.

Since you are only a mainstream status-quo parrot and thus either
can't or wouldn't dare think or deductively interpret anything for
yourself, therefore what is your limited intellectual function here,
or anywhere?
Have you ever contributed anything original, Sam?

hanson wrote:
Brad, old chum, listen to yourself. You are FUD-ing.
http://tinyurl.com/FUD-Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt
Besides, Sam takes and plays the valuable role of
being the purveyor and minnesinger for the
establishment, of/for what is "original" to him/them.

But what is original to them is of course in no way
so in your mnind, because you always promptly
post and insist just on the opposite, which in your
mind then certainly becomes "original"... ahahahaha...

Relax, Brad that is cool too!... We are not here to
make a living, although a lot of folks take their cyber
****ing contests very seriously... full well knowing
that their originality or brain farts will NOT buy them
even a single cup of coffee....
So, carry in and thanks for the laughs... ahahanson

Brad wrote:
Sam is our resident parrot that never deductively
contributes anything that isn't fully mainstream status-quo
approved, but then you seem pleased as punch that
nothing ever gets revised or otherwise corrected
or even independently interpreted unless it's kosher.

snipped Brad's badly fermented & regurgitated crap

hanson wrote:
....ahahaha.. You posted your tripe 3AM. It shows, Brad.
You should have stopped and gone to bed when you
read: "we are not here to make a living", especially not you,
Brad with your always gauche tripe, that always insist on the
opposite, no matter who says what. That's very unkosher,
Brad. "Oye weh"..."Trust Me!"... "Go Figure", Brad ....
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

On Sep 15, 9:04*am, "hanson" wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote:

-- Sam Wormley wrote:

Brad Guth wrote:

Sam, since you are only a mainstream status-quo
parrot and thus either can't or wouldn't dare think
or deductively interpret anything for yourself,
therefore what is your limited intellectual function
here, or anywhere?
Sam, have you ever contributed anything original?

Sam wrote:

Yup -- What's that have to do with this article?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/09/13/140427897/the-twilight-of-th...

Brad wrote:

Hanson isn't here to help anyone or to constructively
contribute squat. *How about yourself, Sam?

hanson wrote:

Since "Hanson isn't here to constructively contribute
squat", Brad, *what is it that you need to hear?
I am here for fun, Brad, NOT to hold your hand and
guide you in your nether world of intellectual darkness....
Thanks for the laughs, though... ahahahahahanson

So was Hitler, GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Kissinger here only for fun.
Did you guys have a really good time of it?

Yousuf Khan wrote in -
lp.com:

On 14/09/2011 11:05 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
Yousuf Khan is my favorite Usenet persona.
He might be a she, by the way, hence the civility.
I'd like a pic, how about it Mr/Ms Khan ?

Yousuf is a guy's name always. It's another form of Joseph.

Watch out.

Relf WILL look for pictures of you. He WILL save them for years. He WILL
freak you the **** out.


(S)he knows his/her stuff, lots of good ideas, but it's a mixed bag.
Likely, the cosmos was inflating 99 giga·years ago, as it always has.

Well, no, the universe in which we live is most likely 13.7 billion
years old. However, there might have been other universes that have been
inflating since 99 billion years ago, and possibly others even longer.
The theory is called "Eternal" Inflation, so it would mean that the
multiverse is infinitely old.

Yousuf Khan


Ignore the relf droppings.

Yousuf Khan wrote in news:4e722517$1
@news.bnb-lp.com:

On 15/09/2011 1:52 AM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in
:
It's not my idea, I'm only quoting Andrei Linde's idea, called
"Eternal Inflation". He's one of the fathers of Inflation theory, so
if you think he's a crackpot, then go ahead and say it.

Hoyle was one of the pioneers in astronomy and turned into a crank
into
his old age.

Essen was a smart man who figured out a lot about atomic clocks but
turned into a relativity crank.

It isn't without precedent.

This is completely peer-reviewed stuff. There was even a documentary
from BBC Horizon called "What Happened Before the Big Bang", which
interviewed Linde about his Eternal Inflation theory; it also
presented
other alternative theories like the Cyclic Universe theory, etc.

Besides, even younger physicists like Sean Carroll have signed on to
it,
if you read the link from discovermagazine.com I posted. Even older
physicists like Sir Roger Penrose is proposing alternatives to the Big
Bang (which he helped develop), which are based on a cyclic model.
Everyone has their own variation on the theme though.

I happen to respect Carroll and the name didn't "slip right by" when I
read the article.


3 Theories That Might Blow Up the Big Bang | Cosmology | DISCOVER
Magazine
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr...at-might-blow-
up-
t
he-big-bang/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C

The eternal inflation as referenced here is interesting, but poses
observational 'challenges'.

Pretty much all theories about the origin of the universe pose
observational challenges, including the status quo Big Bang. Whether
you
choose to believe in Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Universe, Brane
Banging,
Universe as a Blackhole, etc. Each of the alternatives take something
from the Big Bang model and tweak it a little.

When these various theories diverge from metaphysical guessing and come
back on the track of testable physics, I'll be interested. Until then I
shall treat them as they a People saying "what if..." with no hope of
testing that notion.

I mean, its' amusing too. I'll engage in it as well - the eternal
inflation model is no less reasonable to me than the various others, but
is not testable.


[1006.2170] Measure Problem for Eternal and Non-Eternal Inflation
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2170

Yousuf Khan


It always raises an eyebrow when an abstract, much less a paper,
about
cosmology is incomprehensible to me.

It's just a comparison of how Big Bang Inflation compares against
Eternal Inflation.

Yousuf Khan

"Brad Guth" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

Yossi wrote:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/09/13/140427897/the-twilight-of-the-big-bang
wherein it says:
"We live at the end of an era. We live in one of those
singular moments in history when one scientific and
culturally accepted concept of cosmic origins is fading
and others, yet unproven, view for ascendency.
We live at the twilight of the big bang."

hanson wrote:
Well Adam Frank, the author of the above link is peddling
his book, and hence the article ought to be enjoyed in that
light ... ahahaha... with "the intricate braiding of cosmology
and culture" that Frank has finally noticed.
This is old hat. I have posted about this a decade ago.
So, instead of cursing each other's view, do like Alpher,
Bethe & Gamov did when they sold and promoted their
Big Bang theory, using:
"and God said: ***Let there be Light***. Details he
http://tinyurl.com/Big-Bang-is-Let-there-be-Light
This is the all time best story in modern times of how
Gamov et.al concocted and sold the Bang Bang. It was
a stroke of pure genius. Not for scientific reasons, oh, no.
It was genius because it brought all the religious folk into
the fold, since now science too finally saw & admitted that:

"Let there be light" was "true" and proved that the Bible
was right all along. "Hallelujah! Praise the Load" and ABG
indeed got a big buck for the bang... a for the shekels began
to roll now into the astro coffers to conduct research!

Sam wrote:
"Physicists always knew we could not look beyond 13.7 billion light
years (since that was the age of the cosmos). Inflation, however added
its own twist to the idea of cosmic "horizons." Inflation theory implies
that there might be other parts of the universe that look nothing like
our own that might be in entirely different states. Most importantly, it
hinted that there might, effectively, be more than universe out there.
Thus it became possible that the big bang was simply our big bang. It
was demoted from "The Creation" down to "a creation."

Brad wrote:
snip Brad's Buffoon-Balloon crap
Since you Sam are only a mainstream status-quo parrot
and thus either can't or wouldn't dare think or deductively
interpret anything for yourself, therefore what is your
limited intellectual function here, or anywhere?
Have you ever contributed anything original, Sam?

Sam wrote:
Yup -- What's that have to do with this article?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/09/13/140427897/the-twilight-of-th...

hanson wrote:
Brad, old chum, listen to yourself. You are FUD-ing.
http://tinyurl.com/FUD-Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt
Besides, Sam takes and plays the valuable role of
being the purveyor and minnesinger for the
establishment, of/for what is "original" to him/them.

But what is original to them is of course in no way
so in your mnind, because you always promptly
post and insist just on the opposite, which in your
mind then certainly becomes "original"... ahahahaha...

Relax, Brad that is cool too!... We are not here to
make a living, although a lot of folks take their cyber
****ing contests very seriously... full well knowing
that their originality or brain farts will NOT buy them
even a single cup of coffee....
So, carry in and thanks for the laughs... ahahanson

Brad wrote:
Sam is our resident parrot that never deductively
contributes anything that isn't fully mainstream status-quo
approved, but then you seem pleased as punch that
nothing ever gets revised or otherwise corrected
or even independently interpreted unless it's kosher.

snipped Brad's badly fermented & regurgitated crap

hanson wrote:
....ahahaha.. You posted your tripe 3AM. It shows, Brad.
You should have stopped and gone to bed when you
read: "we are not here to make a living", especially not you,
Brad with your always gauche tripe, that always insist on the
opposite, no matter who says what. That's very unkosher,
Brad. "Oye weh"..."Trust Me!"... "Go Figure", Brad ....
ahahahaha... ahahahahanson

Brad wrote:
Hanson isn't here to help anyone or to constructively
contribute squat. How about yourself, Sam?

hanson wrote:
Since "Hanson isn't here to constructively contribute
squat", Brad, what is it that you need to hear?
I am here for fun, Brad, NOT to hold your hand and
guide you in your nether world of intellectual darkness....

Brad wrote:
So was Hitler, GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Kissinger here
only for fun. Did you guys have a really good time of it?

hanso wrote:
..... hahahahaha.... Only you, Brad, wasting away in
your nether world of intellectual darkness could have
seen "Hitler, GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Kissinger"
posting on the UseNet. Repost some of their tripe.
See now what I mean, me being here for fun!.... ahaha...
Thanks for the laughs, Brad... ahahahahahanson

On 15/09/2011 2:55 PM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in news:4e722517$1
@news.bnb-lp.com:

On 15/09/2011 1:52 AM, eric gisse wrote:
The eternal inflation as referenced here is interesting, but poses
observational 'challenges'.

Pretty much all theories about the origin of the universe pose
observational challenges, including the status quo Big Bang. Whether
you
choose to believe in Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Universe, Brane
Banging,
Universe as a Blackhole, etc. Each of the alternatives take something
from the Big Bang model and tweak it a little.

When these various theories diverge from metaphysical guessing and come
back on the track of testable physics, I'll be interested. Until then I
shall treat them as they a People saying "what if..." with no hope of
testing that notion.

I mean, its' amusing too. I'll engage in it as well - the eternal
inflation model is no less reasonable to me than the various others, but
is not testable.

Well, the Big Bang model itself is not testable, any more than any of
these alternatives, we've just assumed that it must've started at some
singularity. That's because we can't see before the Cosmic Microwave
Background which occurred some 300,000 years after the Big Whatever
Start, and serves to mask the Big Whatever Start from our view
completely. All of them would produce the exact same CMB patterns we see
now, and they all involve some kind of an expansion from a smaller to a
bigger size universe.

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote in news:4e7254f5$1
@news.bnb-lp.com:

On 15/09/2011 2:55 PM, eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf wrote in news:4e722517$1
@news.bnb-lp.com:

On 15/09/2011 1:52 AM, eric gisse wrote:
The eternal inflation as referenced here is interesting, but poses
observational 'challenges'.

Pretty much all theories about the origin of the universe pose
observational challenges, including the status quo Big Bang. Whether
you
choose to believe in Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Universe, Brane
Banging,
Universe as a Blackhole, etc. Each of the alternatives take
something
from the Big Bang model and tweak it a little.

When these various theories diverge from metaphysical guessing and
come
back on the track of testable physics, I'll be interested. Until then
I
shall treat them as they a People saying "what if..." with no hope
of
testing that notion.

I mean, its' amusing too. I'll engage in it as well - the eternal
inflation model is no less reasonable to me than the various others,
but
is not testable.

Well, the Big Bang model itself is not testable, any more than any of
these alternatives, we've just assumed that it must've started at some
singularity. That's because we can't see before the Cosmic Microwave
Background which occurred some 300,000 years after the Big Whatever
Start, and serves to mask the Big Whatever Start from our view
completely. All of them would produce the exact same CMB patterns we
see
now, and they all involve some kind of an expansion from a smaller to
a
bigger size universe.

Yousuf Khan


Nope. Different formation scenarios leave different imprints on the CMB,
unless the 'different' ones all start from the same singularity then
whatever.