Standard Models From the Big Bang to our Sun.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:03 am

Hello All

Many people always show an emotional support for the Big Bang and the formation of our sun and its ongoings.

Well here is your chance to support the Big Bang and what ever other standard models.

Maybe through this information we can understand the SM.

craterchains · Post by **craterchains** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 5:33 am

Orca · Post by **Orca** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:56 am

harry wrote:Hello All

Many people always show an emotional support for the Big Bang and the formation of our sun and its ongoings.

Well here is your chance to support the Big Bang and what ever other standard models.

Maybe through this information we can understand the SM.

Ok. Fine. I'll bite.

Big Bang Theory, though incomplete (aka, the breakdown of GR and QM at the actual singularity), seems to fit observation and also seems to jibe with GR and QM, both of which have been validated many times over the course of many decades and are the pillars on which modern physics is built.

The current model of star formation and mechanics also appears to fit observation.

If we're to follow the principles of scientific method, harry, you're the one who has the burden of proof; you're the one who claims to have theories that more accurately describe the two events you brought up.

As for the idea that emotional attachment is the driving force for adherence to prevailing theory, I suggest that it is emotion that drives you against it. You've consistently failed to provide any evidence, any repeatable experiments or observations that overturn prevailing theories. Yet you "know" BBT is wrong. You “know” it will be struck down within a short time period. You appear to be on a crusade against many standing theories.

I do agree that complacence can set in when prevailing theories are not challenged. However, challenges to standing theories must follow the principles and methodologies of science; results must be verified throughout the scientific community. After all, anyone can just write an article with a new interpretation of existing data. Without experiments and observations repeated and verified by many groups of scientists, conclusions and results have no real meaning. I believe this is the reason Nereid asks you for papers written by more than one single author when siting your sources...

I also recognize that no matter how strictly we adhere to scientific method we are all human beings; no one is completely dispassionate. However, I find it illogical for you to suggest that support of BBT is based on emotion when you have little else but emotion to fuel your conviction that BBT is fact false.

But then, we've had this conversation already. This is, regrettably, what keeps me from posting on this board. That and the fact that pseudoscience tends to rule the threads around here, dispite the efforts of makc, Nereid, astro_uk, and the gang to maintain the "scientific virility" of the board.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:00 am

Hello All

Orca is right.

Now use that science to prove the BBT.

I have read this link.

http://www.fathom.com/course/10701055/index.html
Five Ages of the Universe
as per the BBT

Using this link or any other link. Show me the evidence.

Nereid · Post by **Nereid** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:46 pm

harry wrote:Hello All

Orca is right.

Now use that science to prove the BBT.

I have read this link.

http://www.fathom.com/course/10701055/index.html
Five Ages of the Universe
as per the BBT

Using this link or any other link. Show me the evidence.

Emphasis added.

A good place to start is this Particle Data Group page, and all the references etc therein.

Then we can move on to Clifford Will's 89-page "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment", and its 299 cited papers.

And finally, for now, the 3-Year WMAP papers, in particular the 91-page Spergel et al. one ("Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Observations: Implications for Cosmology"), with its ~320 cited papers.

Once you've finished going through all those harry, if you still have questions, by all means ask. But before you ask, please make sure you understand all the relevant content therein, including the math.

Oh, and don't forget that, in science, one cannot 'prove' anything (that's the universe explored by mathematicians and those with certain religious inclinations).

[Formation of the Sun and our solar system to be discussed in the other thread.]

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:50 pm

Hello All

Thank you Neried

I will read the links

see you soon.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:21 am

Hello Neried

You got me reading quite alot.

and than a bit more.

OK, back to reading

http://pdg.lbl.gov/index.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0510/0510072v2.pdf

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/pub_papers/threeyear.html

GOD · Post by **GOD** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:52 am

The BBT has been maintained longer than it should have due to financial backing.

The BBT is partially correct when applied to this local arena of the universe. However, the Hubble has imaged deep space objects NOT part of the Local Bang. Objects far older and unexplainable by the BBT. These types of images will increase and improve in clarity as humanity peers deeper into the cosmos. The correct reason for this of course is BIG BANGS (plural).

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:33 am

what do you call a plethera of Big Bangs happening together in the same corner of the cosmos?
answer in next post

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:33 am

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
???

Gang Bangs

orin stepanek · Post by **orin stepanek** » Sat Jan 26, 2008 1:32 pm

Chain bangs???

Orin

GOD · Post by **GOD** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:12 pm

BMAONE23 wrote:???
Gang Bangs

orin stepanek wrote:Chain bangs???

BM & Orin: Your behavior speaks for itself.

BMAONE23 · Post by **BMAONE23** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:57 am

GOD wrote:
BMAONE23 wrote:???
Gang Bangs

orin stepanek wrote:Chain bangs???

BM & Orin: Your behavior speaks for itself.

and your lack of compassion shows what you are

GOD'S MOM · Post by **GOD'S MOM** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:16 am

Junior, stop acting like some 11 years old. You are destroying our family reputation, making us all look like some clowns here. Few more posts like that, and we will have to blow up this planet to get rid of witnesses.

harry · Post by **harry** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:01 am

Hello All

The Big Bang occured everwhere at the same time and not in one spot. This is the theory and not a fact.
I have posted links for information on the Big Bang Theory.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html

Big Bang Cosmology Primer
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education ... rimer.html

It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a theoretical prediction about photons left over from the big bang, was discovered in the 1960's and mapped out by a team at Berkeley in the early 1990's.

Creation of a Cosmology:
Big Bang Theory
http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html

Evidence for the Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... l#firstlaw

First year results from the
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog22/node8.html

Five Ages of the Universe
http://www.fathom.com/course/10701055/index.html

I'm still reading Nerieds links.

I have been busy with work and holiday time.