Speed of light

[bystander]

Post me a link that he gives evidence to support the BBT.

What's the matter, Harry? Did you get so lost out there in fringe science that you can't find your way back? I'm fairly certain if you tried, you could find something that supported BBT all by yourself.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz


Mate I have read alot of papers that support the BBT.

BUt! no evidence, no observation that can say this is evidence.

Anyway this is part of the game.

No fun it providing all the information.

[The Code]

Hi Folks

People finding inconsistency With the BBT is just the start of things to come. I found at least 2 well known writers who have a good case in not believing any of it..(but will never post on here) Just be sitting in the side-lines watching..Its all been accepted the main stream for a very long time, and to say other wise gets you a ''crank'' before your name.. Not believing in something makes you try other ways to see what it really is..And in doing this, I have made some amazing theories .. But now the technology has got to the point where we are all going to see for sure.. What you are about to see will blow you away.

Mark

[clarityx]

Unfortunately, I can't imagine all the universe, the more rotates it or not. All opinions of its are only hypothesis

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Hello Mark, your right in what you say.

Hello Clarityx:

Many parts are hypotheised, but there is alot of work that has been experimented and observation backed up as to the workings of the parts that make up the universe.

As for the spin, we have the general pattern of spin from the solar sytem to the super galaxies.

[Chris Peterson]

Ok, lets pick on Alan Guth

Post me a link that he gives evidence to support the BBT.

Give me a break! The guy practically invented the inflationary model. Do your own research. I have no idea why you think that the BB model hasn't been extensively tested and found to hold up better than any other theory. Or why you think that most cosmologists don't think it is substantially correct. And yet you'll hold up any hare-brained idea as if it must automatically be given equal footing, even if it's nothing more than speculation.

Until you learn how science works, we have no common language for discussing cosmology.

[apodman]

I have made some amazing theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Stories

[The Code]

lol....

apodman

Sounds like the kind of book you get something from nothing lmao...

mark

[apodman]

Proximity.

[Doum]

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Chris I have giving you a break

I have read Alan Guth papers.

Now refer me to one that you think provides evidence to support the BBT.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

One of the Key interactions is created by an ultra dense core (black Hole of some form) that creates jets that are able to interact, even though they a millions of light years away.

The bigger the BH the bigger the jet formation. This is why in the centre of clusters of galaxies you find these monsters.

Black Holes
http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/st ... khole.html

Galactic Black Hole Fires a Jet at a Nearby Neighbour
http://www.universetoday.com/2007/12/17 ... neighbour/

Gravity is also at hand in helping collisions between galaxies and also causing them to cluster into groups.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Before I go onto inflation

Its a good idea for those who do not understand inflation to read about its history.

Inflation Astrophysics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(astrophysics)

read the link and the final part

Theoretical status

[Chris Peterson]

I have read Alan Guth papers.

Now refer me to one that you think provides evidence to support the BBT.

Sorry, that's not the way it works. The BBT represents the consensus viewpoint because most people are satisfied that the evidence is strong. They are interested when new pieces of evidence come along (as happens fairly often), but don't spend their time reiterating past tests. If you want evidence, I suggest you go to Wikipedia (which has an excellent article on the BB), or any first year college astronomy textbook, and follow the references.

The burden is now on those who disagree with the BBT to propose alternate theories that do a better job than the BBT in explaining observations. If you propose an alternate theory, be sure to specifically detail which weaknesses in the BBT the new theory addresses, and also how the theory and observation support each other.

[aristarchusinexile]

An article mentioned a rotating point with 0 volume .. to me this seems ludicrous as 0 volume means 0 circumference. Any explanations?

[Chris Peterson]

An article mentioned a rotating point with 0 volume .. to me this seems ludicrous as 0 volume means 0 circumference. Any explanations?

Why do you need volume or circumference to rotate? The math works fine for a rotating singularity, so the real question becomes whether a mathematical singularity has a physical analog? And the jury is still out on that one.

[The Code]

Hi Chris, I give it my best shot...

Observation:
The universe is completely full of dark matter. Many % more than normal matter. How is it, that I am able to see GRB from 8 billion LY away If the hole universe is obscured by dark matter? Second If we are attracted to the sun by Gravity and Gravity is King though out the hole universe. Why does this have to change in exceptional circumstances? What is the largest BH ? What happens after a black hole becomes more than 250 million times the suns mass? Why has every galaxy got a black hole in the center? Every single part of our universe is a mirror to every other part in every way until you get to the unexplainable (start/beginning) Time (End/Crunch/Rip) The numbers do not add up. Why, Who is wrong? Everything we can see came from something smaller than a proton?. Why does it have to have a beginning? What was the beginning of our milky way galaxy?

My Reasons:
I do not disagree there was a bang and that it was big. But for me it was something from a lager scale than what we already have evidence for. A super giant galaxy 18 billion light years across. Inside this super giant Globular galaxy was a black hole which took, 10/20 billion years to build up. But it does not take all the matter in this big structure to go bang again... Is it possible that light from a star simply does not Travel 18 billion light years? Apod picture the biggest bang in the universe. But it was only seen because it was a big Gamer ray burst? With this, there is no reason for expansion? Faster than light. Any thing fall into place? How many voids are there? There is a reason for these voids, they hold the key.

And i believe if you look vary hard, to the other side of our universal galaxy you will see them all..

Mark

[aristarchusinexile]

An article mentioned a rotating point with 0 volume .. to me this seems ludicrous as 0 volume means 0 circumference. Any explanations?

Why do you need volume or circumference to rotate? The math works fine for a rotating singularity, so the real question becomes whether a mathematical singularity has a physical analog? And the jury is still out on that one.

I would seriously have to doubt that math even if I knew it .. reality may be spinny but it isn't totally whacked.

[aristarchusinexile]

Proximity.

Plus momentum and direction of travel .. of course, some on the forum say everything reacts gravitationally to everything else in the universe .. or at least they say everything is 'felt' gravitationally by everything else, and I say if it feels it, it reacts to it .. you would too if you saw the blonde that just left the computer opposite me.

[aristarchusinexile]

The bigger the BH the bigger the jet formation.

Harry, you're speaking as if you're a believer in Black Holes. Did you submit this before you had your morning coffee?

[aristarchusinexile]

G'day Aris

I did not see Jonah at the beach, is he a surfer?

Smile

Surfin' the big Book, dude.

[Chris Peterson]

Why do you need volume or circumference to rotate? The math works fine for a rotating singularity, so the real question becomes whether a mathematical singularity has a physical analog? And the jury is still out on that one.

I would seriously have to doubt that math even if I knew it .. reality may be spinny but it isn't totally whacked.

Physics commonly treats masses as points, and charged and magnetized particles as points. Any of these can rotate, resulting in rotating fields of different sorts. The math is very simple- much more simple than when you treat the objects as extended. There is no doubt at all that the math is consistent and correct.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Chris said

Sorry, that's not the way it works. The BBT represents the consensus viewpoint because most people are satisfied that the evidence is strong. They are interested when new pieces of evidence come along (as happens fairly often), but don't spend their time reiterating past tests. If you want evidence, I suggest you go to Wikipedia (which has an excellent article on the BB), or any first year college astronomy textbook, and follow the references.

Mate your statement is a cop out. People ask you for what ever evidence you know and you hide behind the skirts of the so called standard model called BBT.

I do not have to go to your first year hand out book.

It seems to me that you know very little and you do not understand in what you say.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

This is most interesting

Eric Lerner:

I can’t pick my favorite contradiction between plasma cosmology and BB, but I will give you my favorite two.
On the abundance of lithium in old stars, BB nucleosynthesis clearly predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal, more and more pristine, Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Plasma cosmology explains Li as the product of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early formation of the galaxy and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Recent observations have clearly shown the later to be the case—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1
Second—and equal—BBN with inflation clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian. Plasma cosmology predicts that anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. This is clearly not Gaussian. Observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian. There are too many papers to cite on this. You can find plenty on arXiv.
Have fun with your debate.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1
HE 1327-2326, an unevolved star with [Fe/H]<-5.0. II. New 3D-1D corrected abundances from a VLT/UVES spectrum

Authors: Anna Frebel, Kjell Eriksson, Remo Collet, Norbert Christlieb, Wako Aoki
(Submitted on 21 May 2008)

Abstract: We present a new abundance analysis of HE 1327-2326, the currently most iron-poor star, based on observational data obtained with VLT/UVES. We correct the 1D LTE abundances for 3D effects to provide an abundance pattern that supersedes previous works, and should be used to observationally test current models of the chemical yields of the first-generation SNe. Apart from confirming the 1D LTE abundances found in previous studies before accounting for 3D effects, we make use of a novel technique to apply the 3D-1D corrections for CNO which are a function of excitation potential and line strength for the molecular lines that comprise the observable CH, NH, and OH features. We find that the fit to the NH band at 3360 A is greatly improved due to the application of the 3D-1D corrections. This may indicate that 3D effects are actually observable in this star. We also report the first detection of several weak Ni lines. The cosmologically important element Li is still not detected; the new Li upper limit is extremely low, A(Li)<0.62, and in stark contrast with results not only from WMAP but also from other metal-poor stars. We also discuss how the new corrected abundance pattern of HE 1327-2326 is being reproduced by individual and integrated yields of SNe.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1
Lithium Abundances of Extremely Metal-Poor Turn-off Stars

Authors: Wako Aoki, Paul S. Barklem, Timothy C. Beers, Norbert Christlieb, Susumu Inoue, Ana E. Garcia Perez, John E. Norris, Daniela Carollo
(Submitted on 9 Apr 2009)

Abstract: We have determined Li abundances for eleven metal-poor turn-off stars, among which eight have [Fe/H]<-3, based on LTE analyses of high-resolution spectra obtained with the HDS on the Subaru telescope. The Li abundances for four of these eight stars are determined for the first time by this study. Effective temperatures are determined by a profile analysis of H-alpha and H-beta. While seven stars have Li abundances as high as the Spite Plateau value, the remaining four objects with [Fe/H] <-3 have A(Li)=log(Li/H)+12 ~< 2.0, confirming the existence of extremely metal-poor turn-off stars having low Li abundances, as reported by previous work. The average of the Li abundances for stars with [Fe/H]<-3 is lower by 0.2 dex than that of the stars with higher metallicity. No clear constraint on the metallicity dependence or scatter of the Li abundances is derived from our measurements for the stars with [Fe/H]<-3. Correlations of the Li abundance with effective temperatures, with abundances of Na, Mg and Sr, and with the kinematical properties are investigated, but no clear correlation is seen in the extremely metal-poor star sample.

[Chris Peterson]

Chris said

Sorry, that's not the way it works. The BBT represents the consensus viewpoint because most people are satisfied that the evidence is strong. They are interested when new pieces of evidence come along (as happens fairly often), but don't spend their time reiterating past tests. If you want evidence, I suggest you go to Wikipedia (which has an excellent article on the BB), or any first year college astronomy textbook, and follow the references.

Mate your statement is a cop out. People ask you for what ever evidence you know and you hide behind the skirts of the so called standard model called BBT.

I don't know what the heck you're talking about. You asked for evidence supporting the BBT and inflation, and I pointed you directly to an accurate, accessible source, the articles in Wikipedia about the Big Bang, and cosmological inflation. Both articles are chock full of specific observational examples, complete with bibliographic references.

I realize these articles are written by respected physicists, and not the usual fringe researchers you prefer, but still, you could at least read them and tell me specifically why you think the observations are in error.