A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Before the Big Bang?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 28th 06, 02:40 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.astro.amateur,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics.relativity
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Before the Big Bang?


"Max Keon" wrote in message
u...

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Max Keon" wrote in message
...

George Dishman wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

------
------
That era was
still just as far removed from the origin as it is today. The
big bang theory does NOT describe a universe at all, it merely
describes an observation.


That is all science ever does Max, it describes
observations in a mathematical manner that allows
quantitative predictions. Your anisotropy is a
theory IMO since you have the equations to calculate
the predicted value. You discussion of the origins
on the other hand is merely philosophical since you
cannot derive it from the anisotropy equations.


But the gravity anisotropy is a consequence of the origin.


Prove it. Show the maths that derives anisotropy
from the postulate.

If the
anisotropy exists, it confirms the origin to some degree. The
origin becomes increasingly valid as more of its predicions are
confirmed, mathematically if need be. i.e. The CMBR.


The CMBR doesn't indicate anisotropy of gravity.

But how does one confirm an origin that doesn't predict anything?


One cannot therefore it would be speculation.

I find it somewhat hypocritical that you should say
that when your previous criticism was "Your model
doesn't say anything, it postulates it."

That wasn't being hypocritical George. The only postulate required
in the zero origin universe is the infinitesimally minute origin.


Exactly. To be any better than that, you have to
derive the claim from your equations, and those
equation have to be derived from actaul observation.


Even if your model doesn't make any direct prediction, it does
predict that the origin contained the entire matter of the universe
in some indeterminate "state" of non existence.


Nope, it does nothing of the kind.


Then you don't have a theory of a universe.


Of course we do Max, it is a model that covers
the whole universe with a bound just after the
beginning and spatial bounds inside the event
horizon of black holes. The cosmological
principle can be used to extend it beyond the
limits of what we can see though that could
reasonably be called speculative.

That prediction
postulates that matter can somehow be "housed" in such a manner.
An origin of absolutely nothing is by **far** the more logical.


It is totally illogical since there is then no manner
in which matter can be created yet we see it everywhere
today. We are made of the stuff!


The relationship between the very first infinitesimally minor
signs of existence that opened up time and dimension should never
have come to be because nothing existed prior to that event.


OK, so there's another logical flaw.

snip philosophy

The process of pair creation (e- e+) is predicted to increase at
a squaring rate per time.

That is the prediction George.


Then is is shown to be false Max - where are
all the positrons? There should be an equal
amount of anti-matter in our galaxy by that
prediction.

Try doing that with your universe.


Sorry, my model doesn't go back to baryogenesis.
Real scientific theories have limits Max, what
you are doing is philosophy, not science.


restoring the context:
The predicted chemical abundance that you mention above is only
in agreement with the observed values so long as the universe is
actually expanding. But what if it's not? What if you're seeing
a universe that's evolving from an origin of absolutely nothing?

If it isn't expanding there was never a time when the
temperature was high enough to create matter so
there should still be 'absolutely nothing', no matter
whatsoever. If it started with sub-atomic particles,
the lone neutrons would have decayed (half-life about
13 minutes) into protons and electrons so there would
be nothing but hydrogen and material produced by stellar
processes. Instead, we see a quarter of all matter is helium.


------
------

Neutrons are not involved in the initial part of any stellar
process, as you are well aware, but they most certainly have had
time and reason to form.


But neutrons don't just form Max, in isolation they
simply break up and you are left with hydrogen.


Why would they be in isolation within a forming star?


The stars would be formed from pure hydrogen and
could produce helium but other elements would be
formed too. I am talking about Pop I stars which
have 75% hydrogen and 25% helium but with
negligible amounts of anything else. These should
not exist in your universe.

------
------

I'm trying hard to understand where the big bang theory is going
to lead us.

It tells us how the universe evolved from what you called
an intermediate state

That word was "indeterminate", not intermediate.


Sorry, I misread it. The state was fairly well known
just before nucleogenesis as an equilibrium mix of
sub-atomic particles.


Has that been observed, ...


It is a prediction of conditions in the early
universe based on the measured characteristic
of particles from high energy physics
experiments where the conditions are similar.

.. or is it a prediction that points backward
toward the origin?
Which is a back to front way of doing things.


No, it is the right way to do things, science
extrapolates from what can be measured.

The zero origin concept predicts from the origin out.


That is a more philosophical approach but if
you can turn that into a postulate from which
numerical predictions can be made then you can
in theory confirm the postulate.

And all the math in the world will not make your personal guess
anywhere near as good. I have no idea why you have such confidence
in it.


I have no confidence in personal guesses whatsoever
and that includes your. The only thing I have
confidence in is maths that has been proven to
accurately represent what we measure. GR falls
into that category.


Maths only confirms what it's designed to confirm. It can be
nothing more than a facade when applied with bias.


Wrong, 2+2=4 no matter how biased you are.

On the subject of math, the manner in which you worded a reply to
another poster "Chris L Peterson", regarding my proposed gravity
anisotropy, strongly suggests that I was wrong. If you do have
anything to add to that thread, feel free to do so.


I'll reply separately to that. This thread
is getting bogged down and going nowhere so
perhaps we should cull it.


It was never going anywhere anyway because you cannot accept my
viewpoint anymore than I can accept yours. This debate has never
been about us. But it's your call of course.


This is not going anywhere because your words
are all philosophical. If it continues that
way I'll probably drop it as I have too much
else on at the moment.

George



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is Big Bang Real Scientific Theory? Sound of Trumpet Policy 342 November 14th 06 12:38 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 Amateur Astronomy 10 August 8th 05 04:56 PM
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? Yoda Misc 102 August 2nd 04 02:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.