Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

From what I have seen not even you seem to understand your take on cosmology. Here is a more than reasonable request:

Please put your beliefs into the form of a testable hypothesis. If you cannot do that then by definition you have no evidence for your beliefs and they appear to be mere speculation at best.

Wait, you just said before that you don't care what my take on cosmology is and now you want to know what it is, you are nigh on impossible to follow?

I started this thread to learn more of other people's understanding of the big bang, not to propose an alternate theory because I don't have one, here is my opening post, "I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding."

So I have asked a lot of questions and have followed with interest the comments of others, I consider I have learned a lot about other people's beliefs and understanding of the bb which helps me understand a little more. I appreciate those who have contributed to this thread with a sincere spirit to pass on their understanding, despite the fact that I may not always accept everything that they have conveyed or tried to convey. BB is not a religion and so should be free of dogma that afflicts fundamentalism of all religions, and in some cases even science, bb being an example as is global warming. When I see the word denier being used, I understand what I'm dealing with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait, you just said before that you don't care what my take on cosmology is and now you want to know what it is, you are nigh on impossible to follow?

I started this thread to learn more of other people's understanding of the big bang, not to propose an alternate theory because I don't have one, here is my opening post, "I would like to learn what others believe the big bang universe is expanding into? I only want to talk with those who are prepared to explain their own understanding directly, not second parties, and I don't intend to read articles by others that may be posted or linked to on this thread. .Thank you for your understanding."

So I have asked a lot of questions and have followed with interest the comments of others, I consider I have learned a lot about other people's beliefs and understanding of the bb which helps me understand a little more. I appreciate those who have contributed to this thread with a sincere spirit to pass on their understanding, despite the fact that I may not always accept everything that they have conveyed or tried to convey. BB is not a religion and so should be free of dogma that afflicts fundamentalism of all religions, and in some cases even science, bb being an example as is global warming. When I see the word denier being used, I understand what I'm dealing with.

I gave you a chance to redeem yourself and you ran away. Your OP was answered a long time ago. You have shown yourself to be a science denier that will not and can not justify your own beliefs. The best you have are false claims that others are doing the same as you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I gave you a chance to redeem yourself and you ran away. Your OP was answered a long time ago. You have shown yourself to be a science denier that will not and can not justify your own beliefs. The best you have are false claims that others are doing the same as you.

 

[Native]

Gravity is a difference force than E&M. In Newtonian physics, it is simply an action at a distance. In General relativity, it is a curvature of spacetime. In a quantum system, it would be the exchange of a spin 2 particle.

IMO a "gravity force" isn´t different from the overall E&M forces and the "action at distance" is a misconception. Einsteins "curvature of spacetime" is even worse than the Newtonian gravity misconceptions. Quantum Mechanics is OK - if the term and consensus term of gravity is excluded from its hypothesis.

Atomic gases and "metallic particles" are basically binded together by the E&M forces on the plasma stages to build matter which again gives weight.

E&M is also a force. In both Newtonian physics and General relativity, it is a force on a charged particle produced by both electric and magnetic fields via the Lorenz force law. This force then produces accelerations in the charged particles. Furthermore, the electric and magnetic fields obey the Maxwell equations in both Newtonian physics and General relativity.

In the quantum description, the E&M force is produced by the exchange of a spin 1 particle known as the photon. This particle aspect is why there can be such effects as the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering.

OK in large. But an "E&M photon particle" is way out of order. E&M frequenses are NOT particles but vawes which can affect particles.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
It´s called "alternative approaches" based on the unnatural statements and observed contradictions in standing cosmology.

Well, then, let's start with gravity on the Earth. Your model says that air pressure is what makes things like apples fall.

I didn´t say that. I said the weight of the Earth atmophere provides pressure on everything (with about 10 kg per square cm) But OK, changing air/weather pressures also has its obvious affects.

A test for this hypothesis is to see whether an apple falls when it is in a vacuum. Your model would predict the apple would not fall at all. Instead, it should float. Newtonian gravity would predict that the apple will fall *faster* than it did in the air.

This is a somewhat artificial way to test a 350 year old idea where such tests were´nt possible, but never mind:
What happen with your apple if you take it way out beyond the influence of the Earth´s atmosphere and let it go?

Will it fall significantly faster to the Earth? Or will it float?

"My model" predict the latter. But on the Earth it will fall from the tree to the ground because of the weigth of the atmosphere - included the resistance influence.

Besides this, your notion of "the apple will fall *faster* than it did in the air" clearly indicates the "airy/atmospheric" influence of force.

 

[Native]

You still don’t understand how the Scientific Method work.

Don´t I?

What have happend with the theory of Big Bang and it´s connected ideas of BB Nucleosynthesis after the discovery of an impossible galactic cluster in the about 20 year old linked article above?

Nothing has happend with this theory at all and thats how the cosmological science works. They just keep on holding onto old and contradicted ideas and forget seriously to revise it or discard it according to the scientific methods.

That´s how your "Scientific Method works" - not. Excactly as you say here:

So, your article is not only old news, you are mistaken to believe that the Hubble images debunked the Big Bang theory. It didn’t.

No it didn´t so far - but it should have done it fairly soon after when contradicted.

Seriously, Native, you do need to keep up to date.

You are indeed a funny guy, Gnostic. You see no troubles even if astronomically educated scientists in the article states this:

"The Hubble observations challenge those estimates for the age of the universe that do not allow enough time for the galaxies to form and evolve to the maturity seen at an early epoch by Space Telescope".

This is no troubles and concerns for you Gnostic as you like to hold onto your indoctrinated convictions and theories of how scientific methods are working - instead ALSO of being updated on the cosmological problems which indicates huge cosmological perception questions.

 

[Native]

I gave you a chance to redeem yourself and you ran away. Your OP was answered a long time ago. You have shown yourself to be a science denier that will not and can not justify your own beliefs. The best you have are false claims that others are doing the same as you.

Dear oh dear. Don´t the RF have rules for such personal emotional outbursts and namings? We´re not on Facebook or Twitter but on a serious debate Forum.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who said anything about I or anyone here being ahead of the curve, I was speaking about the new scientific discoveries being brought to light by scientists who are working with advanced space instruments producing new data. It seems to me that you and other bb true believers would rather attack the messenger than consider the message.

Like what, exactly? I'm aware of all sorts of different ideas about cosmology, space-time, and gravity but none of them have been brought up here, just Native's seriously out of date article.

The basic BB theory, that describes the history of the universe from a hot dense state about 13.7 billion years ago, is supported by a considerable amount of evidence and is unlikely to change, but there are plenty of unanswered questions and plenty more to learn.

 

[Native]

Not at all. Try to avoid strawman arguments even in questions. I was talking about the evidence that we have now that allows us a fairly accurate picture of the universe. Believers in the Electric Universe simply ignore the evidence that they do not understand. That is probably over 99% of it.

Apparently you´re in opposition to the proponents of the 3/4 part of the (E&M) fundamental forces which you ridicules and you do so on behalf of your indoctrinated beliefs in the 1/4 part fundamental force which by far is assumed and stated to be the weakest of all fundamental forces.

In fact you´re ridiculing your good self by such ignorance.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Like what, exactly? I'm aware of all sorts of different ideas about cosmology, space-time, and gravity but none of them have been brought up here, just Native's seriously out of date article.

The basic BB theory, that describes the history of the universe from a hot dense state about 13.7 billion years ago, is supported by a considerable amount of evidence and is unlikely to change, but there are plenty of unanswered questions and plenty more to learn.

I first made this comment way back #869... "The fact that those producing the new evidence are ahead of the curve is not necessarily a case of being intuitive, just that they access to the latest scientific data such as latest Hubble and soon to be James Webb Space Telescope data for example. Hang on to your hat"

You in the very next comment #870 , totally ignoring the fact that I was referring to scientists with access to space acquired data, you posted this..."It's actually quite comical that you think you and the other deniers are "ahead of the curve"

My efforts to correct you by providing proper context of my original use of the expression "head of the curve" was in this comment.."Who said anything about I or anyone here being ahead of the curve, I was speaking about the new scientific discoveries being brought to light by scientists who are working with advanced space instruments producing new data."

To which you have responded in #928 with "Like what, exactly? blah blah"

I dislike it when posters take my words out of context, it is so time consuming to show them their error and even then, many will change the subject rather than admit their error. So be it, you can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink!

 

[Native]

Like what, exactly? I'm aware of all sorts of different ideas about cosmology, space-time, and gravity but none of them have been brought up here, just Native's seriously out of date article.

What a bad excuse for not investigating things yourself.

If you´ve done your own critical research instead of being at sleep with consensus doctrines, you could find numerous examples which questions the BB ideas and its connected Nucleosynthesis. Here´s one article posted 26 August, 2020.

India’s AstroSat Discovers An Ancient Galaxy; Findings Could Help Explain Origin of Light Post Big Bang - India’s AstroSat Discovers An Ancient Galaxy; Findings Could Help Explain Origin of Light Post Big Bang | The Weather Channel - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com

 

[Native]

I dislike it when posters take my words out of context, it is so time consuming to show them their error and even then, many will change the subject rather than admit their error. So be it, you can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink!

Well, what can one expect when some debaters runs out of factual arguments and reacts emotionally just because of being presented of alternate arguments?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, what can one expect when some debaters runs out of factual arguments and reacts emotionally just because of being presented by alternate arguments?

Ain't that a fact.

There is great irony in the fact that when people's minds are given over to some rigid belief system, it shapes their mind such that the belief acts as a filter to limit their perception of the whole of reality. Now we all to some degree have some rigid beliefs that do close our mind to the greater whole of reality, but these bb fundamentalists are really something, there should be a safe place for them for when they get triggered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear oh dear. Don´t the RF have rules for such personal emotional outbursts and namings? We´re not on Facebook or Twitter but on a serious debate Forum.

Emotional? And what "namings"? And please, if you were serious you would support your claims instead of endlessly waving your hands.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you´ve done your own critical research instead of being at sleep with consensus doctrines, you could find numerous examples which questions the BB ideas and its connected Nucleosynthesis. Here´s one article posted 26 August, 2020.

India’s AstroSat Discovers An Ancient Galaxy; Findings Could Help Explain Origin of Light Post Big Bang - India’s AstroSat Discovers An Ancient Galaxy; Findings Could Help Explain Origin of Light Post Big Bang | The Weather Channel - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com

And your point is what? This is another article that supports the BB model.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently you´re in opposition to the proponents of the 3/4 part of the (E&M) fundamental forces which you ridicules and you do so on behalf of your indoctrinated beliefs in the 1/4 part fundamental force which by far is assumed and stated to be the weakest of all fundamental forces.

In fact you´re ridiculing your good self by such ignorance.

Oh my! More nonsense and false claims. Though very weak on a per atom basis, gravity is still very strong since unlike electrical charges there is no negative gravity. Tell us, how would you test your hypothesis? If you cannot think of a reasonable test for.it all that you have is hand waving. Your own ignorance is far greater than mine. At least I understand the basics of science and how to apply them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ain't that a fact.

There is great irony in the fact that when people's minds are given over to some rigid belief system, it shapes their mind such that the belief acts as a filter to limit their perception of the whole of reality. Now we all to some degree have some rigid beliefs that do close our mind to the greater whole of reality, but these bb fundamentalists are really something, there should be a safe place for them for when they get triggered.

More projection.

No one's minds appear to be rigid except.for the two that are denying science here. One more time:

How would you test your beliefs? If you cannot think of a reasonable test that could possibly refute it then you are not doing science. You are not thinking rationally, you are only making worthless speculation.

 

[Native]

There is great irony in the fact that when people's minds are given over to some rigid belief system, it shapes their mind such that the belief acts as a filter to limit their perception of the whole of reality.

This is not much different from some secteric religious belief societies.

"If you confirm a person´s perceptions, the person loves you - if you force a person to think about the perceptions, the person hates you".

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not much different from some secteric religious belief societies.

"If you confirm a person´s perceptions, the person loves you - if you force a person to think about the perceptions, the person hates you".

You guys crack me up. You do not seem to understand that testing one's ideas constantly is the opposite of dogma. If anyone has dogmatic beliefs it is you since you refuse to test your ideas and accept them even after the errors are explained to you. That is dogma.

 

[Native]

Though very weak on a per atom basis,

Waht makes you believe that a weak force on the atomic basis can be very strong just by adding more atomic particles?
The only thing which is strong about gravitaional assumptions is the hypnotical consensus confusion.